Evaluating the Impact of Public Participation Processes on Participants in Smart City Development: A Scoping Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
RQ1. What research has been carried out on the evaluation of public participation methods in smart cities?
RQ2. In which ways do the public participation processes impact the participants?
2. Public Participation in Smart Cities
3. Methods
3.1. Research Design and Search Process
3.2. Selecting Studies
- The topic is Smart cities and Public participation and/or Citizen engagement, and it mentions its evaluation or a dimension thereof.
- The study should include criteria and/or indicators to evaluate public participation or citizen engagement in smart cities.
- Articles are written in English and accessible to authors.
- Editorials and perspectives, conference proceedings, theses, project reports.
- Articles written in languages other than English.
3.3. Charting the Data
- General information
- Core data
- Definitions
3.4. Data Analysis
Methodological Limitations
4. Results
4.1. Overview of the Sampled Literature
4.2. Choice of Research Methods
4.3. Participation Method and Evaluation
4.3.1. Level of Participation
Information Only
Consultation Only
Information and Consultation
Dialogue
Agenda Setting
Co-Management
Multipurpose Studies
4.3.2. Evaluation Method
4.3.3. Impact on Participants
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mangnus, A.C.; Vervoort, J.M.; Renger, W.; Nakic, V.; Rebel, K.T.; Driessen, P.P.J.; Hajer, M. Envisioning Alternatives in Pre-Structured Urban Sustainability Transformations: Too Late to Change the Future? Cities 2022, 120, 103466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, D.; Johansen, A.; Kalsaas, B.T.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A.; Hamdy, M. Brought by Degrees: A Focus on the Current Indicators of Lean ‘Smartness’ in Smart Cities. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Lima, Peru, 14–17 July 2021; pp. 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities. Available online: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/climate-neutral-and-smart-cities_en (accessed on 14 April 2023).
- Caragliu, A.; del Bo, C.; Nijkamp, P. Smart Cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2011, 18, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaffers, H.; Komninos, N.; Pallot, M.; Aguas, M.; Almirall, E.; Bakici, T.; Barroca, J.; Carter, D.; Corriou, M.; Fernadez, J. Smart Cities as Innovation Ecosystems Sustained by the Future Internet; HAL: Lyon, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Preston, S.; Mazhar, M.U.; Bull, R. Citizen Engagement for Co-Creating Low Carbon Smart Cities: Practical Lessons from Nottingham City Council in the UK. Energies 2020, 13, 6615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schleicher, K.; Schmidt, C. Citizen Science in Germany as Research and Sustainability Education: Analysis of the Main Forms and Foci and Its Relation to the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Temeljotov Salaj, A.; Gohari, S.; Senior, C.; Xue, Y.; Lindkvist, C. An Interactive Tool for Citizens’ Involvement in the Sustainable Regeneration. Facilities 2020, 38, 859–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jowkar, M.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A.; Lindkvist, C.M.; Støre-Valen, M. Sustainable Building Renovation in Residential Buildings: Barriers and Potential Motivations in Norwegian Culture. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2022, 40, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.B.; Yigitcanlar, T. Participatory Governance of Smart Cities: Insights from e-Participation of Putrajaya and Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Smart Cities 2022, 5, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, F.-H. Assessing Sustainable Development Initiatives in Central Taiwan Science Park: A Study of Residents’ Opinions and the Impact on the Urban Ecosystem. Buildings 2023, 13, 1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khansari, N.; Mostashari, A.; Mansouri, M. Impacting Sustainable Behavior and Planning in Smart City. Int. J. Sustain. Land Use Urban Plan. 2014, 1, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Plan. Theory Pract. 2007, 5, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rowe, G.; Frewer, L.J. Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2000, 25, 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S. Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2417–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bovaird, T. Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 846–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pretty, J.N. Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Dev. 1995, 23, 1247–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringholm, T.; Nyseth, T.; Sandkjær Hanssen, G. Participation According to the Law? Eur. J. Spat. Dev. 2018, 67, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, E.; Schirra, S.; Hollander, J. Immersive Planning: A Conceptual Model for Designing Public Participation with New Technologies. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2011, 38, 505–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degbelo, A.; Granell, C.; Trilles, S.; Bhattacharya, D.; Casteleyn, S.; Kray, C. Opening up Smart Cities: Citizen-Centric Challenges and Opportunities from GIScience. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2016, 5, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gohari, S.; Baer, D.; Nielsen, B.F.; Gilcher, E.; Situmorang, W.Z. Prevailing Approaches and Practices of Citizen Participation in Smart City Projects: Lessons from Trondheim, Norway. Infrastructures 2020, 5, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berntzen, L.; Johannessen, M.R. The Role of Citizen Participation in Municipal Smart City Projects: Lessons Learned from Norway. In Public Administration and Information Technology; Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A., Nam, T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 11, pp. 299–314. [Google Scholar]
- Simonofski, A.; Vallé, T.; Serral, E.; Wautelet, Y. Investigating Context Factors in Citizen Participation Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Swedish and Belgian Smart Cities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 102011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, N.; Zwick, A.; Spicer, Z.; Carlsen, N. Public Engagement in Smart City Development: Lessons from Communities in Canada’s Smart City Challenge. Can. Geogr. 2020, 64, 416–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollands, R.G. Will the Real Smart City Please Stand up? Intelligent, Progressive or Entrepreneurial? City 2008, 12, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Pardo, T.A.; Nam, T. A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City: Smartness as Technologies and Innovation in Urban Contexts. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda: A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City; Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A., Nam, T., Eds.; Public Administration and Informaiton Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 11, pp. 1–19. ISBN 978-3-319-17620-8. [Google Scholar]
- Biloria, N. From Smart to Empathic Cities. Front. Archit. Res. 2020, 10, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Smart City as Urban Innovation: Focusing on Management, Policy, and Context. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia, 26–29 September 2011; pp. 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, A.; Mao, C.; Chen, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, C.; Li, Z. Detecting Changes in Perceptions towards Smart City on Chinese Social Media: A Text Mining and Sentiment Analysis. Buildings 2022, 12, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Israilidis, J.; Odusanya, K.; Mazhar, M.U. Exploring Knowledge Management Perspectives in Smart City Research: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 56, 101989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kopackova, H.; Komarkova, J.; Horak, O. Enhancing the Diffusion of E-Participation Tools in Smart Cities. Cities 2022, 125, 103640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansen, A.; Collins, D.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A.; Hagehaugen, G. Down by the Fjord: Successful Public and Private Collaboration in a Neighbourhood Redevelopment Project. Manag. Procure. Law 2022, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurian, L.; Shaw, M.M. Evaluation of Public Participation: The Practices of Certified Planners. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2009, 28, 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ullah, F.; Al-Turjman, F. A Conceptual Framework for Blockchain Smart Contract Adoption to Manage Real Estate Deals in Smart Cities. Mach. Learn. Appl. Secur. 2023, 35, 5033–5054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Altman, D.; Antes, G.; Atkins, D.; Barbour, V.; Barrowman, N.; Berlin, J.A.; et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Glaser, B.; Strauss, A. Applying Grounded Theory. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research; Aldine de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 1967; p. 13. [Google Scholar]
- Chilvers, J. Remaking Participation; Kearnes, M., Ed.; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2015; ISBN 9780415857390. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, Y.; Kant, S. Using Social Media for Citizen Participation: Contexts, Empowerment, and Inclusion. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gudowsky, N.; Sotoudeh, M.; Capari, L.; Wil, H. Transdisciplinary Forward-Looking Agenda Setting for Age-Friendly, Human Centered Cities. Futures 2020, 90, 16–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francisco, A.; Taylor, J.E. Understanding Citizen Perspectives on Open Urban Energy Data through the Development and Testing of a Community Energy Feedback System. Appl. Energy 2019, 256, 113804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Psomadaki, O.I.; Dimoulas, C.A.; Kalliris, G.M.; Paschalidis, G. Digital Storytelling and Audience Engagement in Cultural Heritage Management: A Collaborative Model Based on the Digital City of Thessaloniki. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 36, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.F. Smart Innovative Cities: The Impact of Smart City Policies on Urban Innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 142, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambrose, A. Walking with Energy: Challenging Energy Invisibility and Connecting Citizens with Energy Futures through Participatory Research. Futures 2020, 117, 102528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paskaleva, K.; Cooper, I. Technovation Open Innovation and the Evaluation of Internet-Enabled Public Services in Smart Cities. Technovation 2018, 78, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flacke, J.; Shrestha, R.; Aguilar, R. Strengthening Participation Using Interactive Planning Support Systems: A Systematic Review. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Billger, M.; Thuvander, L.; Wästberg, B.S. In Search of Visualization Challenges: The Development and Implementation of Visualization Tools for Supporting Dialogue in Urban Planning Processes. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2017, 44, 1012–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foth, M. Participation, Co-Creation, and Public Space. J. Public Space 2017, 2, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foth, M. Participatory Urban Informatics: Towards Citizen-Ability. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 7, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, M.; Münster, S.; Noennig, J.R. A Theoretical Framework for the Evaluation of Massive Digital Participation Systems in Urban Planning. J. Geovisualization Spat. Anal. 2020, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Castelnovo, W.; Misuraca, G.; Savoldelli, A. Smart Cities Governance: The Need for a Holistic Approach to Assessing Urban Participatory Policy Making. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2016, 34, 724–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, S.H.; Rodina, L.; Burt, J.M.; Gregr, E.J.; Chapman, M.; Williams, S.; Wilson, N.J.; Mcdowell, G. Unpacking Social-Ecological Transformations: Conceptual, Ethical and Methodological Insights. Anthr. Rev. 2018, 5, 250–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Moslem, S.; Blaschke, T. Sustainable Urban Transport Planning Considering Different Stakeholder Groups by an Interval-AHP Decision Support Model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Biermann, H.; Philipsen, R.; Brell, T.; Ziefle, M. User Perspectives, Expectations, and Challenges of Data and Information Distribution in Autonomous Driving. Hum. Intell. Syst. Integr. 2020, 1, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozdağ, A.; İnam, Ş. Collaborative Land Use Planning in Urban Renewal. J. Urban Reg. Anal. 2021, 13, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockhoff, R.C.; Koop, H.A.S.; Snel, A.W.K. Pluvial Flooding in Utrecht: On Its Way to a Floof-Proof City. Water 2019, 11, 1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahou-lago, X.M.; Varela-álvarez, E.J. Innovation and Opportunities for Citizen Participation in Spanish Smart Cities. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda: A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 367–392. ISBN 9783319176208. [Google Scholar]
- Clarinval, A.; Simonofski, A.; Vanderose, B.; Dumas, B. Public Displays and Citizen Participation: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2021, 15, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouzguenda, I.; Fava, N.; Alalouch, C. Would 3D Digital Participatory Planning Improve Social Sustainability in Smart Cities? An Empirical Evaluation Study in Less-Advantaged Areas. J. Urban Technol. 2022, 29, 41–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcevoy, S.; van de Ven, F.H.M.; Brolsma, R.; Slinger, J.H. Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and E Ff Ects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany. Sustainability 2020, 12, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mainka, A.; Hartmann, S.; Meschede, C.; Stock, W.G. Open Government: Transforming Data into Value-Added City Services. In Citizen’s Right to the Digital City; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredericks, J. From Smart City to Smart Engagement: Exploring Digital and Physical Interactions for Playful City-Making. In Making Smart Cities More Playable; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Afzalan, N.; Muller, B. Online Participatory Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Enriching Participatory Planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2018, 84, 162–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flacke, J.; de Boer, C.; Van den Bosch, H.; Pfeffer, K. Handbook of Support Science; Geertman, S., Stillwell, J., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; ISBN 9781788971089. [Google Scholar]
- Russo, F.; Calabrò, T.; Iiritano, G.; Pellicanò, D.S.; Petrungaro, G.; Sostenibile, E.; Studi, U. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning City Logistics Between International Vision and Local Knowledge to Sustainable Development: The Regional Role on Planning and on Public Engagement. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2020, 15, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, Y. Toward Sustainable Governance: Strategic Analysis of the Smart City Seoul Portal in Korea. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, L.; Bai, L.; Xiang, M. Evaluation Index System for Public Participation in Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction in Dujiangyan. Open House Int. 2022, 47, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemente, C.; Civierob, P.; Celluralea, M. Solutions and Services for Smart Sustainable Districts: Innovative Key Performance Indicators to Support Transition. Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan. Manag. 2019, 24, 95–106. [Google Scholar]
- Ben, E.R. Methodologies for a Participatory Design of IoT to Deliver Sustainable Public Services in “Smart Cities”. In Beyond Smart and Connected Governments: Sensors and the Internet of Things in the Public Sector; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohseni, H. Public Engagement and Smart City Definitions: A Classifying Model for the Evaluation of Citizen Power in 2025 Tehran. GeoJournal 2021, 86, 1261–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reza, M.; Bigdeli, V.; Moinifar, M. Technological Forecasting & Social Change The Structural Model of Indicators for Evaluating the Quality of Urban Smart Living. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 176, 121427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mannarini, T.; Talò, C. Evaluating Public Participation: Instruments and Implications for Citizen Involvement. Community Dev. 2013, 44, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argyris, C. Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision Making. Adm. Sci. Q. 1976, 21, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyer, E.J.; Van Slyke, D.M.; Rogers, J.D. An Empirical Examination of Public Involvement in Public-Private Partnerships: Qualifying the Benefits of Public Involvement in PPPs. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2016, 26, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frewer, L. Risk Perception, Social Trust, and Public Participation in Strategic Decision Making: Implications for Emerging Technologies. Ambio 1999, 28, 569–574. [Google Scholar]
- Castelnovo, W. Co-Production Makes Cities Smarter: Citizens’ Participation in Smart City Initiatives. In Co-Production in the Public Sector; Fugini, M., Bracci, E., Sicilia, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 97–117. ISBN 9783319305585. [Google Scholar]
- Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Collaborative Rationality as a Strategy for Working with Wicked Problems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 154, 8–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malek, J.A.; Lim, S.B.; Yigitcanlar, T. Social Inclusion Indicators for Building Citizen-Centric Smart Cities: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, F.; Faus, M.; Tormo, M.T.; Useche, S.A. Could Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems Help Improve Mobility in an Emerging Country? Challenges, Opportunities, Gaps and Other Evidence from the Caribbean. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavada, M.; Rogers, C.D.F. Serious Gaming as a Means of Facilitating Truly Smart Cities: A Narrative Review. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2019, 39, 695–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabriel, S.; Schmölzer, B. Climate4Kids: A Gamified App Teaching about Climate Change. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Game-Based Learning, Lisbon Portugal, 6–7 October 2022; pp. 236–243. [Google Scholar]
- West, M.; Yildirim, O.; Harte, A.E.; Ramram, A.; Fleury, N.W.; Carabias, V. Enhancing Citizen Participation through Serious Games in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society, Karlsruche, Germany, 2–4 April 2019; Volume 4, pp. 881–888. [Google Scholar]
- Latifi, G.R.; Monfared, M.P.; Khojasteh, H.A. Gamification and Citizen Motivation and Vitality in Smart Cities: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis Study. GeoJournal 2022, 87, 1217–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | PRISMA Checklist |
---|---|
1 | The review is based on keyword-based articles retrieved from Scopus, WoS, and Google Scholar repositories published in the last 10 years. |
2 | The keywords must be present in one of the main sections of the articles to be eligible for inclusion in the study. |
3 | Scopus, WoS, and Google Scholar repositories can be respectively accessed at scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic, https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search and https://scholar.google.com/. |
4 | Search strings are used for conducting the literature search process, as listed above in Section 3.1. |
5 | The selection process consists of keyword searching, screening, and removing duplicates. See a detailed description in Section 3.2. |
6 | The selected articles are analyzed by charting the data in Excel as described in Section 3.3. |
7 | The categories for charting the data consist of general information, core data, and definitions (see Section 3.3). |
8 | The included sources of evidence are typically not critically appraised for scoping reviews [35]. Therefore, the present study does not report on the appraisal. |
9 | Summary measures are not applicable for scoping reviews [35]. |
10 | The synthesis of the results is presented as a “map” of the data in the form of diagrams and tables and in a descriptive format aligning with the review’s objectives (see Section 4). |
11 | Risk of bias across studies is not applicable for scoping reviews [35]. |
12 | Additional analyses are not applicable for scoping reviews [35]. |
Levels | Definitions by Ringholm et al. (2018) [19] |
---|---|
Co-management | “citizens’ initiatives, which can be used to initiate new planning processes or revise old ones” |
Agenda setting | “have the opportunity to influence the agenda by putting forward themes that should be included in the planning strategy” |
Dialogue | “two-way communication—a discussion, debate or deliberation regarding an issue between the municipalities and interested parties” |
Consultation | “the plan proposal is made publicly available so that everyone has access to it and can provide feedback” |
Information | “advertising the establishment of the planning process” |
Type of Impact | Definition | Evaluation Indicators Identified in the Studies |
---|---|---|
Awareness (n = 6) | Participants and the general public are informed about the issue and realize what is at stake in this particular matter [34]. | Level of awareness—pre- and post-experience [47]; community knowledge, local sense of urgency [59]; participants are informed and increase their knowledge about an issue [49,67]; raising awareness through community networks [65]; raising awareness on the concept of urban renewal and its implementation [58]. |
Behavioral change (n = 4) | Process that involves modifying or altering one’s behavior or habits in response to internal or external cues, stimuli, or incentives. Behavioral change can be intentional or unintentional and can occur at individual, group, or societal levels. | Likeliness to change behavior based on the tour of the facility [47]; likeliness to change behavior based on the feedback provided by the tool [44]; participants change behavior to address a challenging situation [49,67]. |
Future engagement (n = 4) | The likelihood or willingness of individuals to participate in urban planning processes again in the future after their initial experience [75]. | Actions to be incorporated in future engagement practices [1]; subjective assessments of deliberation quality and likelihood of participating in future participation processes [53]; community building: development of new collaborations, improved social cohesion [67]; integrating new approaches for further collaboration—casting a wider net across the top and bottom stakeholders and collectively bringing people together [65]. |
Knowledge, skills, learning (n = 7) | In single-loop learning, participants seek to achieve their intended goals by making incremental improvements to their strategies and actions. In double-loop learning, participants question and potentially change their underlying assumptions, which leads to a deeper understanding of the causes of the problems and enables them to challenge and change established ways of thinking and operating [76]. | Allows those who had minimal knowledge of city logistics to go up and carry out quality projects [68]; improved understanding of the problem [49,67]; preconditions for a successful process include a good learning situation [50]; actual and perceived knowledge gains regarding the process’ subject matter [53]; appear to have contributed to learning through the provision of content and improved communication and interaction [63]; digital competency enhancement education: citizens can register and access online education computer resources, workshops, etc. and can review the history of the training they have received [69]. |
Satisfaction (n = 6) | Individuals’ positive or negative impression of their experience with a particular initiative or participatory process [77]. | Satisfaction of different groups concerning the public transportation system [56]; levels of satisfaction with the participation method [62]; participants’ satisfaction with process and outcomes [49]; overall satisfaction of participating in post-disaster reconstruction [70]; satisfaction with the process [53]; user-satisfaction measures [54]. |
Attitudes (n = 4) | Attitudes toward public participation are shaped by factors such as trust in government, perceived risks and benefits, and individual values and beliefs [78]. | Participants’ attitudes toward technology [57]; no dominating person or group [49,67]; negative attitudes between NGOs and local administration [58]. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Senior, C.; Temeljotov Salaj, A.; Johansen, A.; Lohne, J. Evaluating the Impact of Public Participation Processes on Participants in Smart City Development: A Scoping Review. Buildings 2023, 13, 1484. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13061484
Senior C, Temeljotov Salaj A, Johansen A, Lohne J. Evaluating the Impact of Public Participation Processes on Participants in Smart City Development: A Scoping Review. Buildings. 2023; 13(6):1484. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13061484
Chicago/Turabian StyleSenior, Coline, Alenka Temeljotov Salaj, Agnar Johansen, and Jardar Lohne. 2023. "Evaluating the Impact of Public Participation Processes on Participants in Smart City Development: A Scoping Review" Buildings 13, no. 6: 1484. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13061484