Towards Structured Public Involvement: Enhancing Community Involvement in Transportation Decision Making

  • Keiron Bailey
  • Ted Grossardt

Abstract

Although it is increasingly regarded as essential, public involvement in infrastructure decision-making has a highly problematic history. Public skepticism about the activities and motivations of planning and design professionals remains high. Arnstein’s (1969) famous “Ladder of Citizen Participation” is still a useful way of characterizing levels of public involvement, ranging from the ideal of “citizen control” to creeping “manipulation” by officials and powerful interest groups. While infrastructure problems involve a range of stakeholder groups and span a variety of scales, from the neighborhood transit-station design to large-scale regional highway-corridor selection, in many cases the public involvement processes and associated problems are similar.

Keywords

Transportation Defend Active Element 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnstein, S. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planners Journal 35: 215–224.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, K., J. Brumm, and T. Grossardt. 2001, Towards Structured Public Involvement in Highway Design: A Comparative Study of Visualization Methods and Preference Modeling using CAVE (Casewise Visual Evaluation). Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 6(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell-Jackson, M. 2002. Public Involvement in Transportation: Collaborating With the Customers. Transportation Research News May—June 2002: 3. Washington D.C.: National Academies.Google Scholar
  4. Docherty, I., R. Goodlad, and R. Paddison. 2001. Civic Culture, Community and Citizen Participation in Contrasting Neighborhoods. Urban Studies 38(12): 2225–2250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Federal Highway Administration. 1996. Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  6. Grossardt, T. and K. Bailey. 2002. Transit-IDEA T-33 Expert Panel Review Meeting Interim Report. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.Google Scholar
  7. Grossardt, T., K. Bailey, and J. Brumm. 2001. AMIS: Geographic Information System-Based Corridor Planning Methodology. Transportation Research Record 1768: 224–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jankowski, P. and T. Nyerges. 2001. Geographic Information Systems for Group Decision Making: Towards a Participatory Geographic Information Science. London and New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  9. Lidskog, R. and L. Soneryd. 2000. Transport Infrastructure Investment and Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden: Public Involvement or Exclusion? Environment and Planning A 32(8): 1465–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maier, K. 2001. Citizen Participation in Planning: Climbing a Ladder? European Planning Studies 9(6): 707–719.Google Scholar
  11. Nelessen, A. 1994. Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities. Chicago and Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association Press.Google Scholar
  12. Whitmore, W., E. Cook, and F. Steiner. 1994. Public Involvement in Visual Assessment: The Verde River Corridor Study. Landscape Journal: 27–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keiron Bailey
    • 1
  • Ted Grossardt
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ArizonaUSA
  2. 2.Kentucky Transportation CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations