Advertisement

Urban Media Trends for Enabling Citizen Participation in Urban Planning: Old Wine in New Barrels?

  • Bert P. GrootEmail author
  • Robin Effing
  • Mettina J. A. Veenstra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11021)

Abstract

In recent years, a plethora of new possibilities for interactive urban planning emerged, fuelled by the rise of smart cities. This paper studies the potential of urban media for reshaping the role of citizens in urban planning. Both the historical role that citizens have played in the development of neighbourhoods and the process of urban planning are presented from a literature review. Furthermore, present visions on urban planning and citizen participation in smart cities are reviewed. Lessons learned from this literature study, are confronted with six main trends in urban media from expert interviews. As a result, we deliver an overview that helps urban planners in neighbourhoods in order to profit from advantages of urban media while avoiding their risks. We found that the development of urban media could have both positive and negative effects with regard to citizen participation in urban planning in neighbourhoods.

Keywords

Smart city Urban media Citizen participation Area development 

References

  1. 1.
    Cardullo, P., Kitchin, R.: Being a “citizen” in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Lange, M., de Waal, M.: Owning the city: new media and citizen engagement in urban design. First Monday 18 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angelidou, M.: The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities. J. Urban Technol. 24, 3–28 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Effing, R., Groot, B.P.: Social smart city: introducing digital and social strategies for participatory governance in smart cities. In: Scholl, H.J., et al. (eds.) EGOVIS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9820, pp. 241–252. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44421-5_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foth, M., Tomitsch, M., Forlano, L., Haeusler, M.H., Satchell, C.: Citizens breaking out of filter bubbles. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays - PerDis 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foth, M., Tomitsch, M., Satchell, C., Haeusler, M.H.: From users to citizens. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction on - OzCHI 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahlers, D., Driscoll, P., Löfström, E., Krogstie, J., Wyckmans, A.: Understanding smart cities as social machines. In: 25th International Conference Companion on WWW, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 759–764 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Waal, M.: De Stad als Interface Digitale Media en Stedelijke Openbaarheid (2012). http://hdl.handle.net/11370/effb9976-60cb-4c4f-8c52-c31c1bdf87ee
  9. 9.
    Castells, M.: The Rise of the Network Society. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hajer, M., Dassen, T.: Smart About Cities. Visualising the Challenge for 21st Century Urbanism. NAI010, Rotterdam (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alexander, E.R.: After rationality. Society 26, 15–19 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Cammen, H., de Klerk, L.: Ruimtelijke ordening van grachtengordel tot Vinex-wijk. Het Spectrum, Utrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooks, M.P.: Planning Theory for Practitioners. American Planning Association, Chicago (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobs, J.: The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York (1961)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davidoff, P.: Advocacy and pluralism in planning. In: Readings in Planning Theory: Fourth Edition (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arnstein, S.R.: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35, 216–224 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grönlund, Å.: ICT is not participation is not democracy – eParticipation development models revisited. In: ePart 2009, pp. 12–23 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pröpper, I.: De aanpak van interactief beleid: elke situatie is anders. Coutinho, Bussum (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lodigiani, A.: E-planning: the digital toolbox in participatory urban planning. In: Contin, A., Paolini, P., Salerno, R. (eds.) Innovative Technologies in Urban Mapping. SSSSI, vol. 10, pp. 135–144. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03798-1_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hajer, M.: De Energieke Samenleving. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, Den Haag (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lindblom, C.E.: The science of muddling through. Public Adm. Rev. 19, 79–88 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wellman, B., et al.: The social affordances of the internet for networked individualism. J. Comput. Commun. 8 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brafman, O., Beckstrom, R.: The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. Penguin Putnam Inc., New York (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Townsend, A.: Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia. W.W. Norton & Company, New York/London (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meijer, A.: Bestuur in de datapolis: Slimme stad, blije burger? Boombestuurskunde, Den Haag (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., Nijkamp, P.: Smart cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 18, 65–82 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A.C., Mangano, G., Scorrano, F.: Current trends in smart city initiatives: some stylised facts. Cities 38, 25–36 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Granier, B., Kudo, H.: How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese “Smart Communities”. Inf. Polity 21, 61–76 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Denters, B., Tonkens, E., Verhoeven, I., Bakker, J.: Burgers maken hun buurt., Den Haag (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C.: The benefits of Facebook “Friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Commun. 12, 1143–1168 (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Den Haag Marketing: De beste Pokémon Go-hotspots In Kijkduin, Scheveningen en de Haagse binnenstad. https://denhaag.com/nl/pokemon
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    van Dijck, J., Poell, T., de Waal, M.: De platformsamenleving. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Dijck, J.: The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Helmond, A.: The platformization of the web: making web data platform ready. Soc. Media + Soc. 1, 2056305115603080 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 59–68 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wei, L., Yan, Y.: Knowledge production and political participation: reconsidering the knowledge gap theory in the web 2.0 environment. In: ICIME 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Comscore: Global Digital Future in Focus. 2018 International Edition (2018)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zuckerberg, M.: Facebook Mark Zuckerberg Posts. https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102764095821611
  40. 40.
    Veenstra, M.: Verbonden en verbindend. De openbare ruimte in de smart city, Enschede (2016)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tan, E.: The evolution of city gaming. In: Portugali, J., Stolk, E. (eds.) Complexity, Cognition, Urban Planning and Design. SPC, pp. 271–292. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32653-5_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kamel Boulos, M.N., Lu, Z., Guerrero, P., Jennett, C., Steed, A.: From urban planning and emergency training to Pokémon Go: Int. J. Health Geogr. 16, 7 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abt, C.C.: Serious Games. Viking Press, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schouten, B., Ferri, G., de Lange, M., Millenaar, K.: Games as strong concepts for city-making. In: Nijholt, A. (ed.) Playable Cities. GMSE, pp. 23–45. Springer, Singapore (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1962-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang, S., Moore, A.B.: The usability of online geographic virtual reality for urban planning. In: Isikdag, U. (ed.) Innovations in 3D Geo-Information Sciences. LNGC, pp. 225–242. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00515-7_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jutraz, A., Zupancic, T.: Virtual worlds as support tools for public engagement in urban design. In: Geertman, S., Ferreira, J., Goodspeed, R., Stillwell, J. (eds.) Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities. LNGC, pp. 391–408. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vanolo, A.: Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures 82, 26–36 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shelton, T., Zook, M., Wiig, A.: The “actually existing smart city”. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 8, 13–25 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kitchin, R.: Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 8, 131–136 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bert P. Groot
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robin Effing
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mettina J. A. Veenstra
    • 1
  1. 1.Saxion University of Applied SciencesEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations