Advertisement

Tools and Technologies for Enhancing Public Engagement in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning—The Case of Rethymno, Crete

  • Efthimios Bakogiannis
  • Maria Siti
  • Charalampos Kyriakidis
  • Georgia Christodoulopoulou
  • Avgi Vassi
Chapter
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

This work deals with public participation in developing Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) in Greece, provided that SUMP development procedures require a high level of public engagement in several stages. Its importance lies on the fact that although the European Commission has provided specific guidelines, imposing a distinct framework for public engagement in developing a SUMP, Greek practices and maturity in participatory planning in general and sustainable mobility planning in particular are lagging behind the common know-how and practice of other European member states. The study attempts to establish an integrated methodology that combines classical and ICT-enabled tools and approaches in order a higher public engagement level to be achieved. This methodology is implemented and tested in a specific case study, the city of Rethymno—Crete, Greece. More specifically, the proposed methodology incorporates traditional techniques for gathering commuting data from citizens and visitors (i.e. questionnaires, mini surveys, workshops and public meetings) as well as innovative ones (i.e. map-based questionnaires, inclusive web-based participatory tools), used for data collection on public opinions for future planning purposes. Emphasis is placed on the development of a web-based crowdsourcing tool as a key for gathering ideas and views on sustainable urban mobility issues. Additionally, particular emphasis is placed upon exploring barriers to participation as well as ways to eliminate such barriers and support a more active engagement of citizens in sustainable mobility planning exercises in the Greek context.

Keywords

Smart city Participatory planning Sustainable urban mobility Rethymno 

References

  1. Aletta, F., Masullo, M., Maffei, L., et al. (2016). The effect of vision on the perception of the noise produced by a chiller in a common living environment. Noise Control Engineering Journal, 64(3), 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastasiou, I. (2015). Civic engagement and participatory city-making - A fly-through towards systemic change. Digital Cities 9-Hackable cities: From subversive city making to systemic change, 7th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Limerick, Ireland, June, https://eprints.qut.edu.au/101281/. Retrieved 3 July 2017.
  3. Andrikopoulou, E., Giannakou, A., Kaukalas, G., et al. (2007). City and urban practices. Athens, Greece: Kritiki Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Apostolopoulos, K., Geli, M., Petrelli, P., Potsiou, C., & Ioannidis, C. et al. (2016). A new model for cadastral surveying using crowdsourcing. Survey Review, 50(359), 122–133 (2016),  https://doi.org/10.1080/00396265.2016.1253522.
  5. Bakogiannis, E., Siti, M., Vassi, A., Christodoulopoulou, G., & Kyriakidis, C. (2014). Case studies and sustainable urban mobility research schemes: A communication channel among researchers and interdisciplinary community groups. International Journal of Service Science, Management and Engineering, 1(4), 42–51.Google Scholar
  6. Bakogiannis, E., Kyriakidis, C., Siti, M., et al. (2015). Sustainable mobility: A bet for a better future for cities—The case study of Chalkida, Greece. Paper presented at the 4th Pan-Hellenic Conference in Urban Planning and Regional Development, Volos, 24–27 September.Google Scholar
  7. Bakogiannis, E., Kyriakidis, C., Siti, M., et al. (2016). A study of the development of commercial activity in city centers: The Commercial Triangle of Athens. Paper presented at the High Level FIG and World Bank Conference on Sustainable Real Estate Markets Policy Framework and Necessary Reforms: For a world free of poverty, fear and inequality, where life is safe and growth is resilient and sustainable, Athens, Greece, September.Google Scholar
  8. Basiouka, S., Potsiou, C. (2012). The voluntary contribution of citizens in cadastre - crowdsourcing in cadastre. Paper presented at the FIG Working Week 2012 on “Knowing to manage the territory, protect the environment, evaluate the cultural heritage”, Rome, Italy, 6–10 May 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Basiouka, S., & Potsiou, C. (2013). The volunteered geographic information in cadastre: perspectives and citizens’ motivations over potential participation in mapping. GeoJournal, 79(3), 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beria, P., Grimaldi, R. (2014). Cost benefit analysis to assess urban mobility plans—consumers’ surplus calculation and integration with transport models. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/59590/1/MPRA_paper_59590.pdf. Retrieved 29 Sept 2017.
  11. Bizjak. I. (2012). Improving public participation in spatial planning with Web 2.0 tools. Urbani Izziv, 23(1), 112–124.Google Scholar
  12. Bohic, C. (2017). Citymakers: un levier open innovation pour Renault dans la mobilité urbaine. http://www.itespresso.fr/city-makers-levier-open-innovation-renault-mobilite-urbaine-162874.html?inf_by=59dde343671db8a0398b4ae4. Retrieved 4 Oct 2017.
  13. CityMakers (2017). How does it work? https://citymakers.io/. Retrieved 4 Oct 2017.
  14. Dede, O. M., Dikmen, C. B., & Ayten, A. M. (2012). A new approach for participative urban design: an urban design study on Cumhuriyet urban square in Yozgat, Turkey. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 5(5), 122–131.Google Scholar
  15. Dimitriadis, S., & Tzortzaki, A. (2010). Marketing: Principles-Strategies-Applications. Athens: Rosili Editions.Google Scholar
  16. ELTIS (2017). The SUMP process. The urban mobility observatory. http://www.eltis.org/content/sump-process. Retrieved 25 Oct 2017
  17. European Commission (2011). White paper on transport: Roadmap to a single European transport area—towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. COM (2011) 144, Brussels 2011.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2013). Guidelines: developing and implementing sustainable urban mobility plans. http://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-developing-and-implementing-a-sump_final_web_jan2014b.pdf. Retrieved 25 Feb 2017.
  19. Ganti, R., Ye, F., & Lei, H. (2011). Mobile crowdsensing: current state and future challenges. IEEE Communications Magazine, 49(11), 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia-Martí, I., Torres-Sospedra, J. & Rodríguez-Pupo, L. E. (2014). A comparative study on VGI and professional noise data. In J. Huerta, S. Schande, & C. Granell (Eds.), Connecting a digital Europe through location and place. Proceedings of the AGILE 2014 International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Castellon, 3–6 June.Google Scholar
  21. Hoffken, S. & Streich, B. (2011). Engaging the mobile citizens—how mobile devices offer new ways of civil engagement. RealCorp 2011. Essen, Germany, May.Google Scholar
  22. Jack, B., & Clarke, A. M. (1998). The purpose and use of questionnaires in research. Professional Nurse, 14(3), 176–179.Google Scholar
  23. Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism Research. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Kehagia, F. (2017). Sustainable mobility. In A. Karakitsiou, A. Migdalas, S. Rassia, & P. M. Pardalos (Eds.), City Networks (pp. 99–119). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khreis, H., May, A. D., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). Health impacts of urban transport policy measures: a guidance note for practice. Journal of Transport Health, 6, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kyriakidis, C. (2012). Citizen and city: Issues related in public participation in the process of spatial planning. In 3rd National Conference of Planning and Regional Development, Volos, 27–30 September 2012.Google Scholar
  27. Kyriakidis, C. (2016). The function of urban public space in relation to local parameters: Comparative study between Larisa and Nottingham. Aeichoros, 24, 67–85.Google Scholar
  28. Kyriakidis, C. and Siolas, A. (2014). The sense of safety as an urban development parameter: The case study of the center of Athens. In 12th Tactical scientific conference ERSA—GR. Athens, Greece, June 2014.Google Scholar
  29. LeGates, R. (2011). Prologue: How to study cities. In R. LeGates & F. Stout (Eds.), The city reader (5th ed., pp. 7–12). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lopez-Lambas, M., Corazza, M. V., Monzon, A., et.al. (2010). Urban mobility plans throughout Europe: A definitive challenge toward sustainability. In Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 2010.Google Scholar
  31. Official Journal of the European Union (2003, 26 May). Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4a80a6c9-cdb3-4e27-a721-d5df1a0535bc.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.
  32. Okraszewska, R., Romanowska, A., Wolek, M., et al. (2018). Integration of a multilevel tranpost system model into Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning. Sustainability, 10, 479–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Papadopoulou, Ch. and Stratigea, A. (2014). Traditional VS Web-based participatory tools in support of spatial planning in ‘lagging-behind’ peripheral regions, Proceedings of International Conference on ‘Socio-economic sustainability, Regional Development and Spatial Planning: European and International Dimensions and Perspectives’. 165–170.Google Scholar
  34. Papaioannou, P., Politis, I., & Nikolaidou, A. (2016). Steps towards sustaining a SUMP network in Greece. Transportation Research Proceedia, 14, 945–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pereira, G. C., Rocha, M. C. F. and Poplin, A., 2012. E-Participation: Social media and the public space. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Science and its Applications, Vol I, 491–501.Google Scholar
  36. Pödör, A., Révész, A. (2014). Noise map: Professional versus crowdsourced data. In Huerta, J., Schande, S., Granell, C. (eds) (2014). Connecting a digital Europe through location and place. Proceedings of the AGILE 2014 International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Castellon, 3–6 June.Google Scholar
  37. Pödör, A., Révész, A., Oscal, A., et al. (2015). Testing some Aspects of Usability of Crowdsourced Smartphone Generated Noise Maps. Journal for Geographic Information Science, 1(2015), 354–358.Google Scholar
  38. Poslončec-Petrić, V., Vukovićb, V., Frangeša, S., et al. (2016), Voluntary noise mapping for smart city, ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences III-4/W1, 131–137.Google Scholar
  39. Rodrigues, J., Aguiar, A., Barros, J. (2014). SenseMyCity: Crowdsourcing an Urban Sensor,arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.2070
  40. Sa, A. (2014). Fixed sensors integration for future cities using M2 M – Master Thesis, FEUP, University of Porto, Portugal. [Online] Available at: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/ Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  41. Sá, N. L., & Gouveia, G. B. (2011). Sustainable mobility—analysis of sustainable mobility measures in cities. The Sustainable World, 142, 157–168.Google Scholar
  42. Schweizer, I., Bärtl, R., Schulz, A. et al. (2011). NoiseMap-real-time participatory noise maps. In Second International Workshop on Sensing Applications on Mobile Phones. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8b8d/76765357bd6f82936d25d05512f2b76ac0b6.pdf, Accessed 27 Aug 2017.
  43. See, L., Mooney, P., Foody, G., et al. (2016). Crowdsourcing, citizen science or volunteered geographic information? The current state of crowdsourced geographic information. International Journal of Geo-Information, 5(5), 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siangliulue, P., Joel C., Steven P. D. et.al. (2016). IdeaHound: Improving Large-scale Collaborative Ideation with Crowd-powered Real-time Semantic Modeling. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Tokyo, Japan, October 16–19, 609–624.Google Scholar
  45. Silva, A.B. and Ribeiro, A. (2009). An integrated planning for cities to promote sustainable mobility. In Proceedings of European Transport, The Netherlands, October 2009.Google Scholar
  46. Somarakis, G., & Stratigea, A. (2014). Public involvement in taking legislative action as to the spatial development of the tourist sector in Greece—the “OpenGov” platform experience. Future Internet, 6, 735–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stojanovic, D., Predic, B., & Stojanovic, N. (2016). Mobile crowd sensing for smart urban mobility. In C. Capineri, M. Haklay, H. Huang, et al. (Eds.), European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information (pp. 371–382). London, UK: Ubiquity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strange, V., Forest, S., Oakley, A. and The Ripple Study Team. (2003). Using research questionnaires with young people in schools: the influence of the social context. International Journal on Social Research Methodology, 6(4), 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stratigea, A. (2015). Theory and methods of participatory planning. Greek Academic Electronic Books, ISBN 978-960-603-241-7, Athens, Greece (in Greek).Google Scholar
  50. Tellus Toolkit (n.r.) Homepage. http://www.tellus-toolkit.com/. Retrieved 27 Oct 2017.
  51. Trakatellis, A. (2004). Sustainable development: Challenges and Prospects in view of the enlargement of the EU in the Balkans. In International Conference on “Managing Economic Opportunities and Risks of the enlargement of the EU to Bulgaria for the Prefectures of Series and Drama, Greece. http://www.itaes.gr/conference_trakatellis_antonis_el.doc. Retrieved 23 Mar 2008.
  52. Tsiotas, D., & Polyzos, S. (2017). The topology of urban road networks and its role to urban mobility. Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 482–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. UNECE (1998). Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf. Retrieved 23 March 2008.
  54. Verani, E. and Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M. (2013). Traffic management integrated in the urban development of an area towards sustainability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Changing Cities I: Spatial, morphological, formal and socio-economic dimensions, Skiathos, Greece, June 2013, 2408–2417.Google Scholar
  55. Verani, E., Pouzoukidou, G., Sdoukopoulos, A. (2015). Urban patterns, mobility and environmental quality: An empirical study for the city of Thessaloniki, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Changing Cities II: Spatial Design, Landscape and Socio-economic dimensions, Porto Heli, Greece, June 2015.Google Scholar
  56. Xiao, Y., Simoens, P., Pillai. P., et al. (2013). Lowering the barriers to large-scale mobile crowdsensing. In 14th Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications. Jekyll Island, Georgia, 26–27 February.Google Scholar
  57. Zhang, Q. (2014). Crowdsourcing in Community Participatory Planning in China: Case Studies in Four Communities in Shenzhen—M.Sc. in City Planning, MIT, Department of Urban Studies and Planning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Efthimios Bakogiannis
    • 1
  • Maria Siti
    • 1
  • Charalampos Kyriakidis
    • 1
  • Georgia Christodoulopoulou
    • 1
  • Avgi Vassi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography & Regional PlanningSchool of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations