Public and Stakeholder Engagement and the Built Environment: a Review

Purpose of Review We review 50 articles from 2015 and 2016 that focus upon public and stakeholder engagement as it pertains to the built environment. Our purpose is to understand the current state of the literature and approaches being used to better enable public and stakeholder engagement. As part...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Current environmental health reports 2017-09, Vol.4 (3), p.267-277
Main Authors: Leyden, Kevin M., Slevin, Amanda, Grey, Thomas, Hynes, Mike, Frisbaek, Fanney, Silke, Richard
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic disciplines
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Biomedicine
Built environment
Built Environment and Health (MJ Nieuwenhuijsen and AJ de Nazelle
Citizen participation
City Planning
Climate change
Community Participation
Decision Making
Environment Design
Environmental Health
Health care policy
Humans
Legitimacy
Medicine/Public Health
Municipalities
Participatory planning
Pharmacology/Toxicology
Policy Making
Public participation
Reviews
Section Editors
Stakeholders
Strategic planning
Topical Collection on Built Environment and Health
Urban environments
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose of Review We review 50 articles from 2015 and 2016 that focus upon public and stakeholder engagement as it pertains to the built environment. Our purpose is to understand the current state of the literature and approaches being used to better enable public and stakeholder engagement. As part of this review, we consider whether recent digital and mobile technologies have enabled advances for stakeholder and public participation. Recent Findings The literature suggests some positive and some challenging developments. Researchers clearly suggest that most policy-makers and planners understand, and to some extent, aspire toward enabling more inclusive participatory planning processes. That said, there is far less consensus as to how to make meaningful inclusive participatory processes possible even with digital, as well as more traditional, tools. This lack of consensus is true across all academic disciplines reviewed. Summary We discuss these issues as well as current solutions offered by many scholars. We find that no single solution can be applied to different situations, as contextual factors create different problems in different situations, and that the participation process itself can create biases that can—intentionally or unintentionally—benefit some participants over others. We conclude with a series of questions for practitioners and researchers to consider when evaluating inclusive engagement.
ISSN:2196-5412
2196-5412
DOI:10.1007/s40572-017-0159-7