Current Environmental Health Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 267–277 | Cite as

Public and Stakeholder Engagement and the Built Environment: a Review

  • Kevin M. Leyden
  • Amanda Slevin
  • Thomas Grey
  • Mike Hynes
  • Fanney Frisbaek
  • Richard Silke
Built Environment and Health (MJ Nieuwenhuijsen and AJ de Nazelle, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Built Environment and Health

Abstract

Purpose of Review

We review 50 articles from 2015 and 2016 that focus upon public and stakeholder engagement as it pertains to the built environment. Our purpose is to understand the current state of the literature and approaches being used to better enable public and stakeholder engagement. As part of this review, we consider whether recent digital and mobile technologies have enabled advances for stakeholder and public participation.

Recent Findings

The literature suggests some positive and some challenging developments. Researchers clearly suggest that most policy-makers and planners understand, and to some extent, aspire toward enabling more inclusive participatory planning processes. That said, there is far less consensus as to how to make meaningful inclusive participatory processes possible even with digital, as well as more traditional, tools. This lack of consensus is true across all academic disciplines reviewed.

Summary

We discuss these issues as well as current solutions offered by many scholars. We find that no single solution can be applied to different situations, as contextual factors create different problems in different situations, and that the participation process itself can create biases that can—intentionally or unintentionally—benefit some participants over others. We conclude with a series of questions for practitioners and researchers to consider when evaluating inclusive engagement.

Keywords

Built environment Stakeholder Engagement Public participation Planning Urban 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Kevin M. Leyden, Amanda Slevin, Thomas Grey, Mike Hynes, Fanney Frisbaek and Richard Silke declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang J. Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: a review and future directions. Int J Proj Manag. 2015;33(2):446–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malekpour S, Brown RR, de Haan FJ. Strategic planning of urban infrastructure for environmental sustainability: understanding the past to intervene for the future. Cities. 2015;46:67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luederitz C, Brink E, Gralla F, Hermelingmeier V, Meyer M, Niven L, et al. A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;14:98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wehn U, Rusca M, Evers J, Lanfranchi V. Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: a governance analysis. Environ Sci Pol. 2015;48:225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carr G. Stakeholder and public participation in river basin management—an introduction. Wiley Interdisc Rev: Water. 2015;2(4):393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rizzo E, Pesce M, Pizzol L, Alexandrescu FM, Giubilato E, Critto A, et al. Brownfield regeneration in Europe: identifying stakeholder perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs. Land Use Policy. 2015;48:437–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hurlbert M, Gupta J. The split ladder of participation: a diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environ Sci Pol. 2015;50:100–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobs K, Lebel L, Buizer J, Addams L, Matson P, McCullough E, et al. Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources management. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(17):4591–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thaler T, Levin-Keitel M. Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management—a question of roles and power: lessons from England. Environ Sci Pol. 2016;55:292–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milan BF. How participatory planning processes for transit-oriented development contribute to social sustainability. J Environ Stud Sci. 2016;6(3):520–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Cascetta E, Carteni A, Pagliara F, Montanino M. A new look at planning and designing transportation systems: a decision-making model based on cognitive rationality, stakeholder engagement and quantitative methods. Transp Policy. 2015;38:27–39. This paper proposes an innovative, cross-disciplinary, decision-making model. It is interesting as it highlights just how complex designing an effective public engagement process can be.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jillella SS, Matan A, Newman P. Participatory sustainability approach to value capture-based urban rail financing in India through deliberated stakeholder engagement. Sustainability. 2015;7(7):8091–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serrao-Neumann S, Harman B, Leitch A, Low CD. Public engagement and climate adaptation: insights from three local governments in Australia. J Environ Plan Manag. 2015;58(7):1196–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gramberger M, Zellmer K, Kok K, Metzger MJ. Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): a new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Clim Chang. 2015;128(3–4):201–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, Schrandt S, Sheridan S, Gerson J, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(5):1033–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Conklin A, Morris Z, Nolte E. What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect. 2015;18(2):153–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fenton P, Gustafsson S, Ivner J, Palm J. Sustainable energy and climate strategies: lessons from planning processes in five municipalities. J Clean Prod. 2015;98:213–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adil AM, Ko Y. Socio-technical evolution of decentralized energy systems: a critical review and implications for urban planning and policy. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2016;57:1025–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fenton P, Gustafsson S, Ivner J, Palm J. Stakeholder participation in municipal energy and climate planning—experiences from Sweden. Local Environ. 2016;21(3):272–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drazkiewicz A, Challies E, Newig J. Public participation and local environmental planning: testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies from Germany. Land Use Policy. 2015;46:211–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    •• Fung A. Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Adm Rev. 2015;75(4):513–22. Fung has previously offered a highly influential framework for understanding the institutional possibilities for public participation. Here, he takes stock of the prospects for participation to enhance democracy and identifies three key challenges to participatory governance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chu E, Anguelovski I, Carmin J. Inclusive approaches to urban climate adaptation planning and implementation in the Global South. Clim Pol. 2016;16(3):372–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gustafsson S, Ivner J, Palm J. Management and stakeholder participation in local strategic energy planning—examples from Sweden. J Clean Prod. 2015;98:205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    García-Nieto AP, Quintas-Soriano C, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martín-López B. Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders’ profiles. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;13:141–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davies KK, Fisher KT, Dickson ME, Thrush SF, Le Heron R. Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecol Soc. 2015;20(2):37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whitton J, Parry IM, Akiyoshi M, Lawless W. Conceptualizing a social sustainability framework for energy infrastructure decisions. Energ Res Soc Sci. 2015;8:127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Forrester J, Cook B, Bracken L, Cinderby S, Donaldson A. Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Appl Geogr. 2015;56:199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jarvis RM, Breen BB, Krägeloh CU, Billington DR. Citizen science and the power of public participation in marine spatial planning. Mar Policy. 2015;57:21–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jao I, Kombe F, Mwalukore S, Bull S, Parker M, Kamuya D, et al. Involving research stakeholders in developing policy on sharing public health research data in Kenya: views on fair process for informed consent, access oversight, and community engagement. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015;10(3):264–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaczorowska A, Kain JH, Kronenberg J, Haase D. Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: integration challenges in complex urban settings—case of Stockholm. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;3.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Decker DJ, Forstchen AB, Pomeranz EF, Smith CA, Riley SJ, Jacobson CA, et al. Stakeholder engagement in wildlife management: does the public trust doctrine imply limits? J Wildl Manag. 2015;79(2):174–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ljungholm DP. Citizen participation in organizational decision making. Review of Contemporary Philosophy. 2015;14:138–43.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cheyne C. Changing urban governance in New Zealand: public participation and democratic legitimacy in local authority planning and decision-making 1989–2014. Urban Policy Res. 2015;33(4):416–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Webler T, Tuler S, Dow K, Whitehead J, Kettle N. Design and evaluation of a local analytic-deliberative process for climate adaptation planning. Local Environ. 2016;21(2):166–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Druschke C, Hychka K. Manager perspectives on communication and public engagement in ecological restoration project success. Ecol Soc. 2015;20(1).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    May AD. Encouraging good practice in the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. Case Stud Transp Policy. 2015;3(1):3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Head BW, Alford J. Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Adm Soc. 2015;47(6):711–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu J, Leung MY. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study. Int J Proj Manag. 2015;33(5):1124–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vogel B, Henstra D. Studying local climate adaptation: a heuristic research framework for comparative policy analysis. Glob Environ Chang. 2015;31:110–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    • Kleinhans R, Van Ham M, Evans-Cowley J. Using social media and mobile technologies to foster engagement and self-organization in participatory urban planning and neighbourhood governance. Plan Pract Res. 2015;30(3):237–47. There is much emphasis on the possibilities for virtual tools in the participation process. This paper provides a useful counterbalance to that emphasising how virtual tools can currently only complement real-world interaction.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Salim F, Haque U. Urban computing in the wild: a survey on large scale participation and citizen engagement with ubiquitous computing, cyber physical systems, and internet of things. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2015;81:31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Letaifa SB. How to strategize smart cities: revealing the SMART model. J Bus Res. 2015;68(7):1414–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stratigea A, Papadopoulou CA, Panagiotopoulou M. Tools and technologies for planning the development of smart cities. J Urban Technol. 2015;22(2):43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ertiö TP. Participatory apps for urban planning—space for improvement. Plann Pract Res. 2015;30(3):303–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Raford N. Online foresight platforms: evidence for their impact on scenario planning & strategic foresight. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2015;97:65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Arkema KK, Verutes GM, Wood SA, Clarke-Samuels C, Rosado S, Canto M, et al. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(24):7390–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rega C, Baldizzone G. Public participation in strategic environmental assessment: a practitioners’ perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2015;50:105–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jacquet JB. The rise of “private participation” in the planning of energy projects in the rural United States. Soc Nat Resour. 2015;28(3):231–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Greco G, Sciulli N, D’Onza G. The influence of stakeholder engagement on sustainability reporting: evidence from Italian local councils. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(4):465–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hunter S, Leyden KM. Beyond NIMBY. Policy Stud J. 1995;23(4):601–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Smith CA. The role of state wildlife professionals under the public trust doctrine. J Wildl Manag. 2011;75(7):1539–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kettl DF. The next government of the United States: why our institutions fail us and how to fix them. WW Norton & Company; 2008.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    National Research Council. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969;35(4):216–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Olson M. The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1965.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chong D. Collective action and the civil rights movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wolfinger RE, Rosenstone SJ. Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Leyden KM. The purpose and politics of Congressional committee hearings: who participates and why (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Leyden KM. Interest group resources and testimony at congressional hearings. Legis Stud Q. 1995;1:431–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Salisbury RH. An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest J Polit Sci. 1969;1:1–32.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Schlozman KL, Tierney JT. Organized interests and American democracy. Harpercollins College Div; 1986.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Walker JL. Mobilizing interest groups in America: patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wright JR. Interest groups and congress: lobbying, contributions, and influence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 1996.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Walker JL. The origins and maintenance of interest groups in America. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1983;77(02):390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin M. Leyden
    • 1
  • Amanda Slevin
    • 2
  • Thomas Grey
    • 3
  • Mike Hynes
    • 4
  • Fanney Frisbaek
    • 5
  • Richard Silke
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Political Science and SociologyNational University of Ireland, GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.School of Political Science and SociologyNational University of Ireland, GalwayGalwayIreland
  3. 3.TrinityHaus Research Centre, School of EngineeringTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland
  4. 4.School of Political Science & SociologyNational University of Ireland, GalwayGalwayIreland
  5. 5.SEEE Solutions LtdJessheimNorway
  6. 6.School of Political Science and SociologyNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations