Microparticipation with Social Media for Community Engagement in Transportation Planning

Transportation Research Record

Volumn 2307, Issue , 2012, Pages 90-98

  Evans Cowley, Jennifer S ^a   Griffin, Greg ^b  

^a Ohio State University   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT; DEVELOPMENT TIME; FACEBOOK; MEDIA TECHNOLOGY; PLANNING PROCESS; PLANNING PROJECTS; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL-NETWORKING; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84898876472     PISSN: 03611981     EISSN: 21694052     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3141/2307-10     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Townsend, A., R. Maguire, M. Liebhold, and M. Crawford. A Planet of Civic Laboratories: The Future of Cities, Information, and Inclusion. Technical report. Institute for the Future, Palo Alto, Calif., 2010.
2. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Group Solutions RJW, and Estilo Communications. People, Planning, and Preparing for the Future: Round 2 Public Involvement. Technical report. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Austin, Tex., 2009.
3. City of Austin. Making Austin: Public Participation in a New Comprehensive Plan. Technical report. City of Austin, Tex., 2009.
4. EvansCowley, J. S. Planning in the Age of Facebook: The Use of Social Networking in Planning Processes. Geojournal, Vol. 75, No. 3, 2010, pp. 407–420.
5. Goodspeed, R. The Dilemma of Online Participation: Comprehensive Planning in Austin, Texas. http://web.mit.edu/rgoodspe/www/papers/RGoodspeedAustin_Online_Participation_91910.pdf, September 19, 2010. Accessed Feb. 10, 2011.
6. American Planning Association. Planning and Urban Design Standards. Wiley Graphic Standards. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J. 2006.
7. Bullard, R. D., G. S. Johnson, and A. O. Torres. Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equity. South End Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2004.
8. Chaves, E., E. Garcia, and S. Gilmore. Consensus Building in Transportation Planning: Practice Case Evaluation of Process and Outcomes. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1981, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 76–83.
9. Ahern, J., L. Jennings, B. Fenstermacher, P. Warren, N. Charney, S. D. Jackson, J. R. Mullin, Z. Kotval, S. F. Brena, S. A. Civjan, and E. Carr. Issues and Methods for Transdisciplinary Planning of Combined Wildlife and Pedestrian Highway Crossings. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2123, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 129–136.
10. Comeau, P. S., and D. A. Rodriguez. Picking Publics Properly: An Artful Science. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1706, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 92–99.
11. Lowry, M. B., T. L. Nyerges, and G. S. Rutherford. Internet Portal for Participation of Large Groups in Transportation Programming Decisions. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2077, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 156–165.
12. Grossardt, T., K. Bailey, and J. Brumm. Structured Public Involvement: Problems and Prospects for Improvement, In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1858, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 95–102.
13. Facebook. Facebook Statistics. http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics, 2011. Accessed July 30, 2011.
14. BBC News. Twitter Cofounder Jack Dorsey Rejoins Company, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business12889048. Accessed July 30, 2011.
15. Boyd, D., S. Golder, and G. Lotan. Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. Proc., HICSS 2010, 2010, pp. 1–10.
16. Java, A., X. Song, T. Finin, and B. Tseng. Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities. Proc., WebKDD/ SNA-KDD, 2007, pp. 56–65.
17. Kwak, H., C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media? Proc., 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2010. Accessed Dec. 18, 2010: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1772690.1772751.
18. Smith, A., and L. Rainie. 8% of Americans Use Twitter. Report: Social Networking, Web 2.0, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center, 2010. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/TwitterUpdate2010.aspx. Accessed Jan. 8, 2011.
19. Wright, A. Mining the Web for Feelings, Not Facts. New York Times, Aug. 8, 2009.
20. Zhao, D., and M. B. Rosson. How and Why People Twitter: The Role That Microblogging Plays in Informal Communication at Work. Proc., GROUP’09, 2009, pp. 243–252.
21. Lenhart, A., and S. Fox. Twitter and Status Updating. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center, 2009. http://fortysouth.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/05/Twitterandstatusupdating.pdf. Accessed Dec. 18, 2010.
22. Alter, R., M. Lewiecki, M. RenzWhitmore, and D. P. Albright. Accountable Public Involvement: Partnership Approach to Proposed Transportation Project. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2077, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 46–53.
23. EvansCowley, J. S., and J. Hollander. The New Generation of Public Participation: InternetBased Participation Tools. Planning Research and Practice, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 397–408.
24. Lewis, K., J. Kaufman, M. Gonzalez, A. Wimmer, and N. Christakis. Tastes, Ties, and Time: A New Social Network Dataset Using Facebook. com. Social Networks, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2008, pp. 330–342.
25. Huberman, B. A., D. M. Romero, and F. Wu. Social Networks that Matter:TwitterUndertheMicroscope.FirstMonday,Vol.14,No.1,2009. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063.
26. Bonaccorsi, A., and C. Rossi. Altruistic Individuals, Selfish Firms? The Structure of Motivation in Open Source Software. First Monday, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2004. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1113/1033.
27. Ghosh, R. A. FM Interview with Linus Torvalds: What Motivates Free Software Developers? First Monday, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1998. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1475/1390. Accessed Aug. 2, 2012.
28. Hars, A., and S. Ou. Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open Source Projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002, pp. 25–39.
29. Hertel, G., S. Niedner, and S. Hermann. Motivation of Software Developers in the Open Source Projects: An InternetBased Survey of Contributors to the Linux Kernel. Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 7, 2003, pp. 1159–77.
30. Granell, J., and D. Grachen. Strategies for Streamlined Participation by Native American Governments in Federal Transportation Projects. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation ResearchBoard,No.1931,TransportationResearchBoardoftheNational Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 63–67.
31. Berg, N., and T. Halbur. Planetizen Picks: Top Twitter Feeds on Urban Planning. Planetizen. http://www.planetizen.com/twitterfeeds. Accessed Dec. 10, 2010.
32. Carr, D. Why Twitter Will Endure. New York Times, January 1, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/weekinreview/03carr.html. Accessed March 5, 2012.
33. Cheng, A., M. Evans, and H. Singh. Inside Twitter: An In-Depth Look Inside the Twitter World. http://www.sysomos.com/docs/InsideTwitterBySysomos.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2012.
34. Honeycutt, C., and S. C. Herring. Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter. Proc., 42nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, 2009. HICSS. Bloomington, Ind., Jan. 5–8, 2009, pp. 1–10.
35. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Twitter and Status Updating. http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=48936&category=56. Accessed Dec. 15, 2009.
36. Suh, B., L. Hong, P. Pirolli, and E. H. Chi. Want to be Retweeted? Large Scale Analytics on Factors Impacting Retweet in Twitter Network. Proc., 2nd International Conference on Social Computing, Minneapolis, Minn., 2010, pp. 177–184.
37. Zarella, D. Science of Retweets, 2009. http://danzarrella.com/thescienceofretweetsreport.html. Accessed Dec. 19, 2010.
38. Jansen, B., M. Zhang, K. Sobel, and A. Chowdury. Twitter Power: Tweets as Electronic Word of Mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 60, 2009, pp. 2169–2188.
39. Tumasjan, A., T. O. Sprenger, P. G. Sandner, and I. M. Welpe. Election Forecasts with Twitter: How 140 Characters Reflect the Political Landscape. Social Science Computer Review, December 2010, pp. 1–17.
40. Noveck, B. S. Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2009.
41. Prevost, D. L. Geography of Public Participation: Using Geographic Information Systems to Evaluate Public Outreach Program of Transportation Planning Studies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1981, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 84–91.
42. Tausczik, Y. R., and J. W. Pennebaker. The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 29, 2009, pp. 24–54.
43. Yu, B., S. Kaufmann, and D. Diermeier. Exploring the Characteristics of Opinion Expressions for Political Opinion Classification. Proc., 2008 International Conference on Digital Government Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2008, pp. 82–91.
44. LIWC, Inc. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Computer software, LIWC, Inc., 2007. http://www.liwc.net/.
45. Suenami, A., and M. Yutaka. Voter Behavior Analysis and Election Campaign Strategies Using Information on the Web (in Japanese). Proc., JSAI SIG-KBS, Tokyo, No. 87, 2010, pp. 1–6.
46. Tweetminster.IsWord-of-MouthCorrelatedtoGeneralElectionResults? The Results Are In, 2010. http://www.scribd.com/doc/31208748/TweetminsterPredictsFindings. Accessed June 25, 2010.
47. Pearanalytics. Twitter Study, 2009. http://www.pearanalytics.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/TwitterStudyAugust2009.pdf. Accessed Dec. 15, 2009.
48. Naaman, M., J. Boase, and C.H. Lai. Is it Really About Me? Message Content in Social Awareness Streams. Proc., CSCW 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2010, pp. 189–192.
49. Jansen, H. J., and R. Koop. Pundits, Ideologues, and Ranters: The British Columbia Election Online. Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 30, 2005, pp. 613–632.
50. Ewen, C. Post-Project Qualitative Interviews—Summary of Work and Results Social Networking and Planning Project. Draft 2010. http://www.snappatx.org/documents/SNAPPpostproject%20Interviews.pdf. Accessed Aug. 2, 2012.