The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices
Open accessAbstract
While participatory urban and regional planning have become a widely accepted approach to enhance the democratic aims of community and urban development, challenges still remain. Planners lack the knowledge of usable tools to reach broader groups of participants, which can turn participation into a small-group elitist activity. Also, the quality and utilisation of the knowledge produced is problematic, the collected data remains invisible and systematic analysis is often not realized. In this article, we ask whether digitally supported PPGIS (public participation Geographical Information Systems) tools can help addressing these challenges. Through a critical analysis and reflection upon over 200 real life planning cases in Finland (62%) and other countries (38%) using PPGIS methodology we study the ability of PPGIS tools to (1) enhance effective arrangements of public participation, (2) reach a broad spectrum of people and 3) produce high quality and versatile knowledge. Our results indicate a variety of advantages and disadvantages in using PPGIS methodology in urban and regional planning practice. By categorizing the pros and cons of using PPGIS in practise, we enable planners to implement more inclusive and people-centred urban and regional planning in the future.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-1645 · Cited by 2,925
Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies
Healey, P. (2006) · doi:10.25405/ncl.34571748.v1 · Cited by 2,484
Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x · Cited by 1,941
Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004) · Planning Theory & Practice · doi:10.1080/1464935042000293170 · Cited by 1,565
Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action
Friedmann, J. R. P. (2020) · Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · Cited by 1,488
Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework
Sieber, R. (2006) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x · Cited by 1,210
Handbook of environmental psychology
Bechtel, R. B., & Churchman, A. (2002) · Cited by 1,166
Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies
Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1998) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/s0743-0167(97)00052-1 · Cited by 911
Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243903259197 · Cited by 879
Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2014) · Applied Geography · doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004 · Cited by 823
Cited by
NPCC4: Concepts and tools for envisioning New York City's futures
Balk, D., McPhearson, T., Cook, E. M., Knowlton, K., Maher, N., Marcotullio, P., Matte, T., Moss, R., Ortiz, L., Towers, J., et al. (2024) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15121 · Cited by 15
Faculty of Economics and Management Science, D. O. M. S., Moses, A., J. B., T., & Faculty of Economics and Management Science, D. O. M. S. (2023) · International Journal of Current Science Research and Review · doi:10.47191/ijcsrr/v6-i1-68 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Kahila-Tani, M., Kytta, M., & Geertman, S.
- Venue
- Landscape and Urban Planning
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 186
- Pages
- 45-55
- ISSN
- 0169-2046 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2919467037
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 124.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019
- The paper
- Kahila-Tani, M., Kytta, M., & Geertman, S. (2019). Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and Urban Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.