top of page
82.png
A Systematic Mapping Review

The Ladder of Digital Participation

In recent years, Information Communication Technology (ICT) has become widely integrated into various aspects of planning, management, and development. This study aims to explore ICT approaches in participatory urban planning. Research questions were formulated to guide a systematic mapping study, leading to the identification of 239 relevant articles from 10,101 records. Trends, methods, and timelines were mapped through clustered views, revealing a rising publication trend since 2010. The study covers 21 technologies, with notable topics including Public Participation GIS, crowd-sourcing, and phantomization.

Excel

Rayyan - AI

Scopus

04

Research Questions  

The primary aim of this review is to discern and chart the landscape of "ICT trends within participatory urban planning and development" across academic and grey literature. It does so by scrutinizing the current state-of-the-art in this domain from two perspectives: firstly, by analyzing how information and communications technologies are situated within the participatory urban planning process, and secondly, by exploring the stages of the urban planning process in which ICT methods enhance citizen participation, while considering the influence of specific social, political, and organizational contexts on the implementation and adaptation of these ICT methods. Moreover, the review seeks to address the following research sub-questions:

1st Research Question

What is the impact of ICT applications on the urban planning process? 

This provides a classification of the identified approaches with respect to the levels of participation.it presents an initial overview of the kinds of goals the ICT applications have in the participatory urban planning process, e.g. (Voting/consensus finding, Cooperation / Feedback/co-creation, Data collection / Systematization/problems finding).

2nd  Research Question

What is the role of context in the effective integration of technology into the participatory planning process?

This relates the approaches to the essential conditions for the successful integration of ICTs into participatory urban planning. It will investigate the ICT competencies required of participants and planners related to the content, technical issues, social issues, collaboration, and networking.

3rd  Research Question

What are the most investigated ICT participatory tools, how are the tools evaluated, and how have they changed over time?

This researches the extensive knowledge that has been generated about ICT participatory tools. It will map the evaluation types of each tool regarding their performance in an academic or non-academic field. It will map the target participation groups and what this means for creating a more effective and engaging participation process.

4th  Research Question

What kind of interaction do different ICT participatory tools provide? 

(Active or passive, virtual or physical)

The stages of participation and the levels of adoption of ICTs by planners and stakeholders.

05

Data Collection Methodology

Systematic Mapping Review
Formulation of the Search String

Figure 1.  The clusters of author keywords and index keywords
Systematic Mapping Review

Due to the abundance and diversity of research inquiries, it is advisable to employ a priori review protocol for conducting a systematic review. As an initial step towards a systematic review, systematic mapping offers descriptive insights into a topic's 'state of the art' and provides a summary of conducted research. This quantitative methodology aims to comprehensively delineate the scope of research questions and pinpoint gaps within a topic area. Moreover, it is conducive to encompassing a broad spectrum of articles, facilitating the identification of specific trends or theoretical trajectories. Rather than furnishing answers to particular impact-related queries, systematic mapping endeavors to establish searchable databases of studies accompanied by detailed descriptive catalogs of available evidence (James, Randall, et al., 2016).

While there exists no singular methodology for executing a Systematic Mapping Review (SMR), this research was guided by various best practice models, adhering to distinct steps: formulation of the search string, selection process, data extraction process, results and analysis, and discussion and conclusion.

Formulation of the Search String

The subsequent phase involved crafting a more precise search string aligned with the research objectives. To mitigate bias, this review employed semi-automatic data scraping techniques to formalize the search string. Initial identification of articles pertaining to participation and urban planning commenced with a preliminary scan of existing databases using the keywords outlined in Box1. A preliminary search conducted on the Scopus database utilizing these keywords yielded 4,437 papers. These papers were then utilized to ascertain keywords and associated terms commonly utilized in literature pertaining to the research topic.

Box 1. Boolean search syntax of Scopus database – Results 4,437 – 14/07/2021

TITLE-ABS KEY ( ( participation  OR  participatory )  AND  ( ( "urban design*" )  OR  ( "urban planning " )  OR  ( planning ) ) )

By combining both author keywords and index keywords from the identified papers, the total number of keywords reached 13,938 (see Figure 1). Using text mining to analyze the frequency of occurrences for all keywords, they were then sorted based on their occurrence frequency. Notably, "urban planning" appeared most frequently, occurring 2,302 times. Table 1 displays the first 20 words in this order of occurrence.

Table 1. Keywords frequency sample (first most occurring 20 words)

Keyword

Frequency number

urban planning

2302

urban development

858

local participation

763

sustainable development

447

urban design

378

public participation

366

participatory approach

349

decision making

344

sustainability

323

urban area

316

participation

288

urban growth

258

united states

257

governance approach

252

neighborhood

229

urban policy

196

urbanization

195

stakeholder

192

planning process

188

Out of the 13,938 keywords identified, 715 keywords occurred more than 10 times. Given that this review aims to identify and map interdisciplinary concepts and theories pertinent to the integration of ICT in participatory urban planning, an initial examination was conducted on these 715 keywords to consolidate the diverse concepts they represent. Consequently, 113 keywords were filtered and organized according to the PCC framework (Population - Concept - Context), as illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. PCC framework to define keywords and concepts to formulate the search strings

Element

Keywords

Population

citizen, public, User, group, community, urban population, urban society, human, humans, civil society, local community, residence, inhabitants,  nongovernmental organization, stakeholder participation, social network,

Concept (participation)

participation, partizipation, participatory process, local participation, public participation, community engagement, public engagement, social engagement, participatory approach, empowerment, citizen participation, decision making, strategic approach, social participation, community participation, participatory planning, capacity building, social inclusion, right to the city, mitwirken, Bürgerinitiative, initiative, intervention, public-private partnership, partnership approach,

Methods: 
A bottom-up approach, co-production, coproduction, co-creation, co-design, co-decision, co-operation, decision-making, collaborative design, integrated approach, interdisciplinary approach, surveys, massive participation,

Digital methods:
e-participation, e-government, information, and communication technology, “big data”, “open data”, innovation, gis, geographic information systems, visualization, internet, virtual reality, social media, mapping, human-computer interaction, world wide web, crowdsourcing, artificial intelligence, modeling, augmented reality, computer simulation, software, user interfaces, information use, remote sensing, open data, websites, gamification, spatial data, user experience,

Context

country, region, city, cities, rural, neighborhood, neighborhood, sustainable development, urban design, urban growth, urban mobility, urban policy, urbanization, planning process, public space, smart city, smart cities, local government, city planning, urban politics, spatial planning, urban governance, land use planning, urban management, participatory planning, sustainable urban development, urban governance, spatial analysis, urban environments, strategic planning, built environment, planning theory, landscape planning, implementation process, town planning, planning method, planning system, urban spaces, land-use zoning, placemaking, urban administration, urbanism, urban.

A combination of these keywords and string expressions were subsequently tested across several databases, including Scopus, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and Web of Science. This process resulted in the string expression outlined in Table 2. Notably, Scopus and Web of Science necessitated the submission of the extended search string as a single string with minor alterations in its structure to align with the requirements of each search engine. Conversely, the IEEE Xplore Digital Library and ScienceDirect mandated the division and reduction of the search string to encompass all defined keywords. This adjustment was imperative due to limitations on the number of keywords, particularly when utilizing wildcards. Notably, each search string could accommodate no more than seven wildcards.

Table 2. Search strings

Web of Science

20/July/2021

(TS= ( ( ( "public participat*" ) OR  ( "public engagement" )  OR  ( "public initiatives" )  OR  ( "public platform" )  OR  ( "civic participat*" )  OR  ( "civic engagement" ) OR  ( "civic dialogue" )  OR  ( "citizen participat*" )  OR  ( "citizen engagement" )  OR  ( "citizen empowerment" )  OR  ( citizen  AND interaction )  OR  ( citizen-centered  AND approach ) OR  ( citizen-centred  AND approach )  OR  ( " right to the city " ) OR  ( "social engagement" ) OR  ( "social dialogue" )  OR  ( "social empowerment" )  OR  ( "community participat*" )  OR  ( "community engagement" )  OR  ( "online engagement" )  OR  ( "digital participat*" )  OR  ( "postdigital participat*" )  OR  ( "post-digital participat*" )  OR  ( "digital engagement" )  OR  ( "postdigital engagement" )  OR  ( "post-digital engagement" )  OR  ( "participat practices" )  OR  ( "participatory design" )  OR  ( "co-design" )  OR  ( "co-creat*" )  OR  ( "co-decision*" )  OR  ( "collaborative decision-making" ) )  OR  ( ( participation  OR  participatory OR e-participation OR  e-government )  AND  ( ( information  OR  communication  OR  technolog )  OR  ( "social media" )  OR ( " geographic information systems" )  OR  internet  OR  websites  OR  online OR visualization OR innovation OR  "crowdsourc*"  OR  "application*" OR mapping OR  ( "big data" )  OR  ( "open data" )  OR  ( "spatial data" )  OR  ( "social network*" )  OR  ( " virtual reality " )  OR  ( "spatial data" )  OR ( "human computer interaction" )  OR  ( " augmented reality" )  OR  ( " computer simulation" )  OR ( " user experience" )  OR software OR gamification OR  ( " user interfaces" )  OR  ( " information use" )  OR ( "remote sensing" ) OR ( " artificial intelligence" ) ) ) )  AND  TS= ( ( ( "urban design*" )  OR  ( "urban plan*" )    OR  ( " sustainable urban development"   OR  ( "urban decision-making" )  OR  ( "urban governance" )  OR  ( "urban administration" )  OR  ( "urban management" )  OR  ( "city plan*" )  OR  ( "countryside plan*" )  OR  ( "town and country plan*" )  OR  ( "community planning" )  OR  ( " urban growth " ) OR  ( " urban mobility " ) OR  ( " urban policy " ) OR  ( " planning process " ) OR  ( " urban politics " ) OR  ( " spatial planning " ) OR  ( " land use planning " ) OR  ( " participatory planning " ) OR  ( " urban governance " ) OR  ( " spatial analysis " ) OR  ( " strategic planning " ) OR  ( " planning theory " ) OR  ( " planning method " ) OR  ( " planning system " ) OR  ( " land-use zoning " )  OR placemaking OR ( stadtplanung ) OR ( stadtentwickl* ) OR stadtforschung OR urbanistik OR Bplan OR ( " master plan*" ) OR ( "rural communit*" )  OR  ( "rural area*" )  OR ( " neighborhood " ) OR ( " neighbourhood " )  OR   ( "urban area*" )  OR  ( "urban space" )  OR  ( " implementation process " ) OR  ( "urban public space" )  OR  ( "urban environment" )  OR  ( " built environment " ) OR  ( " urban environments " ) OR ( "smart cities" ) )  AND  ( planning AND participation ) ) ) ) AND LA=(English OR German)

2.993

SCOPUS

20/July/2021

( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( ( "public participat*" ) OR ( "public engagement" ) OR ( "public initiatives" ) OR ( "public platform" ) OR ( "civic participat*" ) OR ( "civic engagement" ) OR ( "civic dialogue" ) OR ( "citizen participat*" ) OR ( "citizen engagement" ) OR ( "citizen empowerment" ) OR ( citizen AND interaction ) OR ( citizen-centered AND approach ) OR ( citizen-centred AND approach ) OR ( " right to the city " ) OR ( "social engagement" ) OR ( "social dialogue" ) OR ( "social empowerment" ) OR ( "community participat*" ) OR ( "community engagement" ) OR ( "online engagement" ) OR ( "digital participat*" ) OR ( "postdigital participat*" ) OR ( "post-digital participat*" ) OR ( "digital engagement" ) OR ( "postdigital engagement" ) OR ( "post-digital engagement" ) OR ( "participat practices" ) OR ( "participatory design" ) OR ( "co-design" ) OR ( "co-creat*" ) OR ( "co-decision*" ) OR ( "collaborative decision-making" ) ) OR ( ( participation OR participatory OR e-participation OR e-government ) AND ( ( information OR communication OR technolog ) OR ( "social media" ) OR ( " geographic information systems" ) OR internet OR websites OR online OR visualization OR innovation OR "crowdsourc*" OR "application*" OR mapping OR ( "big data" ) OR ( "open data" ) OR ( "spatial data" ) OR ( "social network*" ) OR ( " virtual reality " ) OR ( "spatial data" ) OR ( "human computer interaction" ) OR ( " augmented reality" ) OR ( " computer simulation" ) OR ( " user experience" ) OR software OR gamification OR ( " user interfaces" ) OR ( " information use" ) OR ( "remote sensing" ) OR ( " artificial intelligence" ) ) ) ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( ( "urban design*" ) OR ( "urban plan*" ) OR ( " sustainable urban development" OR ( "urban decision-making" ) OR ( "urban governance" ) OR ( "urban administration" ) OR ( "urban management" ) OR ( "city plan*" ) OR ( "countryside plan*" ) OR ( "town and country plan*" ) OR ( "community planning" ) OR ( " urban growth " ) OR ( " urban mobility " ) OR ( " urban policy " ) OR ( " planning process " ) OR ( " urban politics " ) OR ( " spatial planning " ) OR ( " land use planning " ) OR ( " participatory planning " ) OR ( " urban governance " ) OR ( " spatial analysis " ) OR ( " strategic planning " ) OR ( " planning theory " ) OR ( " planning method " ) OR ( " planning system " ) OR ( " land-use zoning " ) OR placemaking OR ( stadtplanung ) OR ( stadtentwickl* ) OR stadtforschung OR urbanistik OR Bplan OR ( " master plan*" ) OR ( "rural communit*" ) OR ( "rural area*" ) OR ( " neighborhood " ) OR ( " neighbourhood " ) OR ( "urban area*" ) OR ( "urban space" ) OR ( " implementation process " ) OR ( "urban public space" ) OR ( "urban environment" ) OR ( " built environment " ) OR ( " urban environments " ) OR ( "smart cities" ) ) AND ( planning AND participation ) ) ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE,"English" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE,"German" ) )

6,561

ScienceDirect (Limit is 8 terms)

20/July/2021

Title, abstract or author-specified keywords

((public OR civic OR digital) AND (participation)) AND ((urban) AND (planning OR policy))

557

IEEE Xplore Digital Library (wildcards limited to 7 terms)

20/July/2021

(((public OR civic OR citizen OR social OR community OR digital OR online OR information OR communication OR technology) AND (participation OR engagement OR empowerment OR interaction OR dialogue OR collaboration)) AND ((urban) AND (plan* OR policy OR design OR resilience OR development OR agenda OR “decision making” OR governance OR administration OR management OR intelligence OR co-creation)))

2,075 

06

Data Filtering and Tagging Process

Selection and Tagging Criteria 
Selection/Tagging Phases

Figure 2. The workflow of formulation of the search string (Phase 0 and Phase 1)
Selection and Tagging Criteria

Given the substantial volume of articles resulting from each search, establishing selection criteria was pivotal in identifying relevant articles. The following outlines the criteria utilized for locating, identifying, selecting, and tagging pertinent articles:

​

Inclusion criteria were delineated as follows:

  • The article presents a tangible approach to a survey or experiment involving ICTs in the participatory urban planning process (development, testing, or evaluation).

  • The participatory urban planning process is the focus of the paper.

  • The publication date is after 1995.

  • ​

Exclusion criteria were specified as follows:

  • The article theoretically discusses the participatory urban planning process without providing empirical evidence from a specific survey or experiment.

  • The article assesses the potential impact of ICTs on smart city governance rather than on participatory urban planning.

​​

These criteria served as the basis for selecting and tagging articles throughout multiple selection phases. Moreover, the exclusion of publications based on publication date was not limited to the retrieval process but extended to the screening process.

Data extraction and classification scheme were specified as follows:

Tools

Users

Contexts

Tool Providers            

  • Officials/Politicians

  • Planning authorities

  • researchers

  • Local organizations

  • Citizens/Groups of citizens

  • Stakeholders

  • IT experts

 

Data perspective        

  • Passive

  • Active

  • Not specific

 

The Design of the tool

          Human-centered (not)

 

Action:

  • explicit action

  • opportunistic

 

Location:

  • Virtual

  • physical

 

Tool Methodology:

  • Collection 

  • Systematization 

  • Communications 

  • Feedback

Decision making

Target group

  • child

  • young

  • senior

                 

The number of participants

 

Inclusive, not specific

Planning Process        

  • Formal, Informal

 

Scalability

  • Neighborhood, Rural, City

 

Political contexts

  • Democratic, non-democratic

 

Purpose of the tool    

  • Voting/consensus finding

  • Cooperation / cocreation

  • Data collection / problems

  • finding

 

Design stage              

  • predesign

  • postdesign

codesign

Selection/Tagging Phases

Phase 0: Preparation of systematic search 
As detailed previously, the search string was meticulously crafted to optimize the retrieval of relevant articles while minimizing bias. This involved careful consideration to ensure a high ratio of pertinent articles within the search results and to identify keywords effectively (see Fig 1).

Phase 1: Application of search string
Similarly, owing to the diverse options and character limitations of reference databases, the construction of search strings varied to ensure their usability across platforms (refer to Table 2). Subsequently, the search results were stored locally in an Endnote library, yielding an initial set of 12,295 papers (depicted in Fig 2).


Phase 2: Removal of duplicates
To streamline the process, references were exported from Endnote and uploaded onto Rayyan, an Intelligent Systematic Review platform leveraging natural language processing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning technologies. Rayyan facilitated the elimination of duplicates, resulting in a reduced corpus of 10,101 papers.

​

Phase 3: Screening and tagging based on titles 
Relevant articles were identified based on their titles, adhering to predetermined selection criteria. Each article was tagged as either "include" or "not include." Rayyan's advanced technologies expedited this process by providing the 10,101 articles in a ranked list according to their likelihood of inclusion. Common themes among excluded articles included participation in medical studies or other forms of participatory planning lacking urban or ICT technology aspects. Following this phase, the number of remaining papers was reduced to 580. Additionally, included articles were tagged with the investigated ICT tools, such as PPGIS, Platforms, Crowdsourcing, virtual reality, and visualization. However, discerning whether an article specifically investigates a particular tool or offers a technical evaluation thereof was deferred to the subsequent stage, where inclusion-exclusion criteria were applied (as depicted in Fig 2).

​

Phase 4: Eligibility assessment for full-text review and tagging based on titles and abstracts 
Continuing from Phase 3, relevant articles were selected based on their abstracts while maintaining adherence to the selection criteria. Further tagging was conducted to align with the applicable methods and data pertaining to the investigated tools (i.e., development, testing, or evaluation). This process resulted in 239 papers remaining for further analysis (illustrated in Fig 3).

 

Phase 5: Full-text assessment: 
In this phase, the full texts of the 239 remaining articles from phase 4 were thoroughly examined to determine their suitability for inclusion in the systematic review. Each article was scrutinized to ensure alignment with the predefined selection criteria and research objectives. Specifically, researchers assessed the content, methodology, results, and conclusions presented in each article to ascertain its relevance to the topic of interest.

The full-text assessment involved meticulous reading and analysis of the articles to extract relevant data and information. Researchers applied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine whether each article met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review. Articles that did not meet these criteria were excluded from further consideration.

Additionally, during the full-text assessment, articles were further tagged based on the applicable methods and data related to the investigated ICT tools. This tagging process categorized articles according to whether they focused on the development, testing, or evaluation of the ICT tools discussed.

Any discrepancies or uncertainties regarding article inclusion or data extraction were resolved through discussion among the research team members. Detailed documentation of the full-text assessment process, including reasons for article inclusion or exclusion, was maintained to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the systematic review.

Overall, the full-text assessment phase played a critical role in identifying and selecting articles that provided robust evidence to address the research question and objectives of the systematic review.

Figure 3. Flow diagram for article selection process

07

Results

​Timeline
Frequently Mentioned Tools
Papers Methodological Approach 
Overall Trends and Insights
References

Figure 4. Number of articles by year
Timeline

The trajectory of research activity in the field over the past two decades is illuminated by the distribution of articles per year from 1996 to 2021. Initially, from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s, there was a modest number of publications, indicative of a nascent stage of research. However, a noticeable uptick in articles published annually emerged from the mid-2000s onwards, suggesting an increasing recognition of the importance of ICT in participatory urban planning. This trend intensified from 2010 to 2021, reflecting a significant surge in research output and highlighting the growing relevance of ICT-enabled participatory approaches in urban planning discourse. Despite fluctuations in recent years, such as the peak in publications observed in 2018 and 2019 followed by a slight decline, the overall trajectory demonstrates sustained interest in advancing knowledge and understanding in this interdisciplinary field. The increasing number of articles per year underscores the transformative potential of ICT in fostering citizen engagement and empowerment within urban planning processes, emphasizing the need for continued research efforts to harness these benefits effectively.

The frequently mentioned tools in the papers provide insight into the technological landscape shaping participatory urban planning. Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) emerged as the most cited tool, appearing in 48 articles, showcasing its pivotal role in integrating spatial data with public engagement processes. Platforms and Crowdsourcing closely followed, with 20 and 19 mentions respectively, indicating a reliance on digital platforms and collaborative approaches to gather citizen input. Virtual reality and visualization tools, each mentioned 18 times, underscore the increasing use of immersive technologies for visualizing urban design concepts and engaging stakeholders. Web-based and mobile applications, with 17 and 14 mentions respectively, reflect the growing trend towards digital platforms for participatory planning. Additionally, the presence of gamification (13 mentions) and social media (13 mentions) highlights the importance of interactive and engaging methods for fostering citizen engagement. The inclusion of emerging technologies such as augmented reality, blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT) in the discourse suggests a forward-thinking approach to incorporating innovative tools into urban planning processes. These findings collectively demonstrate a diverse toolkit leveraged to enhance inclusive and collaborative decision-making in urban development.

Frequently Mentioned Tools
Figure 5. Frequently mentioned tools

The table illustrates the frequency of various methods and concepts employed in participatory urban planning research across different years. "Participatory Ideation," which involves generating and brainstorming ideas collaboratively, saw sporadic mentions from 2015 to 2021, with notable peaks in 2016 and 2017. "Testing," referring to the evaluation and assessment of ideas or interventions, exhibited a fluctuating trend, with peaks in 2018 and 2019. The combination of "Ideation & Testing" emerged as a prominent approach from 2015 to 2021, indicating a growing emphasis on integrating idea generation with rigorous evaluation processes. "Ideation" alone also garnered significant attention throughout the years, peaking in 2019 and 2020. These findings suggest a shift towards comprehensive participatory approaches that not only generate ideas but also rigorously test and evaluate them. This holistic approach reflects a concerted effort to ensure that participatory urban planning processes result in feasible and impactful outcomes, emphasizing the importance of both creative ideation and evidence-based testing in shaping urban development strategies.

Papers Methodological Approach 
Figure 6. Papers methodological approach time line 

The table presents the frequency of various tools mentioned in papers related to participatory urban planning across different years, spanning from 1996 to 2021. Here's a detailed analysis of the trends observed:

​

  1. Chatbots, Device Fabrication, Mass Media, Sensors, Touch Tables, Video: These tools have minimal to no mention in papers until recent years, indicating a relatively low level of interest or adoption in the earlier years, with sporadic increases in mentions in more recent years, particularly in 2021.

  2. Big Data, Blockchain, Mixed Reality, IoT: These tools show a gradual increase in mentions over the years, with noticeable spikes in certain years, suggesting an emerging interest and exploration of these technologies in participatory urban planning research, especially from 2018 onwards.

  3. Public Displays, Storytelling, Data Mining, Online Survey, Augmented Reality: These tools exhibit varying levels of mentions throughout the years, with fluctuations in interest but an overall increasing trend, indicating their relevance and adoption in the field over time.

  4. User Interface, Emotional Data, Gamification, Mobile, Social Media: These tools show a consistent presence in papers, with fluctuations in mentions but an overall upward trend, suggesting their established role and growing importance in participatory urban planning research.

  5. Web-based, Virtual Reality, Visualization, Crowdsourcing, Platforms: These tools demonstrate a consistent increase in mentions over the years, indicating a rising interest and adoption of these technologies in facilitating participatory processes within urban planning contexts.

  6. GIS: GIS stands out as one of the most frequently mentioned tools, with a significant presence in papers across all years, indicating its entrenched role and continued relevance in participatory urban planning research.

Overall, the analysis reveals a dynamic landscape of tools utilized in participatory urban planning research, with varying levels of interest and adoption over time. While some tools show steady growth, others exhibit fluctuations or emerge as newer areas of exploration, reflecting the evolving nature of research and technological advancements in the field.

Overall Trends and Insights
Figure 7. Number of articles by year for each tool

In conclusion, the analysis of frequently mentioned tools in participatory urban planning research reveals a dynamic landscape characterized by both established and emerging technologies. While some tools like GIS maintain a consistent presence, others such as Big Data, Blockchain, and Mixed Reality show increasing interest over time. The trends underscore the evolving nature of research in the field, driven by advancements in technology and a growing recognition of the potential of these tools in enhancing participatory processes. Moving forward, continued exploration and adoption of these technologies are essential for promoting more inclusive and effective urban planning practices.

Conclusion  

1.    Hanzl, M., Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 2007. 28(3): p. 289-307.
2.    Meza, J., et al., A Human-Machine Collaboration Model for Urban Planning in Smart Cities. Computer, 2021. 54(6): p. 24-35.
3.    Uis, U. Guide to Measuring Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Education. 2009.
4.    Ratheeswari, K., Information Communication Technology in Education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 2018. 3: p. 45.
5.    Stelzle, B. and J.R. Noennig, A Database for Participation Methods in Urban Development. Procedia Computer Science, 2017. 112: p. 2416-2425.
6.    Fulk, J., SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY. Academy of Management Journal, 1993: p. 31.
7.    Hofmann, M., S. Münster, and J.R. Noennig, A Theoretical Framework for the Evaluation of Massive Digital Participation Systems in Urban Planning. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis, 2020. 4(1): p. 3
8.    Münster, S., et al., How to involve inhabitants in urban design planning by using digital tools? An overview on a state of the art, key challenges, and promising approaches. Procedia Computer Science, 2017. 112: p. 2391-2405.

References

02

Introduction

The topic of participation has garnered significant attention across various contexts and disciplines. In the realm of urban planning, citizen participation in decision-making and policy design stands as a pivotal aspect of planning methodologies aimed at garnering widespread public acceptance of urban projects. While research into digital information tools and applications has been extensive, previous studies have predominantly featured experimental examples [1]. However, contemporary cities are increasingly embracing technological advancements [2], thereby propelling the integration of urban planning with information and communications technology (ICT) into practical application, resulting in a surge of applied methodologies and tools. As per UNESCO, ICT encompasses scientific, technological, and engineering disciplines, as well as management techniques utilized in handling information, its application, and its implications for social, economic, and cultural domains [3]. Moreover, ICTs are acknowledged as agents of change, influencing working conditions, information management, educational paradigms, research methodologies, and accessibility to communication technologies [4].

​

This paper undertakes a comprehensive literature review aimed at elucidating how information and communication technology has transformed the participatory process in urban planning. Specifically, it endeavors to map the current state-of-the-art and global trends within this domain from two perspectives: Firstly, successful citizen participation hinges on a well-integrated workflow [5]; therefore, this review will examine the role of information and communications technologies in shaping process frameworks rather than design frameworks. Secondly, societal perceptions of technologies can disrupt their organizational contexts [6], thus, the impact of ICT on urban and regional planning may yield multiple and potentially conflicting interpretations contingent upon various contextual and user-specific factors. Consequently, this review will explore ICT trends in participatory urban planning with a focus on their implementation and adaptation to specific social, political, and organizational contexts, emphasizing the development, testing, and application of diverse tools.

03

Previous Surveys (on ICT and participation in urban planning)

Sherry Arnstein’s (1969) “ladder of participation” theory has left a lasting imprint on research and practice in participatory planning. Since the 1960s, various tools and techniques for participatory planning have emerged. These range from notification methods, such as public exhibitions of plans and models at lower levels of public involvement, to consultation methods, such as planning cells and focus group meetings, at higher levels of interaction [7]. As the imperative for planning through communication and debate gained traction, so did legally mandated participation processes. However, the reception of many mega projects in Europe by the public revealed that formal participation was no guarantee for broad public acceptance [5]. This realization prompted the development of a diverse array of communication channels and methods [8].

In the digital age, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) were seen as potential solutions to the shortcomings of conventional methods, particularly in large cities like Hamburg and Berlin, where ICTs influence various facets of daily life [4]. As ICT began to take root in participatory urban planning, discussions primarily focused on the impact of widespread computing on communication rather than ICTs' final role in planning outcomes. Initially, when ICT use in participatory urban planning was experimental, there was an expectation that the mere use of computers in planning would lead to a more productive participatory process. Early assessments, such as Hanzl, M's 2007 review "Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials" [1], explored ICT's potential in overcoming barriers for non-professional users and its impact on distant communication in the planning process.

Over time, assessments shifted from comparative analyses of ICT methods to conventional methods. Stelzle, B. and Noennig's 2017 review "A database for participation methods in urban development" [5] compiled information on 70 different methods and tools based on guidelines from 30 German municipalities. They established a "methods bank" detailing the complexity and engagement levels of these tools and methodologies. The authors concluded that the selection and sequencing of methods significantly influence participation levels, with tools categorized into information, consultation, collaboration, and empowerment methods. Empowerment methods, defined by law within the formal planning process in Germany, predominantly involve referendums, citizen juries, and delegated decisions, leaving little room for innovative ICT methods. Information, consultation, and collaboration methods exhibited a wider substantive impact, with conventional methods like mediation and citizen reports remaining prevalent compared to ICT methods like crowdsourcing, which are predominantly adopted by larger and resourceful cities. However, the extent of their impact on participation levels remains underexplored.

Stelzle, B. and Noennig's work contributes to conceptual frameworks of participation methods but falls short in measuring the benefits of ICT methods or providing results from a data perspective. Moreover, it lacks analysis of upstream participation monitoring and process evaluation mechanisms.

01

Intro

A study that explores the rising integration of Information Communication Technology (ICT) in urban planning, particularly in participatory approaches. 

Situation

Information Communication Technology has become highly widespread in recent years. It became integrated into various aspects of planning, management, and development processes.

Task

To conduct a comprehensive literature review on digital tools for public participation in urban planning.

Action

Preparations: Formulated precise research questions and developed selection criteria to identify relevant articles, establishing a systematic approach to the search process.

Search & Selection: Conducted extensive searches across academic databases, using carefully crafted search strings. This involved removing duplicates, screening articles based on titles and abstracts, and assessing eligibility for full-text review.

Analysis: To fulfill the main research objective, key concepts and theories that appeared in the reviewed literature were identified and grouped by year of publication and the frequency of appearance.

Results

The review identified a total of 239 articles. Analysis revealed a significant increase in research activity in this area, particularly since 2010. This timeline of publications offers valuable insights into the evolution of ICT integration in participatory processes, highlighting emerging trends and areas of focus within the field. Overall, the literature review contributed to a deeper understanding of how technology shapes contemporary approaches to urban planning and public engagement.

bottom of page