The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects
Abstract
Public involvement is a central concern for urban planners, but the challenge for planners is how best to implement such programs, given many difficulties inherent in the typical public involvement process. The medium of the Web enables us to harness collective intellect among a population in ways face-to-face planning meetings cannot. This article argues that the crowdsourcing model, a successful, Web-based, distributed problem solving and production model for business, is an appropriate model for enabling the citizen participation process in public planning projects. This article begins with an exploration of the challenges of public participation in urban planning projects, particularly in the harnessing of creative solutions. An explanation of the theories of collective intelligence and crowd wisdom follows, arguing for the medium of the Web as an appropriate technology for harnessing far-flung genius. An exploration of crowdsourcing in a hypothetical neighborhood planning example, along with a consideration of the challenges of implementing crowdsourcing, concludes the article.
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
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 45,910
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,789
Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.
de Zoysa, D. A., & Appadurai, A. (1998) · International Migration Review · doi:10.2307/2547675 · Cited by 18,135
Putnam, R. (2000) · doi:10.1145/358916.361990 · Cited by 17,114
von Hippel, E. (2007) · Das Summa Summarum des Management · doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-9320-5_10 · Cited by 5,098
von Hippel, E. (2005) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2333.001.0001 · Cited by 3,768
(1999) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,259
Bush, V. (1945) · Cited by 2,998
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-1645 · Cited by 2,925
Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society
John, R. R., & Carey, J. W. (1992) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105848 · Cited by 2,686
Cited by
Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction
Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2014) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-012-9350-4 · Cited by 566
Smart cities in the new service economy: building platforms for smart services
Anttiroiko, A.-V., Valkama, P., & Bailey, S. J. (2014) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-013-0464-0 · Cited by 369
Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0
Nam, T. (2012) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005 · Cited by 368
Crowdsourcing: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research
Ghezzi, A., Gabelloni, D., Martini, A., & Natalicchio, A. (2018) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12135 · Cited by 353
Citizen Participation, Open Innovation, and Crowdsourcing: Challenges and Opportunities for Planning
Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013) · Journal of Planning Literature · doi:10.1177/0885412212469112 · Cited by 301
Metadata
- Authors
- Brabham, D. C.
- Venue
- Planning Theory
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-07-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 242-262
- ISSN
- 1473-0952 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3052
- OpenAlex
- W2097811905
- Cited by
- 673
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 54.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1473095209104824
- The paper
- Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects. Planning Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209104824
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.