IJRISS Logo

Barriers to Meaningful Public Participation in Land-Use Planning: A Systematic Review

Authors

Sivarnia a/p Mogan

Universiti Technologi of Malaysia (Malaysia)

Ainur Zaireen Zainudin

Universiti Technologi of Malaysia (Malaysia)

Rohaya Abdul Jalil

Universiti Technologi of Malaysia (Malaysia)

Article Information

DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91200008

Subject Category: Social science

Volume/Issue: 9/12 | Page No: 76-96

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2025-12-11

Accepted: 2025-12-18

Published: 2025-12-30

Abstract

This systematic literature review synthesizes global empirical evidence on the barriers that hinder meaningful public participation in land-use planning. Guided by the Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES), the review employed the PICo framework to formulate the research question and systematically searched in Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2015 and 2025. Sixty-six articles met eligibility criteria, and 58 high-quality studies were retained following appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Inductive thematic analysis identified six overarching categories of participation barriers: institutional, socio-economic, political, cultural, procedural, and technological constraints. These themes encompass 21 sub-themes, including weak legal mandates, bureaucratic fragmentation, elite capture, limited transparency, socio-economic inequality, restrictive cultural norms, late-stage consultation, inaccessible information, and the growing digital divide. Findings show that such barriers often overlap and collectively restrict communities’ influence over planning outcomes, particularly in centralized or resource-constrained governance systems. The review highlights the need for strengthened legal frameworks, improved transparency, culturally attuned engagement strategies, socio-economic support mechanisms, and hybrid digital–physical participation models. By consolidating fragmented evidence across multiple world regions, this review contributes a comprehensive understanding of the structural, procedural, and contextual factors that impede inclusive and equitable land-use planning. The synthesis offers practical guidance for policymakers and provides a foundation for future research aimed at enhancing participatory land governance

Keywords

Public participation; Land-use planning; Participation barriers; Governance

Downloads

PDF Full Text HTML JATS XML

References

1. Aitken, M. (2010). Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy, 38(4), 1834–1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.060 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review, 16(3–4), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00879.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 8(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Brown, G., & Chin, S. Y. W. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of public participation in neighbourhood planning. Planning Practice & Research, 28(5), 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.820037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Charnley, S., & Engelbert, B. (2005). Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPA’s superfund community involvement program. Society & Natural Resources, 18(8), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920591008140 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cheema, G. S., & Rondinelli, D. A. (2007). Decentralizing governance: Emerging concepts and practices. Brookings Institution Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818271 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2018). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819052801804 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080325 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Fischer, F. (2020). Climate crisis and the democratic prospect: Participatory governance in sustainable communities. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Flemming, K., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Cargo, M., & Noyes, J. (2019). Reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 123, 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). What every researcher should know about Google Scholar. Journal of Informetrics, 14(1), 101050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.101050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1165] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P., & Pullin, A. S. (2018). ROSES reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses. Environmental Evidence, 7(7), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographic information? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 682–703. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Halevi, G., Moed, H. F., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar for systematic reviews. Scientometrics, 111(2), 1167–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2305-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Healey, P. (2010). Making better places: The planning project in the twenty-first century. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (Eds.). (2005). Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Zed Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., … Vedel, I. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018: User guide. McGill University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16, 1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Lane, M. B. (2006). Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 37(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180600840870 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Laurian, L. (2004). Public participation in environmental decision making: Findings from communities facing toxic waste cleanup. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976336 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Laurian, L., & Shaw, M. M. (2009). Evaluation of public participation. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412208327012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Legacy, C. (2010). Investigating the knowledge interface between stakeholder engagement and planning: Lessons from Melbourne. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649351003759998 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Munn, Z., Rittenmeyer, L., Salmond, S., Bjerrum, M., Loveday, H., Carrier, J., & Stannard, D. (2015). Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. McCall, M. K., & Minang, P. A. (2005). Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource management: Claiming community forests in Cameroon. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01265-100124 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2017). Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Miraftab, F. (2004). Invited and invented spaces of participation. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 697–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590410001678847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Myers, G. (2015). Urban environments in Africa: A critical analysis of environmental politics. Policy Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Quick, K. S., & Bryson, J. M. (2016). Theories of public participation in governance. In C. Ansell & J. Torfing (Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 160–172). Edward Elgar. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Richards, C., Blackstock, K., & Carter, C. (2004). Practical participation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(3), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056042000189808 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Shaffril, H. A. M., Krauss, S. E., & Samsuddin, S. F. (2018). A systematic review on Asian farmers’ adaptation practices towards climate change. Science of the Total Environment, 644, 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Shaffril, H. A. M., Samsuddin, S. F., & Rasdi, I. (2020). Systematic literature review on adaptation towards climate change impacts among Indigenous people in Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120595 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. (2009). Public participation in environmental assessment: A critical review of Canadian practices. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(5), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.02.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Soma, K., & Vatn, A. (2014). Representing the common goods: Stakeholder participation for legitimate environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 24, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. UN-Habitat. (2009). Planning sustainable cities: Global report on human settlements 2009. UN-Habitat. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. UN-Habitat. (2015). International guidelines on urban and territorial planning. UN-Habitat. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. UN-Habitat. (2020). World Cities Report 2020: The value of sustainable urbanization. UN-Habitat. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., & Duineveld, M. (2014). Evolutionary governance theory. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Watson, V. (2014). Co-production and collaboration in planning – The difference. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.866266 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Krueger, R. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010160 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., & Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives. Environment and Planning A, 43(11), 2688–2704. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44161 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Zoomers, A. (2010). Globalisation and the foreignisation of space: Seven processes driving the current global land grab. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066151003595325 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles