Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework

Sinan LEVEND, (Konya Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlık ve Tasarım Fakültesi, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü, Konya, TÜRKİYE)
Thomas B Fischer (University of Liverpool, School of Environmental Sciences, Department of Geography and Planning, Liverpool)
Megaron
6 2
Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 184 - 201 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947 İndeks Tarihi: 06-07-2023

Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework

Öz:
Participation in urban planning is important to increase accountability, transparency, and legitimacy of decisions. In this context, it is essential to establish the needs and priorities of stakeholders potentially affected by decisions. However, poor participation practices undermine the public’s trust in decision-making processes and reduce the public’s willingness to participate. The study aims to contribute to urban planning theory by discussing what participatory planning means. Furthermore, a systematic, objective-led, and negotiation- based decision support framework is proposed, based on a 2D/3D visualization and analytic hierarchy process for use in participatory urban planning. The framework aims to increase the legitimacy of decisions taken without ignoring the political dimension of planning. It was tested in a regeneration case study in Liverpool (UK). Testing shows that the framework enables technical issues to be addressed in a way that the public can understand. In the process, a systematic evaluation of participants’ priorities is possible and negotiated participation is supported. The framework could support transferring stakeholders’ priorities into plan decisions with online meetings and surveys, for example, when the possibility of physical meetings is restricted.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Aksakoğlu, E. (2007), Yerel Kalkınmada Katılımcı Politi kalar: Çanakkale Örnek Alan Değerlendirmesi (un published PhD thesis), İstanbul, İTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Ananda, J. (2007), ’Implementing participatory decision making in forest planning’, Environmental Manage ment, 534-544.
  • Archon, F. (2006), ‘Varieties of participation in complex governance’, Public administration review, 66-75.
  • Arnstein, S. (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Jour nal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216- 224.
  • Ataöv, A. (2007a), ‘Planlamada sosyal bilimcinin değişen rolü: Toplumdan biri olmak’, METU JFA, 24, 139- 152.
  • Ataöv, A. (2007b), ‘Democracy to become reality: Partic ipatory planning through action research’, Habitat International, 31, 333-344.
  • Ataöv, A. (2008), ‘Constructing co-generative search pro cesses: Re-thinking urban planning/making urban plans actionable’, European Planning Studies, 16, 829-851.
  • Ataöv, A. (2013), ‘Karar verme süreçlerinin demokra tikleşmesinde stratejik yaklaşımın rolü ve örnek uygulamalar Süreç Tasarımı, Katılım ve Eylem’, Planlama Dergisi, 23, 125-133.
  • Atlee, T., Buckley, S., Godec, J., Harris, R. A., Heierbach er, S., Nurse, L. and Mccallum, S. (2009), The Core Principles for Public Engagement,
  • http://ncdd.org/rc/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/PEPfi nal-expanded.pdf (accessed 03 January 2019).
  • Bannon, L., and Ehn, P. (2012), Design Matters in Partici patory Design, in J. Simonsen, & T. Robertson (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, London: Routledge, 37-63.
  • Berntzen, L., and Johannessen, M. (2016), The role of citi zen participation in municipal Smart City projects: Lessons learned from Norway, in J. Gil-Garcia, T. Pardo, & T. Nam (eds), Smarter as the new urban agenda, Texas: Springer, 299-314.
  • Bhushan, N., and Rai, K. (2007), Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process, London: Springer.
  • Blondet, M., Koning, J., Borrass, L., Ferranti, F., and Geit zenauer, M. (2017), ‘Participation in the implemen tation of Natura 2000: a comparative study of six EU member states’, Land Use Policy, 66, 346-355.
  • Boroushaki, S., and Malczewski, J. (2010), ‘Measuring con sensus for collaborative decision-making: A GIS based approach’, Computers, environment and ur ban systems, 322-332.
  • Brown, G., and Chin, S. (2013), ‘Assessing the effectiveness of public participation in neighbourhood planning’, Planning Practice and Research, 28, 563-588.
  • Brown, G., and Kyttä, M. (2014), ‘Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research’, Applied Ge ography, 46, 122-136.
  • Bruns, B. (2003), Water tenure reform: Developing an ex tended ladder of participation. Politics of the com mons: Articulating development and strengthening local practices. Chiang Mai: RCSD Conference.
  • Bryson, J., Quick, K., Slotterback, C., and Crosby, B. (2013), ‘Designing Public Participation Processes’, Public administration review, 23-34.
  • Bunruamkaew, K., and Murayama, Y. (2011), ‘Site Suitabil ity Evaluation for Ecotourism Using GIS & AHP: A Case Study of Surat Thani Province, Thailand’, Pro cedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 269-278.
  • Creighton, J. (2005), The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involve ment, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  • De FSM Russo, R., and Camanho, R. (2015), ‘Criteria in AHP: a systematic review of literature’, Procedia Computer Science, 1123-1132.
  • De Luca, S. (2014), ‘Public engagement in strategic trans portation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach’, Transport Policy, 33, 110-124.
  • Diez-Rodríguez, J. J., Fischer, T. B., & Di Zio, S. (2019). In troducing a group spatial decision support system for use in strategic environmental assessment of on shore wind farm development in Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 1239-1254..
  • Dunn, C. (2007), ‘Participatory GIS—a people's GIS?’, Progress in human geography, 31, 616-637.
  • Ehn, P. (2008), Participation in design things. The tenth an niversary conference on participatory design, Indi ana: Indiana University, 92-101.
  • Estoque, R. (2012), ‘Analytic hierarchy process in geospa tial analysis’, in Y. Murayama, Progress in geospatial analysis, Springer: Springer, 157-181.
  • Fainstein, S. (2000), ‘New directions in planning theory’, Urban Affairs Review, 35, 451-478.
  • Filipović, M. (2007), The analytic hierarchy process as a support for decision making, Spatium, 44-59.
  • Fischer, T. B. (2003). Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environmental impact assess ment review, 23(2), 155-170.
  • Fischer, T. B. (2007), The theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment: towards a more system atic approach,. Routledge.
  • Fischer, T. B., Kidd, S., Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., & Peel, D. (2009). Learning through EC directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in Germany. Environmental Impact Assess ment Review, 29(6), 421-428.
  • Fischer, T. B. (2016). Lessons for impact assessment from the UK referendum on BREXIT. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34(3), 183-185.
  • Friedmann, J. (1998), ‘The new political economy of plan ning: the rise of civil society’, in M. Douglass, & J. Friedmann, Cities for Citizens, Chichester: Wiley, 19–38.
  • Fung, A. (2015), ‘Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future’, Public Administration Review, 75, 513-522.
  • Fung, H., and Fischer, T. (2017), ‘Public Participation Win dow, Time and Outcome’, IAIA17 Conference Pro ceedings, Montréal: The International Association for Impact Assessment. In http://conferences. iaia. org/2017/final-papers. Php, 1-6.
  • Geray, C. (1998), Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi ve Belediyeler’, Türk İdare Dergisi, 70, 323-346. Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., Mcdaniels,
  • T., and Ohlson, D. (2012), Structured decision mak ing: a practical guide to environmental management choices, Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Gürsakal, S. (2015), ‘Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri’, in M. Aytaç, & N. Gürsakal, Karar Verme, Bursa: Dora Basım-Yayım, 243-274.
  • González, A., & Geneletti, D. (2021). GIS-based strategic environmental assessment. In: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Envi ronmental Assessment, (pp. 80-98), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Hassan, G., El Hefnawi, A., and El Refaie, M. (2011), ‘Effi ciency of participation in planning’, Alexandria En gineering Journal, 50, 203-212.
  • Healey, P. (1992), ‘Planning through debate: the commu nicative turn in planning theory’, Town planning review, 143-162.
  • Healey, P. (1996), ‘The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy for mation’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 217-234.
  • Healey, P. (1997), Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBc Press.
  • Healey, P. (1998a), ‘Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society’, Town planning review, 1-21.
  • Healey, P. (1998b), ‘Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning’, Envi ronment and Planning A, 1531-1546.
  • Horelli, L. (2003), ‘A methodology of participatory plan ning’, in R. Bechtel, & A. Churchman, Handbook of environmental psychology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 607-628.
  • IAP (International Association of Public Participation) (2014), IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, In ternational Association of Public Participation. : https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/ resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_ FINAL.pdf (accessed 10 October 2018).
  • Innes, J., and Booher, D. (1999), ‘Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collabo rative planning’, Journal of the American planning association, 9-26.
  • Innes, J., and Booher, D. (2000), ‘Public participation in planning: new strategies for the 21st century’, The Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Cali fornia: University of California, 1-39.
  • Innes, J., and Booher, D. (2004), ‘Reframing public partici pation: strategies for the 21st century’, Planning the ory & practice, 419-436.
  • Involve. (2005), People and Participation: How to Put Cit izens at the Heart of Decision Making, London: In volve.
  • Irvin, R., and Stansbury, J. (2004), ‘Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?’, Public ad ministration review, 64, 55-65.
  • Ishizaka, A., and Nemery, P. (2013), Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software, John Wiley & Sons.
  • Kahila-Tani, M., Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., and Tyger, T. (2016), ‘Let the citizens map—public participation GIS as a planning support system in the Helsinki master plan process’, Planning Practice & Research, 31, 195-214.
  • Kajanus, M., Kangas, J., and Kurttila, M. (2004), ‘The use of value focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management’, Tourism Manage ment, 25, 499-506.
  • Koramaz, T., and Gülersoy, N. (2011), Users' Responses to 2D and 3D Visualization Techniques in Urban Con servation Process, 15th International Conference on Information Visualisation, London: IEEE, 543-548.
  • Kovács, E., Kelemen, E., Kiss, G., Kalóczkai, Á., Fabók, V., and Mihók, B. (2017), ‘Evaluation of participatory planning: Lessons from Hungarian Natura 2000 management planning processes’, Journal of envi ronmental management, 540-550.
  • Laurian, L. (2004), ‘Public participation in environmental decision making: Findings from communities fac ing toxic waste cleanup’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 53-65.
  • Laurian, L., and Shaw, M. (2009), ‘Evaluation of public par ticipation: the practices of certified planners’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, 293-309.
  • Levend, S., and Erdem, R. (2017), ‘Evaluation of Urban De cisions in the Context of Urban Regime Theory: The Case of Konya Courthouse Project’, International Journal of Engineering Inventions, 6, 16-34.
  • Lienert, J., Lisa, S., Egger, C., and Maurer, M. (2015), ‘Struc tured decision-making for sustainable water infra structure planning and four future scenarios’, EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 3, 107-140
  • Liverpool City Council. (2023a). Paddington Village Spa tial Regeneration Framework (SRF). Liverpool City Council: https://liverpool.gov.uk/media/1359756/ paddington-village-srf.pdf, (accessed 14 March 2023).
  • Liverpool City Council. (2023b). The Liverpool Local Plan 2013–2033. Liverpool City Council: https:// liverpool.gov.uk/media/1361302/01-liverpool-lo cal-plan-main-document.pdf, (accessed 14 March 2023).
  • Liverpool City Council. (2023c). Local Plan Inset Map (City Centre). Liverpool City Council: https://liverpool. gov.uk/media/1361296/liverpool-inset-map_lov3. pdf, (accessed 14 March 2023).
  • Liverpool City Council. (2023d). Planning application process. Liverpool City Council: https://liverpool. gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/apply ing-for-planning-permission/planning-applica tion-process, (accessed 23 March 2023).
  • Malczewski, J. (2006), ‘GIS based multi-criteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature’, International Journal of geographical information science, 20, 703-726.
  • Malczewski, J., and Rinner, C. (2015), Multi-criteria de cision analysis in geographic information science. New York: Springer.
  • Michels, A., and De Graaf, L. (2010), ‘Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy’, Local Government Studies, 36, 477-491.
  • Modarres, M., and Zarei, B. (2002), ‘Application of network theory and AHP in urban transportation to mini mize earthquake damages’, Journal of the Opera tional Research Society, 1308-1316.
  • Mu, E., and Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2017), Practical Decision Making An Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Using Super Decisions v2. Pitts burgh: Springer.
  • Mueller, J., Lu, H., Chirkin, A., Klein, B., and Schmitt, G. (2018), ‘Citizen Design Science: A strategy for crowd-creative urban design’, Cities, 72, 181-188.
  • Muthoora, T., & Fischer, T. B. (2019). Power and percep tion–From paradigms of specialist disciplines and opinions of expert groups to an acceptance for the planning of onshore windfarms in England–Making a case for Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Land Use Policy, 89, 104198.
  • Nadeem, O., & Fischer, T. B. (2011). An evaluation frame work for effective public participation in EIA in Pa kistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(1), 36-47.
  • NRC (National Research Council) (2008), Public partici pation in environmental assessment and decision making, (T. Dietz, & P. Stern, Dü) Washington: Na tional Academies Press.
  • Newig, J., and Oliver, F. (2009), ‘Environmental governance: participatory, multi level–and effective?’, Environ- mental policy and governance, 197-214.
  • OECD. (2001), Citizens as Partners. OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Paris: OECD Publications Ser vice.
  • Okumuş, G., and Türkoğlu, H. (2017), ‘Komşuluk Birimi Ölçeğinde, Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Tabanlı Bir Kent sel Sürdürülebilirlik Değerlendirme Modeli Önerisi’, Planlama Dergisi, 27, 193-204.
  • Oswald, M. (2004), ‘Implementation of the analytical hier archy process with VBA in ArcGIS’, Computers & Geosciences, 30, 637–646.
  • Önder, G., and Önder, E. (2015), Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci, in B. F.Yıldırım, & E. Önder (eds), Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri, Bursa: Dora Basım-Yayın, 21-64.
  • Ridder, D., and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2005), ‘Participatory Inte grated Assessment in local level planning’, Regional Environmental Change, 5, 188-196.
  • Rowe, G., and Frewer, L. (2000), ‘Public participation meth ods: a framework for evaluation’, Science, technolo gy, & human values, 25, 3-29.
  • Saaty, R. (1987), ‘The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used’, Mathematical modelling, 161- 176.
  • Saaty, T. (1988), ‘What is the analytic hierarchy process?’, in G. Mitra (eds), Mathematical models for decision support. Berlin,Heidelberg: Springer, 109-121.
  • Saaty, T. (1989), ‘Group decision making and the AHP’, in T. Saaty (eds), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Berlin: Springer 59-67.
  • Saaty, T. (1990), ‘How to make a decision: the analytic hi erarchy process’, European Journal of operational research, 48, 9-26.
  • Saaty, T. (2000), ‘The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process’, in M. Köksalan, & S. Zionts (eds), Multiple Criteria Decision Making in the New Millennium, Ankara: Springer, 15-37.
  • Saaty, T. (2003), ‘Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary’, European Jour nal of operational research, 145, 85-91.
  • Saaty, T. (2008), ‘Decision Making With The Analytic Hi erarchy Process’, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1, 83-98.
  • Saaty, T., and Sodenkamp, M. (2010), ‘The analytic hierar chy and analytic network measurement processes: the measurement of intangibles’, in C. Zopounidis, & P. Pardalos (eds), Handbook of multi-criteria analysis, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 91-166.
  • Saaty, T., and Vargas, L. (2012), Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process, London: Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Salter, J., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., and Sheppard, S. (2009), ‘The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in par ticipatory planning’, Journal of environmental man agement, 2090-2101.
  • Selman, P. (2001), ‘Social capital, sustainability and envi ronmental planning’, Planning Theory & Practice, 13-30.
  • Sibale, J. L. And Fischer, T. B. (2023), Forthcoming. Envi ronmental and social impact assessment public par ticipation inclusion and exclusion - Learning from urban and rural practices in Malawi, Impact Assess ment and Project Appraisal.
  • Uludağ, A., and Doğan, H. (2016), ‘Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılmasına Odaklı Bir Hizmet Kalitesi Uygulaması’, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 17-47.
  • Wanga, A., Hub, Y., Li, L., and Liub, B. (2016), ‘Group deci sion making model of urban renewal based on sus tainable development: public participation perspec tive’, Procedia Engineering, 1509-1517.
  • Wu, H., He, Z., and Gong, J. (2010), ‘A virtual globe-based 3D visualization and interactive framework for pub lic participation in urban planning processes’, Com puters, Environment and Urban Systems, 291-298.
  • Zhang, Y., and Fung, T. (2013), ‘A model of conflict resolu tion in public participation GIS for land-use plan ning’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40, 550-568.
APA Levend S, Fischer T (2023). Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. , 184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
Chicago Levend Sinan,Fischer Thomas B Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. (2023): 184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
MLA Levend Sinan,Fischer Thomas B Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. , 2023, ss.184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
AMA Levend S,Fischer T Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. . 2023; 184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
Vancouver Levend S,Fischer T Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. . 2023; 184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
IEEE Levend S,Fischer T "Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework." , ss.184 - 201, 2023. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
ISNAD Levend, Sinan - Fischer, Thomas B. "Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework". (2023), 184-201. https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
APA Levend S, Fischer T (2023). Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. Megaron, 18(2), 184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
Chicago Levend Sinan,Fischer Thomas B Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. Megaron 18, no.2 (2023): 184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
MLA Levend Sinan,Fischer Thomas B Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. Megaron, vol.18, no.2, 2023, ss.184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
AMA Levend S,Fischer T Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. Megaron. 2023; 18(2): 184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
Vancouver Levend S,Fischer T Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework. Megaron. 2023; 18(2): 184 - 201. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
IEEE Levend S,Fischer T "Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework." Megaron, 18, ss.184 - 201, 2023. 10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
ISNAD Levend, Sinan - Fischer, Thomas B. "Participatory Urban planning – introducing and testing a 2D/3D visualization and AHP framework". Megaron 18/2 (2023), 184-201. https://doi.org/10.14744/megaron.2023.97947
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 8:9

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları