Object structure

Współczesne podejścia do uczestnictwa społeczności lokalnej w planowaniu przestrzeni w literaturze naukowej = A review of the scientific literature on contemporary approaches to local community participation in spatial planning


Przegląd Geograficzny T. 92 z. 4 (2020)


Bednarek-Szczepańska, Maria : Autor Affiliation ORCID



Place of publishing:


Date issued/created:



24 cm

Type of object:


Subject and Keywords:

local community ; spatial planning ; public participation ; literature review


The paper is the result of a review of contemporary scientific literature on local-community participation in spatial planning. The aim of the review has been to determine those concepts which constitute the theoretical basis for studies, the areas in which the participation of a local community in planning is being examined, and the methods of involving inhabitants gaining most frequent description in the literature. The review included 96 relevant scientific articles from 2010‑2019 that are available in the Web of Science database. In practice, this literature is found to feature marked diversity when it comes to the ways in which community participation in planning is embedded theoretically. While the underpinning concepts derive mainly from the socio-political sciences, management, ecology or human geography are also represented, and reference is often made to the concept of deliberation and collaboration, as connected with the theory of communicative action. Note should also be taken of the importance of knowledge (especially lay knowledge) and learning as relatively new key concepts in the literature regarding social aspects of spatial planning. The said literature focuses on the search for new ways in which residents can be activated as regards planning, as well as ways in which they can be tested. There is therefore a prevalence of works that detail innovative initiatives by which inhabitants’ views on the space in which they function can be gained. Little attention is paid to translating the opinion and knowledge obtained from the community into planning decisions – this being an issue that researchers either ignore or treat very vaguely. This is then a significant gap in the output under analysis. The analysed works present local-community involvement in planning, mainly in urbanised areas, but also in valuable natural areas, including forests, wetlands, rivers, etc. Relatively little attention is paid to social participation in the planning of villages and small towns outside large agglomerations. It is surprising that there is very little work on grassroots community initiatives aimed at the local-level planning of space. The use of modern technologies in gauging society’s opinions and knowledge on space is what proves dominant where methodological scope is concerned. There is wide discussion of the possibilities and advantages inherent in methodology based on PPGIS and VGI.


Aitken, M. (2010). A three-dimensional view of public participation in Scottish land-use planning: Empowerment or social control? Planning Theory, 9(3), 248‑264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210366193 DOI
Albrechts, L. (2013). Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory, 12(1), 46‑63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212452722 DOI
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 DOI
Atzmanstorfer, K., Resl, R., Eitzinger, A., & Izurietab, X. (2014). The GeoCitizen-approach: community-based spatial planning - an Ecuadorian case study. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 41(3). 248‑259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2014.890546 DOI
Bailey, K., & Grossardt, T. (2010). Toward Structured Public Involvement: Justice, Geography and Collaborative Geospatial/Geovisual Decision Support Systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(1), 57‑86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600903364259 DOI
Baker, M., Hincks, S., & Sheriff, G. (2010). Revisiting...Getting involved in plan making: Participation and stakeholder involvement in local and regional spatial strategies in England. Environment and Planning C, Government and Policy, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1068/c0972 DOI
Baylan, E., & Karadeniz, N. (2018). Identifying landscape values and stakeholder conflicts for the protection of landscape multifunctionality. The case of Eksisu Wetlands (Turkey). Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 16(1), 199‑223. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1601_199223 DOI
Bąkowska-Waldmann, E., Brudka, C., & Jankowski, P. (2018). Legal and Organizational Framework for the use of Geoweb Methods for Public Participation in Spatial Planning in Poland: Experiences, Opinions and Challenges. Quaestiones Geographicae, 37(3), 163‑175. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2018‑0032 DOI
Bergeron, J., Paquette, S., & Poullaouec-Gonidec, P. (2014). Uncovering landscape values and micro-geographies of meanings with the go-along method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 108‑121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.009 DOI
Blake, D., Auge, A.A., & Sherren, K. (2017). Participatory mapping to elicit cultural coastal values for Marine Spatial Planning in a remote archipelago, Ocean and Coastal Management, 148, 195‑203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.08.010 DOI
Borges, J., Jankowski, P., & Davis, C.A. (2015). Crowdsourcing for Geodesign: Opportunities and Challenges for Stakeholder Input in Urban Planning. W: Cartography - Maps Connecting the World (s. 361‑373). 27th International Cartographic Conference (ICC), Rio de Janeiro, 23‑28.08.2015. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. DOI
Bourgoin, J., Castella, J. C, Pullar, D., Lestrelin, G., & Bouahom, B. (2012). Toward a land zoning negotiation support platform: "Tips and tricks" for participatory land use planning in Laos. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(2), 270‑278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.008 DOI
Brown, G. (2012). An empirical evaluation of the spatial accuracy of public participation GIS (PPGIS) data. Applied Geography, 34, 289‑294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.12.004 DOI
Brown, G. (2017). A Review of Sampling Effects and Response Bias in Internet Participatory Mapping(PPGIS/PGIS/VGI). Transactions in GIS, 21(1), 39‑56. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12207 DOI
Brown, G., & Brabyn, L., (2012). An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3, 1), 317‑331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.007 DOI
Brown, G., & Donovan, S. (2013). Escaping the National Forest Planning Quagmire: Using Public Participation GIS to Assess Acceptable National Forest Use. Journal of Forestry, 111(2), 115‑125. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12‑087 DOI
Brown, G., Donovan, S., Pullar, D., Pocewicz, A., Toohey, R., & Ballesteros-Lopez, R. (2014). An empirical evaluation of workshop versus survey PPGIS methods. Applied Geography, 48, 42‑51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.01.008 DOI
Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation, Ecosystem Services, 13, 119‑133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007 DOI
Brown, G., McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J., Lunneyd, D., Goldingay, R., Fieldingg, K., Hetherington, S., Hopkins, M., Manning, C., Wood, M., Brace, A., Vass, L., & Swankie, L. (2019). Integration of social spatial data to assess conservation opportunities and priorities. Biological Conservation, 236, 452‑463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.002 DOI
Brown, G., Sanders, S., & Reed, P. (2018). Using public participatory mapping to inform general land use planning and zoning, Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 64‑74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.011 DOI
Brown, G., Weber, D., & de Bie, K. (2015). Is PPGIS good enough? An empirical evaluation of the quality of PPGIS crowd-sourced spatial data for conservation planning, Land Use Policy, 43, 228‑238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.014 DOI
Cumming, G., & Norwood, C. (2012). The Community Voice Method: Using participatory research and filmmaking to foster dialog about changing landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(4), 434‑444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurplan.2012.01.018 DOI
Czepkiewicz, M., Jankowski, P., & Młodkowski, M. (2017). Geo-questionnaires in urban planning: recruitment methods, participant engagement, and data quality. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 44(6), 551‑567. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2016.1230520 DOI
Czepkiewicz, M., Jankowski, P., & Zwolinski, Z. (2018). Geo-questionnaire: a spatially explicit method for eliciting public preferences, behavioural patterns, and local knowledge - an overview. Quaestiones Geographicae, 37(3), 177‑190. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2018‑0033 DOI
Damurski, Ł. (2012). Polish planners' attitudes towards citizen participation. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 7(2), 87‑96.
Davoudi, S. (2012). The Legacy of Positivism and the Emergence of Interpretive Tradition in Spatial Planning. Regional Studies, 46(4), 429‑441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.618120 DOI
De Freitas, D.M., King, D. & Cottrell, A. (2013). Fits and misfits of linked public participation and spatial information in water quality management on the Great Barrier Reef coast (Australia). Journal of Coastal Conservation, 17(2), 253‑269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852‑011‑0167-y DOI
Delitheou, V., Bakogiannis, E. & Kyriakidis, C. (2019). Urban planning: integrating smart applications to promote community engagement. Heliyon, 5, e01672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01672 DOI
Dragouni, M., & Fouseki, K. (2018). Drivers of community participation in heritage tourism planning: an empirical investigation. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 13(3), 237‑256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2017.1310214 DOI
Eilola, S., Käyhkö, N., Ferdinands, A., & Fagerholm, N. (2019). A bird's eye view of my village - Developing participatory geospatial methodology for local level land use planning in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Landscape and Urban Planning, 190, 103596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103596 DOI
Eiter, S., & Vik, M.L. (2015). Public participation in landscape planning: Effective methods for implementing the European Landscape Convention in Norway. Land Use Policy, 44, 44‑53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.012 DOI
Elbakidze, M., Dawson, L., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Stjernquist, I., Teitelbaum, S., Schlyter, P., & Thellbro, C. (2015). Is spatial planning a collaborative learning process? A case study from a rural-urban gradient in Sweden. Land Use Policy, 48, 270-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.001
Faehnle, M., Bäcklund, P., Tyrväinen, L., Niemelä, J., & Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2014). How can residents' experiences inform planning of urban green infrastructure? Case Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 171‑183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.012 DOI
Feltynowski, M. (2015). Spatial Information System - a tool supporting good governance in spatial planning processes of green areas. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 7(1), 69‑82. https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2016.418.05 DOI
Fox, E., Poncelet, E., Connor, D., Vasques, J., Ugoretz, J., McCreary, S., Monie, D., Harty, M., & Gleason, M. (2013). Adapting stakeholder processes to region-specific challenges in marine protected area network planning, Ocean and Coastal Management, 74, Special Issue, 24‑33, https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2016.418.05 DOI
Frieling, M.A., Lindenberg, S.M., & Stokman, F.N. (2014). Collaborative Communities Through Coproduction: Two Case Studies, American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 35‑58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012456897 DOI
Gu, H. (2016). NIMBYism in China: Issues and prospects of public participation in facility siting, Land Use Policy, 52, 527‑534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.015 DOI
Gustavsson, E., & Elander, I. (2016). Sustainability potential of a redevelopment initiative in Swedish public housing: The ambiguous role of residents' participation and place identity. Progress in Planning, 103, 1‑25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2014.10.003 DOI
Hanssen, G.S., & Falleth, E.I. (2014). Market-Oriented Urban Planning - Constraining Citizen Participation, Local Government Studies, 40(3), 403‑428. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.834254 DOI
Hartmann, T. (2012). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: Planning as expectation management, Planning Theory, 11(3), 242‑256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212440427 DOI
Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., Counsell, D., & Vigar, G. (2010). The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries. Taylor & Francis, London. DOI
He, G., Mol, A.P.J., & Lu, Y. (2016). Public protests against the Beijing-Shenyang high-speed railway in China, Transportation Research Part D, Transport and Environment, 43, 1‑16. DOI
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan. DOI
Ives, C.D., Oke, C., Hehir, A., Gordon, A., Wang, Y., & Bekessy, S. (2017). Capturing residents' values for urban green space: Mapping, analysis and guidance for practice. Landscape and Urban Planning, 161, 32‑43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.010 DOI
Jarvis, R., Breen, B., Kraegeloh, C., & Rex Billington, D. (2015). Citizen science and the power of public participation in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 57, 21‑26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.011 DOI
Jarvis, R., Breen, B., Kraegeloh, C., & Rex Billington, D. (2016). Identifying Diverse Conservation Values for Place-Based Spatial Planning Using Crowdsourced Voluntary Geographic Information. Society and Natural Resources, 29(5), 603‑616. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1107793 DOI
Jiang, L., Masullo, M., Maffei, L., Meng, F., & Vorländer, M. (2018). A demonstrator tool of webbased virtual reality for participatory evaluation of urban sound environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 170, 276‑282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.007 DOI
Kaczmarek, T., & Wójcicki, M. (2016). Participation in public consultations on spatial Planning Documents. The case of Poznań city. Quaestiones Geographicae, 35(2), 71‑81. DOI
Kahila-Tani, M., Broberg, A., Kytta, M., & Tyger, T. (2016). Let the Citizens Map-Public Participation GIS as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process. Planning Practice and Research, 31(2), 195‑214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1104203 DOI
Kangas, A. Rasinmaki, J. Eyvindson, K., & Chambers, P. (2015). A Mobile Phone Application for the Collection of Opinion Data for Forest Planning Purposes. Environmental Management, 55(4), 961‑971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267‑014‑0438‑0 DOI
Karimi, A. & Adams, V.M. (2019). Planning for the future: Combining spatially-explicit public preferences with tenure policies to support land-use planning. Land Use Policy, 82, 497‑508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.033 DOI
Karimi, A. Tulloch, A.I.T. Brown, G., & Hockings, M. (2017). Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas. Conservation Biology, 31(6), 1439‑1449. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12947 DOI
Kerselaers, E., Rogge, E., Vanempten, L., Lauwers, G., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2013). Changing land use in the countryside: stakeholders' perception of the ongoing rural planning processes in Flanders, Land Use Policy, 32, 197‑206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.016 DOI
Kytta, M. Broberg, A. Tzoulas, T., & Snabb, K. (2013). Towards contextually sensitive urban densification: Location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, 30‑46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.008 DOI
Lalicic, I., & Oender, I. (2018). Residents' Involvement in Urban Tourism Planning: Opportunities from a Smart City Perspective. Sustainability, 10(6), 1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061852 DOI
Lee, J., Kim, S., & Kwon, H. (2017), Mapping Interests by Stakeholders' Subjectivities toward Ecotourism Resources: The Case of Seocheon-Gun, Korea. Sustainability, 9(1), Article Number: 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010093 DOI
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Legacy, C. (2017). Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Planning Theory, 16(4), 425‑442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216667433 DOI
Leibenath, M., Wirth, P., & Lintz, G. (2016). Just a talking shop? - Informal participatory spatial planning for implementing state wind energy targets in Germany. Utilities Policy, 41, 206‑213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.008 DOI
Lin, Y., & Geertman, S. (2015). Smart Governance, Collaborative Planning and Planning Support Systems: A Fruitful Triangle? W: S. Geertman, J. Ferreira, R. Goodspeed, J. Stillwell (red.), Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‑3-319‑18368‑8_14 DOI
Matthews, P., Bramley, G., & Hastings, A. (2015). Homo Economicus in a Big Society: Understanding Middle-class Activism and NIMBYism towards New Housing Developments, Housing Theory and Society, 32(1), 54‑72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2014.947173 DOI
Maynard, C. (2015). Accessing the environment: Delivering ecological and societal benefits through knowledge integration. The case of water management, Applied Geography, 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.01.013 DOI
McAndrews, C., & Marcus, J. (2015). The politics of collective public participation in transportation decision-making. Transportation Research, Part A, Policy and Practice, 78, 537‑550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.014 DOI
McGlone, N. (2016). Pop-Up kids: exploring children's experience of temporary public space. Australian Planner, 53(2), 117‑126. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2015.1135811 DOI
McLain, R., Banis, D.; Todd, A., & Cerveny, L.K. (2017). Multiple methods of public engagement: Disaggregating socio-spatial data for environmental planning in western Washington, USA, Journal of Environmental Management, 204, 61‑74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.037 DOI
Michels, A. (2012). Citizen Participation in Local Policy Making: Design and Democracy. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.661301 DOI
Moran, S., Perreault, M., & Smardon, R. (2019). Finding our way: A case study of urban waterway restoration and participatory process, Landscape and Urban Planning, 191, Article 102982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.004 DOI
Mostegl, N., Pröbstl-Haider, U., & Haider, W. (2017). Spatial energy planning in Germany: Between high ambitions and communal hesitations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 167, 451‑462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.07.013 DOI
Munro, J., Pearce, J., Brown, G., Kobryn, H., & Moore, S.A. (2017). Identifying 'public values' for marine and coastal planning: Are residents and non-residents really so different? Ocean and Coastal Management, 148, 9‑21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.016 DOI
Nastran, M. (2015). Why does nobody ask us? Impacts on local perception of a protected area in designation, Slovenia, Land Use Policy, 46, 38‑49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.001 DOI
Natarajan, L. (2013). Learning in a participatory spatial planning context: a study of community engagement and planning knowledge in England, London: University College London.
Natarajan, L. (2017). Socio-spatial learning: A case study of community knowledge in participatory spatial planning, Progress in Planning, 111, 1‑23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2015.06.002 DOI
Newig, J., Schulz, D., & Jager, N. (2016). Disentangling Puzzles of Spatial Scales and Participation in Environmental Governance -The Case of Governance Re-scaling Through the European Water Framework Directive. Environmental Management, 58(6), 998‑1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267‑016‑0753‑8 DOI
Niedziałkowski, K., Blicharska, M., Mikusiński, G., & Jędrzejewska, B. (2014). Why is it difficult to enlarge a protected area? Ecosystem services perspective on the conflict around the extension of the Białowieża National Park in Poland, Land Use Policy, 38, 314‑329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.002 DOI
Nyseth, T., Ringholm, T. & Agger, A. (2019). Innovative Forms of Citizen Participation at the Fringe of the Formal Planning System. Urban Planning, 4(1), 7‑18. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i1.1680 DOI
Olafsson, A.S., & Skov-Petersen, H. (2014). The use of GIS-based support of recreational trail planning by local governments. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 7(2), 149‑168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061‑013‑9094‑7 DOI
Panagiotopoulou, M. & Stratigea, A. (2017). Spatial Data Management and Visualization Tools and Technologies for Enhancing Participatory e-Planning in Smart Cities, W: A. Stratigea, E. Kyriakides, & C. Nicolaides (red.), Smart City in the Mediterranean (s. 31‑57). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‑3-319‑54558‑5_2 DOI
Pawłowska, A. (2016). Governance jako podejście teoretyczne - kilka kwestii spornych, Polityka i Społeczeństwo, 14(3), 5‑17. https://doi.org/10.15584/polispol.2016.3.1 DOI
Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Czepkiewicz, M., & Kronenberg, J. (2017). Eliciting non-monetary values of formal and informal urban green spaces using public participation GIS, Landscape and Urban Planning, 160, 85‑95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.012 DOI
Piwowarczyk, J., & Wróbel, B. (2016). Determinants of legitimate governance of marine Natura 2000 sites in a post-transition European Union country: A case study of Puck Bay, Poland. Marine Policy, 17, 310‑317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.019 DOI
Poppe, W., & Young, D. (2015). The Politics of Place: Place-making versus Densification in Toronto's Tower Neighbourhoods. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(3), 613‑621. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468‑2427.12196 DOI
Rall, E., Hansen, R., & Pauleit, S. (2019). The added value of public participation GIS (PPGIS) for urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40, Special Issue: SI, 264‑274. DOI
Rzeszewski, M. & Kotus, J. (2019). Usability and usefulness of internet mapping platforms in participatory spatial planning. Applied Geography, 103, 56‑69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.01.001
Santos, B. (2017). Improving Urban Planning Information, Transparency and Participation in Public Administrations, International Journal of E-Planning Research, 6(4), 58‑75. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2017100104 DOI
Sarkki, S., Parpan, T., Melnykovych, M. Zahvoyska, L., Derbal, J., Voloshyna, N., & Nijnik, M. (2019). Beyond participation! Social innovations facilitating movement from authoritative state to participatory forest governance in Ukraine, Landscape Ecology, 34(7), Special Issue, 1601‑1618.
Scholten, H. (2017). Geocraft as a Means to Support the Development of Smart Cities, Getting the People of the Place Involved - Youth Included. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 21(1), Special Issue, 119‑150. DOI
Shen, Z., & Kawakami, M. (2010). An online visualization tool for Internet-based local townscape design, Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 34(2), 104‑116. DOI
Smith, G. & Jentoft, S. (2017). Marine spatial planning in Scotland. Levelling the playing field? Marine Policy, 84, 33‑41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.024 DOI
Soomro, K., Khan, Z., & Ludlov, D. (2017). Participatory governance in smart cities: the urbanAPI case study. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management, 23 (5‑6), Special Issue, 419‑444. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2017.088945 DOI
Sun, C. Y, Tai, H.H., & Yen, A.C. (2019). Use of Planning Training Courses and Activities to Enhance the Understanding of Eco-Community Planning Concepts in Participatory Planning Workshop Participants: A Case Study in Taiwan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(9), Article Number: 1666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16091666 DOI
Ubaura, M. & Akiyama, S. (2016). Planning Processes for Reconstruction with Citizen Participation After Large-Scale Disasters: A Case Study of Reconstruction Study Meetings in Miyako City After the Great East Japan Earthquake. Journal of Disaster Research, 11(3), Special Issue, 486‑495. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2016.p0486 DOI
Verbrugge, L., Buchecker, M., Garcia, X., Gottwald, S., Müller, S., Præstholm, S., & Olafsson, A.S. (2019). Integrating sense of place in planning and management of multifunctional river landscapes: experiences from five European case studies, Sustainability Science, 14(3), 669‑680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625‑019‑00686‑9 DOI
Vukomanovic, J., Skrip, M.M., & Meentemeyer, R.K. (2019). Making It Spatial Makes It Personal: Engaging Stakeholders with Geospatial Participatory Modeling, Land, 8(2), Article Number: 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8020038 DOI
Walker, C., & Baxter, J. (2017). Procedural justice in Canadian wind energy development: A comparison of community-based and technocratic siting processes. Energy Research and Social Science, 29, 160‑169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.016 DOI
Warren-Kretzschmar, B. & Von Haaren, C. (2014). Communicating spatial planning decisions at the landscape and farm level with landscape visualization. IFOREST-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 7, 434‑442. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1175‑007 DOI
Wesley, J.M., & Ainsworth, E.L. (2018). Creating Communities of Choice: Stakeholder Participation in Community Planning, Societies, 8(3), Article Number: 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8030073 DOI
Wu, H., He, Z., & Gong, J. (2010). A virtual globe-based 3D visualization and interactive framework for public participation in urban planning processes, Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 34(4), 291‑298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2009.12.001 DOI
Wu, C.J., Isaksson, K., & Antonson, H. (2017). The struggle to achieve holistic landscape planning: Lessons from planning the E6 road route through Tanum World Heritage Site, Sweden. Land Use Policy, 67, 167‑177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.036 DOI
Wymeersch, E., Oosterlynck, S., & Vanoutrive, T. (2019). The political ambivalences of participatory planning initiatives, Planning Theory, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218812514 DOI


Przegląd Geograficzny





Start page:


End page:


Resource type:


Detailed Resource Type:




Resource Identifier:

2300-8466 (on-line) ; 10.7163/PrzG.2020.4.5


CBGiOS. IGiPZ PAN, sygn.: Cz.181, Cz.3136, Cz.4187 ; click here to follow the link



Language of abstract:



Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license

Terms of use:

Copyright-protected material. [CC BY 4.0] May be used within the scope specified in Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license, full text available at: ; -

Digitizing institution:

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Original in:

Central Library of Geography and Environmental Protection. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization PAS

Projects co-financed by:

Operational Program Digital Poland, 2014-2020, Measure 2.3: Digital accessibility and usefulness of public sector information; funds from the European Regional Development Fund and national co-financing from the state budget.





Citation style: