Town Planning Review

Participation and the pandemic: how planners are keeping democracy alive, online

Town Planning Review (2021), 92, (3), 335–341.

Abstract

Access Token
£25.00
If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

References

AFZALAN, N. and MULLER, B. (2018), ‘Online participatory technologies: opportunities and challenges for enriching participatory planning’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 84, 162-77. Google Scholar

ARNSTEIN, S. R. (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-24. Google Scholar

COUCLELIS, H. (1991), ‘Requirements for planning-relevant GIS: a spatial perspective’, Papers in Regional Science, 70, 9-19. Google Scholar

HONORE, M. (2020), ‘Rail meeting crashes online, leaving public in the dark’, Honolulu Civil Beat, sec. Honolulu. Google Scholar

MANDARANO, L. A. and MEENAR, M. (2015), ‘E-participation: comparing trends in practice and the classroom’, Planning Practice & Research, 30, 457-75. Google Scholar

POTTS, R. (2020), ‘Is a new “Planning 3.0” paradigm emerging? Exploring the relationship between digital technologies and planning theory and practice’, Planning Theory & Practice, 21, 272-89. Google Scholar

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (2020), Meeting Summary for the April 16, 2020 Bay Adapt Public Forum, San Francisco, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Google Scholar

SLOTTERBACK, C. S. (2011), ‘Planners’ perspectives on using technology in participatory processes’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 468-85. Google Scholar

WILLIAMSON, W. and PAROLIN, B. (2013), ‘Web 2.0 and social media growth in planning practice: a longitudinal study’, Planning Practice & Research, 28, 544-62. Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

Details

Author details

Milz, Dan

Gervich, Curt D.