BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Czepkiewicz Michał (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland; University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland), Brudka Cezary (Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland), Jankowski Piotr (San Diego State University; Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu), Kaczmarek Tomasz (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland), Zwoliński Zbigniew (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland), Mikuła Łukasz (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland), Bąkowska Edyta (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland), Młodkowski Marek (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland), Wójcicki Michał (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland)
Public Participation GIS for Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning: Methods, Applications and Challenges
Rozwój Regionalny i Polityka Regionalna / Instytut Geografii Społeczno-Ekonomicznej i Gospodarki Przestrzennej Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 2016, nr 35, s. 9-35, rys., bibliogr. 50 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Rozwój zrównoważony, Planowanie w transporcie, Społeczności lokalne
Sustainable development, Planning in transport, Local community
streszcz., summ.
Łódź, Poznań
Lodz, Poznan
Sustainable mobility planning is a new approach to planning, and as such it requires new methods of public participation, data collection and data aggregation. In the article we present an overview of Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) methods with potential use in sustainable urban mobility planning. We present the methods using examples from two recent case studies conducted in Polish cities of Poznań and Łodź. Sustainable urban mobility planning is a cyclical process, and each stage has different data and participatory requirements. Consequently, we situate the PPGIS methods in appropriate stages of planning, based on potential benefits they may bring into the planning process. We discuss key issues related to participant recruitment and provide guidelines for planners interested in implementing methods presented in the paper. The article outlines future research directions stressing the need for systematic case study evaluation. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
  1. Alessa L. (Naia), Kliskey A. (Anaru), Brown G. 2008. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(1), 27-39.
  2. Anable J. 2005. 'Complacent Car Addicts' or 'Aspiring Environmentalists'? identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy 12, 65-78.
  3. Bamberg S. 2012. Understanding and Promoting Bicycle Use - Insights from Psychological Research, In: J. Parkin (ed.), Cycling and Sustainability, London, s. 221.Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73-80.
  4. Brabham D.C. 2009. Crowdsourcing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  5. Broberg A., Salminen S., Kyttä M. 2013. Physical environmental characteristics promoting independent and active transport to children's meaningful places, Applied Geography, 38, 43-52.
  6. Brown G., Raymond C.M. 2014. Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, pp. 196-208. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.007
  7. Brown G. 2014. Engaging the wisdom of crowds and public judgment for land use planning using public participation GIS (PPGIS), Australian Planner.
  8. Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. 2014. Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 126-136.
  9. Brown G., Weber D. 2011. Public participation GIS: a new method for use in national park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(1), 1-15.
  10. Brown G., Reed P. 2009. "Public Participation GIS : A New Method for Use in National Forest Planning." Forest Science 55 (2): 166-182.
  11. Brown G., Chin S.Y.W. 2013. Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation in Neighbourhood Planning. Planning, Practice & Research, 28(5), 563-588.
  12. Cabinet Office (1999), Modernising Government White Paper, London, Retrieved from: Government.pdf
  13. Chaix B., Kestens Y., Perchoux C., Karusisi N., Merlo J., Labadi K. 2012. "An Interactive Mapping Tool to Assess Individual Mobility Patterns in Neighborhood Studies." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 43 (4): 440-450. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.06.026
  14. Czepkiewic M., Jankowski P., Młodkowski M. 2016. Geo-questionnaires in urban planning: recruitment methods, participant engagement, and data quality. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Advance online publication:
  15. Domaradzka A. 2015. The urban movement as a challenger in the Polish urban policy field. In: G. Pleyers, I.N. Sava (eds.) Social Movements in Central and Eastern Europe: A Renewal of Protests and Democracy. Editura Universității din București.
  16. European Commission 2011. White paper on transport, Luxembourg, Retrieved from:
  17. European Commission 2013. A concept for sustainable mobility plans, Brussels, Retrieved from:
  18. European Cycling Federation 2009. Charter of Brussels, Brussels, Retrieved from:
  19. European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans 2014. Guidelines. Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan. European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport.
  20. Federal Highway Administration 2012. Integrating demand management into the transportation planning process: a desk reference, s.l., Retrieved from:
  21. German Road and Transport Research Association 2013. Recommendations for Mobility Master Planning, s.l., Translated by: Kevin Vincent (2015), Retrieved from:
  22. Gillis D., Semanjski I., Lauwers D. 2016. How to Monitor Sustainable Mobility in Cities? Literature Review in the Frame of Creating a Set of Sustainable Mobility Indicators. Sustainability, 8(1), 29. Hall B., Leahy M. 2008. "Design and Implementation of a Map-centred Synchronous Collaboration Tool Using Open Source Components: the MapChat Project", chapter 11 in B. Hall, M. Leahy (eds) Open Source Approaches in Spatial Data Handling, Springer, Berlin.
  23. Halvorsen K.E. 2001. Assessing public participation techniques for comfort, convenience, satisfaction, and deliberation. Environmental Management, 28(2), 179-86.
  24. Haustein S., Hunecke M. 2013. Identifying target groups for environmentally sustainable transport: Assessment of different segmentation approaches, "Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability", 5(2).
  25. Haybatollahi M., Czepkiewicz M., Laatikainen T., Kyttä M. 2015. "Neighbourhood Preferences, Active Travel Behaviour, and Built Environment: An Exploratory Study." Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 29: 57-69. doi:10.1016/j. trf.2015.01.001
  26. Horelli L. 2002. A methodology of participatory planning. In: R. Bechtel, A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 607-628). New York: John Wiley.
  27. Innes J.E., Booher D.E. 2004. Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436.
  28. Jankowski P. 2009. Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management 90(6), 1966-1971.
  29. Jankowski P., Nyerges T. 2003. Toward a framework for research on geographic information supported participatory decision-making, URISA Journal Online, 15(1), 9-17.
  30. Jankowski P., Czepkiewicz M., Młodkowski M., Zwoliński Z. 2015. "Geo-questionnaire: A Method and Tool for Public Preference Elicitation in Land Use Planning." Transactions in GIS. Advance online publica- tion. doi:10.1111/tgis.12191.
  31. Kahila M., Kyttä M. 2009. "SoftGIS as a Bridge Builder in Collaborative Urban Planning." In Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods, edited by S. Geertman and J. Stillwell, 389-412, Springer.
  32. Kahila-Tani M., Broberg A., Kyttä M., Tyger T. 2015. Let the Citizens Map-Public Participation GIS as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process. Planning Practice & Research, 7459(April), 1-20.
  33. Kwan M.-P. 2012. How GIS can help address the uncertain geographic context problem in social science research. Annals of GIS, 18(4), 245-255.
  34. Kyttä M., Kahila M., Broberg A. 2011. "Perceived Environmental Quality as an Input to Urban Infill Policy-Making." URBAN DESIGN International 16 (1): 19-35. doi:10.1057/udi.2010.19
  35. Nyerges T., Aguirre R.W. (2011). Public Participation in Analytic-Deliberative Decision Making: Evaluating a Large-Group Online Field Experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(3), 561-586.
  36. Pickles J. 1996. Tool or science? GIS, technoscience, and the theoretical turn. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(2): 363-71.
  37. PAP 2015. Badania: średnie miasta nie mają środków na plany zrównoważonej mobilności. Polska Agencja Prasowa, 16.09.2015, Available online:,404767,badania-srednie-miasta-nie-maja-srodkow-na-plany-zrownowazonej-mobilnosci.html. Last access: 3.04.2017.
  38. Prillwitz J., Barr S. 2011. Moving towards sustainability? Mobility styles, attitudes and individual travel behaviour. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1590-1600.
  39. Rantanen H., Kahila M. 2009. The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1981-1990.
  40. Rinner C. 2001. Argumentation maps - GIS-based discussion support for online planning. Environment and Planning B, 28(6), 847-863.
  41. Rinner C., Bird M. 2009. Evaluating Community Engagement through Argumentation Maps - A Public Participation GIS Case Study. Environment and Planning B 36(4): 588-601.
  42. Rodrigue J.-P. et al. 2013. The Geography of Transport Systems, Hofstra University, Department of Global Studies & Geography,
  43. Sadik-Khan, Janette; Solomonow, Seth (2016-03-08). Streetfight: Handbook for an Urban Revolution. Viking.
  44. Salonen M., Broberg A., Kyttä M., Toivonen T. (2014). "Do Suburban Residents Prefer the Fastest or Low-Carbon Travel Modes? Combining Public Participation GIS and Multimodal Travel Time Analysis for Daily Mobility Research." Applied Geography 53: 438-448. doi:10.1016/j. apgeog.2014.06.028
  45. Salonen M., Broberg A., Kyttä M., Toivonen T. 2014. Do suburban residents prefer the fastest or low-carbon travel modes? Combining public participation GIS and multimodal travel time analysis for daily mobility research. Applied Geography, 53, 438-448.
  46. Sieber R.E. 2006. Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A literature review. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491-507.
  47. Surowiecki J. 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor.
  48. Swobodzinski M., Jankowski P. 2015. The role of location and cost in individual choices of transportation improvement projects. Professional Geographer, 67(4): 527-540.
  49. Talen E. 2000. "Bottom-up GIS: A New Tool for Individual and Group Expression in Participatory Planning." APA Journal 66 (3): 279-294.
  50. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, s.l., Retrieved from:
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu