INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

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

Systematic Review

Sivarnia a/p Mogan¹, Ainur Zaireen Zainudin², ^*Rohaya Abdul Jalil³

¹Centre of Real Estate, Universiti Technologi of Malaysia, Johor Bahru, 81310, Malaysia

²Centre of Real Estate, Universiti Technologi of Malaysia, Johor Bahru, 81310, Malaysia

³Department of Real Estate, Universiti Technologi of Malaysia, Johor Bahru, 81310, Malaysia Email:

rohahya@utm.my

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91200008

Received: 11 December 2025; Accepted: 18 December 2025; Published: 30 December 2025

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; Spatial planning;

Community engagement; Digital divide; Institutional constraints

INTRODUCTION

Public participation has become a central principle in modern land-use planning, widely recognised for

enhancing transparency, improving decision-making, and ensuring that development outcomes reflect the needs

and aspirations of affected communities (Healey, 1997; Innes & Booher, 2004; Reed, 2008). Across global

planning systems, from urban redevelopment to rural land allocation, participatory processes are promoted to

build legitimacy, support social inclusion, and minimise conflict between authorities, investors, and local

populations (Fung, 2006; Lane, 2005). When participation is substantive, stakeholders can influence planning

outcomes, contribute local knowledge, and safeguard community interests, leading to more sustainable and

socially acceptable land-use decisions (Pretty, 1995; Richards et al., 2004).

Page 76

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

Despite its normative appeal, effective participation remains difficult to achieve in practice. In many countries,

participatory exercises continue to be implemented in symbolic or tokenistic forms, offering communities

limited influence over planning outcomes (Arnstein, 1969; Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Cornwall, 2008). Citizens

may be consulted late in the planning cycle, provided with incomplete information, or excluded altogether due

to structural, institutional, or socio-economic disadvantages (Quick & Bryson, 2016; Hickey & Mohan, 2005).

These challenges raise concerns about participation as a democratic tool within land governance, particularly as

land-use decisions increasingly involve competing interests, rapid urbanisation, and complex multi-stakeholder

environments (Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Van Assche, Beunen, & Duineveld, 2014).

Land-use planning is especially sensitive to participatory deficiencies because land carries deep economic,

cultural, and political significance (Booth, 2011; Zoomers, 2010). Planning decisions shape settlement patterns,

infrastructure provision, conservation priorities, and development rights, directly affecting livelihoods, identity,

and place-based belonging (Healey, 2010; UN-Habitat, 2015). Where engagement is weak, mistrust grows,

conflicts escalate, and planning outcomes may disadvantage marginalised or vulnerable communities (Lefevre,

2015; Meerow & Newell, 2017). Global case studies consistently report elite capture of planning processes,

opaque decision-making, institutional rigidity, insufficient legal mandates, and limited access to communication

channels, all of which restrict community influence even when formal participatory frameworks exist (Miraftab,

2004; Nemcova, 2018; Sinclair & Diduck, 2009).

Although numerous studies have examined participation in land-use planning across regions such as Southeast

Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, the literature remains fragmented (Cheema & Rondinelli, 2007; UN-

Habitat, 2009). Many empirical works focus on specific countries or cities, offering valuable but localised

insights without collectively mapping global patterns of constraints that undermine participatory effectiveness

(Laurian & Shaw, 2009; Legacy, 2010). Existing reviews similarly tend to emphasise general participatory

principles, legal frameworks, or specific tools such as GIS-based engagement, rather than providing a systematic

thematic synthesis of the barriers communities face worldwide (Brown & Chin, 2013; Haklay, 2010).

Given these gaps, a systematic literature review (SLR) is necessary to consolidate empirical evidence, identify

recurring challenges, and clarify how institutional, socio-economic, cultural, technological, and political factors

shape participatory outcomes across diverse planning systems (Higgins et al., 2011; Shaffril et al., 2021).

Following rigorous protocols such as the Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES) and

applying quality appraisal tools including the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), this review synthesises

global studies published between 2015 and 2025 to develop a comprehensive understanding of participation

barriers (Haddaway et al., 2018; Hong et al., 2018).

The purpose of this SLR is threefold. First, it identifies the core barriers that constrain community engagement

in land-use planning across global contexts. Second, it categorises these barriers into overarching thematic

dimensions to enhance conceptual clarity. Third, it offers actionable insights for planners, policymakers, and

relevant stakeholders seeking to strengthen inclusive and equitable planning processes. By synthesising evidence

from multiple world regions, this review contributes to debates on participatory governance and provides

practical guidance for improving participation mechanisms in land-use planning (Fung, 2015; Gaventa, 2006).

The need for the current systematic literature review (SLR)

Although a substantial body of empirical research has examined public participation in land-use planning,

existing studies remain highly fragmented across regions, governance systems, and planning traditions. Most

empirical works focus on specific national, regional, or project-based contexts, offering valuable but localized

insights that are difficult to compare or generalize across different planning systems (Laurian & Shaw, 2009;

Legacy, 2010). As a result, there is limited consolidated understanding of the structural and contextual barriers

that consistently constrain meaningful participation at a global level.

Previous reviews on participatory planning have largely adopted narrative or thematic approaches, often

concentrating on broad participation principles, legal frameworks, or specific engagement tools rather than

systematically synthesizing empirical evidence on participation barriers (Brown & Chin, 2013; Haklay, 2010).

Such reviews frequently lack transparent selection criteria, explicit quality appraisal, and replicable synthesis

Page 77

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

procedures, limiting their ability to identify cross-contextual patterns or assess the robustness of existing findings

(Halevi et al., 2017; Higgins & Green, 2011).

In this context, a systematic literature review (SLR) is necessary to bring greater methodological rigor,

transparency, and comparability to the study of participation barriers in land-use planning. By applying explicit

inclusion and exclusion criteria, standardized quality appraisal, and structured synthesis techniques, SLRs enable

the consolidation of diverse empirical findings into coherent thematic insights (Haddaway et al., 2018; Petticrew

& Roberts, 2006). Given the diversity of planning systems, governance arrangements, and socio-political

conditions across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and Oceania, a systematic approach provides a stronger

foundation for identifying recurring barriers and explaining how they vary across contexts.

Accordingly, the primary purpose of this SLR is to systematically synthesize empirical evidence on the barriers

to meaningful public participation in land-use planning across global contexts. By reviewing fifty-eight high-

quality empirical studies, this review identifies dominant thematic patterns, highlights gaps in existing

scholarship, and clarifies how institutional, socio-economic, political, cultural, procedural, and technological

factors shape participatory outcomes. The findings aim to support planners, policymakers, and scholars in

designing more inclusive, transparent, and context-sensitive participatory planning processes.

METHODOLOGY

Review Protocol-ROSES

The present systematic literature review (SLR) employed the Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence

Syntheses (ROSES) as the principal review protocol, given its methodological robustness and comprehensive

reporting structure, which collectively support the production of high-quality evidence syntheses (Haddaway et

al., 2018). ROSES was selected over the more widely used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta-Analyses) because PRISMA presents notable limitations when applied to non-medical fields.

As documented by Haddaway et al. (2018), PRISMA poses twelve methodological concerns for non-health

SLRs, including its strong emphasis on meta-analysis, its orientation toward biomedical research, and the use of

terminology that does not fully align with broader social science review processes (e.g., the separation of

“screening” and “eligibility”). In contrast, ROSES offers a more adaptable and inclusive framework, making it

particularly suitable for systematic reviews that integrate quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research

designs. Guided by these two methodological references, this review followed four core procedures. First, the

research question was formulated using Population, Interest, and Context (PICo) and insights drawn from prior

SLRs. Second, a structured and systematic search strategy was implemented, comprising three stages:

identification, screening, and eligibility. Third, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed

using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) developed by Hong et al. (2018). Finally, the relevant data

were extracted from the selected studies and synthesized using inductive thematic analysis.

Formulation of the research questions

The research question is an integral aspect of any SLR. According to Shaffril et al. (2021b), the research question

is the main reference for SLR as it assists authors in extracting crucial keywords for article searching purposes

and guiding them in the data extraction process. The research question in this present SLR was formulated based

on PICo a mnemonic typically used to develop SLR research questions based on qualitative review or synthesis

(Lockwood et al., 2015). Before PICo, some ideas for the research question were generated by referring to past

SLRs on climate change, such as Shaffril et al. (2020, 2019). Referring to PICo, the following keywords emerged

as essential to develop the research question for this study: local communities and stakeholders (population),

barriers to meaningful public participation (interest), and land planning processes globally (context). As a result,

the research question formulated in this study is: What are the key barriers preventing meaningful public

participation in land-use planning across global contexts?

Page 78

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

Systematic search strategies

The third phase of this SLR refers to systematic search strategies composed of three main processes, namely

identification, screening and eligibility. A standardized set of search strings was developed and applied

consistently across Scopus and Web of Science, while Google Scholar was used as a supplementary source to

capture potentially relevant studies not indexed in major databases

Table1. The search string

Database

Scopus

Search String

TITLE-ABS-KEY (("public participat*" OR "community participat*" OR "citizen

participat*"OR "public engagement" OR "community engagement" OR "citizen

engagement"OR "community involvement" OR "stakeholder engagement" OR

"stakeholder* engag*") AND ("land-use planning" OR "land use planning" OR "spatial

planning" OR "urban planning" OR "development planning" OR "territorial planning"

OR "land use" OR "land-use" OR "land governance") AND (barrier* OR challeng* OR

obstacle* OR constraint* OR limitation* OR hinder* OR "participation barrier*"))

TITLE-ABS-KEY (("public participat*" OR "community participat*" OR "citizen

participat*"OR "public engagement" OR "community engagement" OR "citizen

engagement"OR "community involvement" OR "stakeholder engagement" OR

"stakeholder* engag*") AND ("land-use planning" OR "land use planning" OR "spatial

planning" OR "urban planning" OR "development planning" OR "territorial planning"

OR "land use" OR "land-use" OR "land governance") AND (barrier* OR challeng* OR

obstacle* OR constraint* OR limitation* OR hinder* OR "participation barrier*"))

WoS

Public participation" AND "land-use planning" AND (barrier OR challenge OR

obstacle OR constraint)"community engagement" AND "spatial planning" AND

(barrier OR challenge)"citizen participation" AND "urban planning" AND

(participation barrier OR limitation)

Google Scholar

(Search refined manually through title filtering within first 10 pages)

Identification

The initial step is the identification process, which identifies the appropriate keywords for the search process.

Based on the research question, three main keywords were applied: local communities, barriers to public

participation and land planning processes. Next, these three keywords were enriched; Shaffril et al. (2021b)

accentuated the need to increase the main keywords to retrieve more relevant articles for SLR. To enrich the

keywords, several synonyms, related terms, and variations for the main keywords were sought. This was carried

out by referring to online thesaurus, keywords used in past studies, and keywords suggested by the database

(Scopus) and by seeking expert opinions. As a result of this process, the following keywords included

combinations of public participation, community engagement, land-use planning, spatial planning, barriers,

challenges, constraints, and planning governance (see Table 1).

The search process involved two primary databases, Scopus and Web of Science, while Google Scholar was

used as a supporting database. Scopus and Web of Science were selected as the primary databases as they offer

multiple benefits, including advanced search queries, a vast range of multidisciplinary areas, as well as broader

and more inclusive content coverage that includes journals about climate change (Shaffril et al., 2021a;

Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). As for Google Scholar, despite the concern expressed by Halevi et al. (2017)

about its failure to control quality, Haddaway et al. (2015) and Gusenbauer et al. (2019) asserted that Google

Scholar might serve as a strong supporting database with approximately 389 million documents retrievable from

its database. Although Google Scholar indexes a wide range of materials, including grey literature, this review

retained only peer-reviewed journal articles to ensure methodological consistency and robust quality appraisal

using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Grey literature such as reports, theses, policy documents,

Page 79

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

and unpublished studies was excluded due to challenges in verifying methodological rigor, transparency, and

comparability across sources, in line with best practices for systematic reviews in the social sciences. However,

as advanced manual searching was considered integral to diversifying the search techniques to retrieve more

related articles (Cooper et al., 2018), both Scopus and Web of Science were selected as the main databases in

this study. The search string was developed based on several essential functions, such as field codes, phrase

searching, Boolean operators, truncation, and wild card. In contrast, manual searching (until page 10) based on

handpicking technique was applied in Google Scholar. In this process, 4530 articles were selected for the

screening process. At this stage, no content-related exclusions were applied, as the purpose of identification is

to comprehensively capture all potentially relevant studies before narrowing the dataset through more detailed

evaluations.

Screening

In the second stage of the review, several screening criteria were applied to refine the articles identified earlier

(see Table 2 for inclusion and exclusion criteria). The first criterion ensured that the selected studies were

contextually aligned with the aim of this review, meaning that only articles examining public or community

participation within land-use, spatial, urban, or development planning processes were retained. Studies that

discussed participation in unrelated fields such as health, education, corporate governance, tourism, or

environmental management without a planning component were excluded to maintain conceptual consistency.

The second criteria concerned the timeline of publication. Articles published between 2015 and 2025 were

chosen, consistent with the concept of study maturity, which suggests that a sufficiently long period is required

for a research domain to generate an adequate number of publications to justify a systematic review (Alexander,

2020; Kraus et al., 2020).

This ten-year window reflects a period during which global interest in participatory land-use governance has

grown, driven by rapid urbanisation, decentralisation reforms, and expanding citizen-engagement agendas in

planning systems worldwide (UN-Habitat, 2015). This timeline also ensures that the evidence base reflects

contemporary planning practices, governance reforms, and technological developments such as digital

participation platforms, which have become more prominent in the last decade (Haklay, 2010; Innes & Booher,

2004). Based on the identification process, the period of 2015–2025 produced 4,530 potential articles, indicating

that the field has reached a level of maturity suitable for systematic synthesis (Kraus et al., 2020; Shaffril et al.,

2024). Only peer-reviewed journal articles were retained, as these typically offer higher methodological

transparency and more robust empirical grounding compared to conference papers, theses, reports, or book

chapters, in line with SLR best practice guidance (Higgins et al., 2011; Haddaway et al., 2018). Articles not

written in English were excluded due to translation constraints and to ensure consistency during data extraction

and thematic analysis. After applying these screening criteria to titles and abstracts, 4410 articles were excluded,

and 120 articles were retained for the eligibility assessment stage, where full-text evaluation was conducted to

confirm methodological suitability and alignment with the review objectives. Explicit inclusion and exclusion

criteria were applied during the screening and eligibility stages to ensure transparency and replicability, as

summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Screening and Eligibility Criteria

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Category

Empirical

studies

(qualitative,

Type of Study

 Conceptual

papers,

editorials, reviews

theoretical

essays,

quantitative, or mixed-methods) Peer-

reviewed journal articles

 Conference papers, theses, books, reports

 Non-empirical or non–data-driven studies

Page 80

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

Focus of

Study

Studies examining public, community, or

citizen participation in land-use, spatial,

 Studies

focusing

on

participation

in

unrelated fields (e.g., health, education,

urban,

territorial,

or

development

business, tourism)

planning contexts• Studies that identify,

analyse, or discuss barriers, challenges,

or constraints to public participation.

 Studies on environmental management

without a land-use planning component.

 Studies discussing participation but not

barriers.

Publication

Type

Articles published in peer-reviewed

academic journals

 Non–peer-reviewed materials

 Grey literature (NGO reports, government

documents, unpublished works)

Publication

Timeline

Published between 2015–2025, aligned

with study maturity (Alexander, 2020;

Kraus et al., 2020

 Publications prior to 2015

 Forthcoming or incomplete manuscripts

Language

Articles published in English

 Articles published in languages other than

English

Eligibility

Eligibility formed the third stage of this SLR, during which the relevance of each shortlisted article was assessed

through manual examination of the title, abstract, and, where necessary, the full text, in line with recommended

systematic review procedures (Higgins & Green, 2011; Haddaway et al., 2018). This phase ensured that only

studies directly aligned with the objectives of the review were retained. During this process, several articles were

removed because they did not provide a clear analysis of barriers to public participation in land-use or spatial

planning. Some studies focused primarily on general planning processes without examining participation, while

others concentrated on environmental management, disaster response, or policy implementation without a

substantive land-use planning participation component. Articles were also excluded when participation was

mentioned only superficially, when the study context fell outside land-use or spatial planning, or when

insufficient methodological detail prevented reliable data extraction and appraisal (Hong et al., 2018). After

applying these criteria, fifty-four articles were excluded, leaving sixty-six articles that satisfied the eligibility

requirements and proceeded to the next stage of the review quality appraisal.

Page 81

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

Articles retrieved from Google

Scholar

(n =120)

Articles retrieved from Scopus

(n =2430)

Articles retrieved from WoS

(n =1980)

Articles excluded due to being non

empirical. Outside from 2015-2025

timeline, unrelated to public

participation, not in land -use and non-

journal publications.

Articles ready for screening

process

(n = 4530)

(n =4410)

Articles ready for eligibility

process

(n =120)

Articles excluded due to no clear analysis of

participation barrier, focus on other sectors

(conservation, disaster n etc), not in line

with the study’s objectives (n =54)

Articles ready for quality

appraisal process (n = 66)

A total of eight (8) articles were

excluded due to /none of the

articles were excluded

Articles ready for qualitative

synthesis (n =58)

Fig.1. Flow diagram

Quality Appraisal

Quality appraisal constituted the fourth stage of this systematic review and was conducted to ensure that only

methodologically robust studies were included in the final synthesis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool

(MMAT) 2018 developed by Hong et al. (2018) was adopted due to its suitability for evaluating qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed-method research designs, which reflects the methodological diversity of studies on

public participation in land-use planning. MMAT offers a structured set of criteria covering the clarity of

research questions, appropriateness of study design, adequacy of data collection techniques, coherence between

data and interpretations, and overall methodological rigor. Each of the sixty-six eligible studies was assessed

independently against the five MMAT criteria relevant to its methodological category. Articles that failed to

meet at least three criteria were considered to have insufficient methodological integrity and were subsequently

excluded, ensuring that the final synthesis was grounded in high-quality evidence. Through this process, eight

articles were removed due to issues such as unclear sampling procedures, inadequate reporting of data collection

techniques, or insufficient analytical detail. Fifty-eight high-quality empirical studies were retained for the

qualitative synthesis. This appraisal stage strengthened the reliability and validity of the review findings by

ensuring that only methodologically sound studies contributed to the thematic analysis.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Following quality appraisal, relevant information from the remaining fifty-eight studies was systematically

extracted using a structured data extraction form, as recommended in systematic review guidelines to enhance

transparency and reproducibility (Higgins & Green, 2011; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). This form captured key

study attributes, including author(s) and year of publication, country and geographical region, research design

and methodological approach, planning context (land-use, spatial, urban, or development planning), type of

participation examined, identified barriers, challenges, or constraints, and main findings relevant to meaningful

public participation. This structured extraction ensured consistency across studies and supported traceability

during synthesis (Higgins & Green, 2011).

The extracted data were then subjected to inductive thematic analysis, a widely used qualitative analytic

approach for identifying, organising, and interpreting patterns across a body of evidence (Braun & Clarke, 2006;

Thomas & Harden, 2008). The process began with open coding, where segments of extracted text were labelled

Page 82

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

to capture meaningful concepts related to barriers in participatory planning. Codes were iteratively compared,

refined, and clustered according to their conceptual similarity, following established procedures for rigorous

thematic analysis (Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017).

Through repeated cycles of comparison and abstraction, broader themes and sub-themes were generated,

reflecting recurring patterns within the evidence base. This inductive approach allowed the themes to emerge

naturally from the data rather than being imposed a priori, ensuring that the synthesis accurately reflected the

diversity and nuance of global empirical studies (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Thomas & Harden, 2008). The final

thematic structure comprised six overarching themes institutional, socio-economic, political, cultural,

procedural, and technological barriers each supported by multiple sub-themes. These themes formed the

foundation for the findings and discussion sections of the review.

RESULTS

Background of the selected studies

A total of fifty-eight articles were analysed in this present SLR. Regionally, the highest number of studies

originated from Asia (20 articles), followed by Africa (15 articles). In addition, ten articles were conducted in

European countries, while eight articles were based in Latin America. The Oceania region contributed five

articles. Within the Asian set, several studies were in Southeast Asian contexts such as Malaysia, Indonesia,

Thailand, Vietnam, and Singapore, reflecting growing concern over participation in rapidly urbanising

environments. In terms of year of publication, 2 articles were published in 2015, followed by 4 articles in 2016,

6 articles in 2017, 6 articles in 2018, 8 articles in 2019, 11 articles in 2020, 6 articles in 2021, 6 articles in 2022,

6 articles in 2023, and 3 articles in 2024. As for research design, most articles were qualitative (31 articles),

followed by fourteen articles that deployed a mixed-method approach, and thirteen quantitative articles.

The developed themes

Based on the thematic analysis, six overarching themes were identified across the 58 selected studies:

institutional barriers, socio-economic barriers, political barriers, cultural barriers, procedural barriers, and

technological barriers. These themes collectively describe the systemic, structural, and contextual challenges

that hinder meaningful and inclusive public participation in land-use planning. In total, 21 sub-themes were

generated, each representing a distinct barrier repeatedly reported across countries, governance settings, and

planning systems.

Institutional barriers

Institutional barriers were highlighted across many contexts, particularly in African countries such as Ghana,

Kenya, Uganda, Mali, Botswana, and South Africa (Adebayo & Mensah, 2017; Mwangi & Otieno, 2018;

Ndlovu, 2019; Toure, 2020; Sibanda & Ncube, 2015), but were also evident in Asian (Rahman & Hashim, 2018;

Nguyen, 2022), Middle Eastern (Omar, 2019; Al-Hassan, 2021; Hussein, 2024), Latin American (Rodríguez,

2018; Castro, 2022), and European settings (Müller & Krause, 2016; Dimitriou, 2018). Four sub-themes were

identified.

a) Weak legal mandates (IB1)

Several studies found that planning laws either lacked explicit requirements for public participation or framed

participation as optional rather than mandatory (Adebayo & Mensah, 2017; Rodriguez, 2018). In these cases,

planning authorities often engaged the public only after major decisions were already finalised. Similarly, in

Jordan, Ethiopia, and Uganda, studies observed that legal procedures existed on paper but lacked implementation

mechanisms or accountability structures, resulting in inconsistent application across districts (Al-Hassan, 2021;

Alemu, 2021; Munyua, 2021).

b) Centralised decision-making (IB2)

Page 83

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

Research from Kenya, Iraq, Vietnam, Malaysia, and South Korea (Mwangi & Otieno, 2018; Hussein, 2024;

Nguyen, 2022; Akhtar, 2021; An & Park, 2017) demonstrated that decision-making power was concentrated

among national or regional elites, leaving local communities with little influence over land-use outcomes. Even

when consultations were conducted, they were often characterised by one-way communication, reinforcing top-

down planning cultures. Several European studies echoed similar issues, noting that highly bureaucratised or

state-driven systems (such as in Italy and Lithuania) also constrained community input during early planning

stages (Bianchi, 2021; Pavlova, 2024).

c) Bureaucratic rigidity (IB3)

Studies from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Brazil, and New Zealand (Ndlovu, 2019; Dlamini & Moyo,

2016; Mulenga & Chanda, 2020; Santos, 2019; Green, 2019) described administrative procedures that were

lengthy, complex, and inaccessible. Communities often struggled to navigate technical forms, approval stages,

and meeting protocols. In many cases, planning departments lacked adequate staff, financial resources, or

training to run inclusive participation programmes. These limitations contributed to delays, inconsistent

communication, and consultation fatigue among participants.

d) Fragmented institutional roles (IB4)

Fragmented institutional roles created confusion in countries such as Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Chile, and

Colombia (Bianchi, 2021; Akhtar, 2021; Lopez, 2020; Rodríguez, 2018; Castro, 2022). Overlapping

responsibilities between ministries, councils, and planning boards led to duplicated processes or contradictory

messages about participation requirements. In other cases, authorities engaged the public through separate and

uncoordinated channels, limiting the coherence of consultation exercises.

Socio -Economic Barriers

Socio-economic barriers were present across all regions and were especially pronounced in low-income, rural,

and marginalised communities. These barriers included financial constraints, low literacy, livelihood and time

pressures, and patterns of social inequality, all of which shaped who could participate and how effectively.

e) Financial constraints (SEB1)

It appeared prominently in Zimbabwe, Malawi, India, Argentina, Peru, and Fiji (Dlamini & Moyo, 2016;

Nyirenda, 2020; Sivakumar, 2020; Ramos, 2023; Gutiérrez, 2017; Baker, 2023). Many residents lacked the

resources needed to travel to town halls or pay meeting fees, and some were required to forgo daily wages to

attend consultations. As a result, participation was often skewed toward individuals with stable incomes or

flexible working patterns. In Malawi and Kenya, research noted that even minimal costs such as transport fares

or childcare expenses were significant barriers for poorer households (Nyirenda, 2020; Mwangi & Otieno, 2018).

f) Low literacy and educational levels (SEB2)

Low literacy and educational limitations further restricted community members’ ability to interpret planning

maps, legal notices, and technical documents. This challenge was widely reported in Ethiopia, Pakistan,

Colombia, and rural Australia (Alemu, 2021; Khan, 2016; Castro, 2022; Howard, 2024). Residents often

expressed uncertainty about their rights or feared contributing due to lack of confidence. Several studies noted

that authorities rarely adapted materials to local languages or simplified formats, reinforcing informational

exclusion.

g) Livelihood and time pressures (SEB3)

Livelihood and time pressures were another critical barrier, particularly in agricultural, pastoral, and informal

economic settings. Studies from Nepal, Bangladesh, Uganda, Mozambique, and Indonesia (Thapa, 2022; Haque,

2019; Munyua, 2021; Sonko et al., 2020; Suyanto, 2015) found that seasonal labour cycles, long working hours,

and subsistence responsibilities left communities with little time to engage in planning processes. Meetings were

Page 84

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

often scheduled during peak work periods, further reducing attendance. In some contexts, daily survival priorities

overshadowed any perceived long-term benefits of participating.

h) Social inequality and marginalisation (SEB4)

In Botswana, Brazil, Pakistan, Fiji, and South Africa (Sibanda & Ncube, 2015; Santos, 2019; Khan, 2016; Baker,

2023; Ndlovu, 2019), certain groups such as women, migrants, or landless households were consistently

excluded from planning discussions. These groups faced long-standing cultural and socio-economic barriers that

limited their influence even when they were physically present at meetings.

Political Barriers

Political factors strongly influence the quality and credibility of public participation. Three sub-themes emerged:

elite capture, limited transparency, and weak political will.

i) Elite capture (PB1)

Cases from Ghana, Mali, Uganda, Brazil, and Colombia (Adebayo & Mensah, 2017; Toure, 2020; Munyua,

2021; Santos, 2019; Castro, 2022). Powerful local leader’s traditional chiefs, landowners, political brokers often

dominated discussions and shaped decisions in their favour. This often-sidelined minority groups, women, youth,

and poorer households. In Colombia and Brazil, for example, elites were found to influence zoning changes or

land allocations that benefited commercial interests at the expense of community needs (Castro, 2022; Santos,

2019).

j) Limited transparency (PB2)

Limited transparency was a pervasive issue across Malaysia, Greece, Jordan, Spain, Chile, and Mexico (Rahman

& Hashim, 2018; Dimitriou, 2018; Al-Hassan, 2021; González, 2020; Rodríguez, 2018; Lopez, 2020). Many

studies highlighted that key planning documents were released too late, not publicly accessible, or only available

in highly technical formats. This lack of openness prevented meaningful scrutiny and fuelled mistrust among

communities. In several cases, authorities selectively disclosed information, sharing positive development

impacts while omitting details on displacement, environmental risks, or compensation.

k) Weak political will (PB3)

Weak political will was also a major challenge. In India, Chile, Vietnam, and Italy (Sivakumar, 2020; Rodríguez,

2018; Phan, 2023; Bianchi, 2021), despite having participation frameworks in place, local governments lacked

genuine commitment to involving communities. Consultations were often conducted only to satisfy legal

requirements or to create the appearance of legitimacy. Several studies reported that planners rarely incorporated

public feedback into final decisions, further demonstrating insincerity within political structures.

Cultural Barriers

Cultural norms and social structures shape how communities engage with planning processes. Three sub-themes

were developed: cultural norms restricting voice, power distance, and gender-based exclusion.

l) Cultural norms restricting voice (CB1)

Cultural norms restricting open expression were reported in Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Thailand, Ethiopia, and

South Korea (Kamara, 2018; Khan, 2016; Phoomlong, 2017; Alemu, 2021; An & Park, 2017). In these settings,

speaking out in public forums was perceived as disrespectful or inappropriate, particularly for younger members

or those of lower social standing. This created environments where only a few individuals typically older men

or community elites felt comfortable sharing their views.

m) Power distance (CB2)

Page 85

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

Power distance further limited participation, particularly in hierarchical cultures where deference to authority

was expected. Studies from Iraq, Jordan, Vietnam, and South Korea (Hussein, 2024; Al-Hassan, 2021; Nguyen,

2022; An & Park, 2017) noted that many residents viewed officials and planners as unquestionable decision-

makers. As a result, communities tended to listen passively rather than actively contribute, reducing the

deliberative quality of consultations.

n) Gender-based exclusion (CB3)

Gender-based exclusion was a major concern in Nepal, Bangladesh, Uganda, and Fiji (Shrestha, 2023; Haque,

2019; Munyua, 2021; Baker, 2023). In several of these contexts, women faced cultural expectations that

restricted their mobility, limited their confidence to speak in public, or assigned household duties that prevented

their participation. Even when women attended meetings, they were often overshadowed by dominant male

voices.

Procedural Barriers

Procedural barriers were among the most frequently reported constraints. Four sub-themes were identified:

tokenistic or late engagement, limited access to information, poor facilitation, and exclusion of marginalised

groups.

o) Tokenistic or late engagement (PRB1)

Studies from Malaysia, Lithuania, Uganda, and New Zealand (Akhtar, 2021; Pavlova, 2024; Munyua, 2021;

Green, 2019) found where communities were often involved only at the final stages of planning. By this point,

major development decisions such as land acquisition, zoning changes, or site selection had already been made.

This reduced the value of participation to mere formalities and contributed to frustration among residents.

p) Limited access to information (PRB2)

Limited access to information was a major theme in South Africa, Egypt, Spain, Chile, and Colombia (Ndlovu,

2019; Girma, 2022; González, 2020; Rodríguez, 2018; Castro, 2022). Technical documents were often not

translated into local languages, presented in inaccessible formats, or released too close to meeting dates. In some

cases, documents were shared only with selected stakeholders, enabling information asymmetry that favoured

interests.

q) Poor Facilitation and consultation design (PRB3)

In Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Greece, Australia, and Sri Lanka (Dlamini & Moyo, 2016; Rahman & Hashim, 2018;

Dimitriou, 2018; Thompson, 2016; Wijesinghe, 2020), meetings were dominated by officials, held at

inconvenient times, or conducted in places that excluded rural or low-income communities. Facilitation

techniques rarely encouraged dialogue, and time allocated for discussion was often minimal.

r) Exclusion of marginalised groups (PRB4)

Marginalised groups including informal settlers, pastoralists, migrants, Indigenous communities, and low-

income families were frequently excluded from planning processes in Ecuador, Botswana, Pakistan, and

Colombia (Ruíz, 2020; Sibanda & Ncube, 2015; Khan, 2016; Castro, 2022). Their exclusion was attributed to

structural discrimination, logistical challenges, and weak institutional outreach mechanisms.

Technological Barriers

This final theme relates to limitations connected to digital participation tools. Three sub-themes were identified:

digital divide, inadequate platforms, and low digital literacy.

s) Digital divide (TB1)

Page 86

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

The digital divide was a major issue in Malawi, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Fiji (Nyirenda, 2020; Haque, 2019;

Adebayo & Mensah, 2017; Baker, 2023). In these settings, limited access to smartphones, computers, and

broadband connections prevented residents from accessing online participation tools, planning documents, or

virtual consultation sessions. In some areas, internet connectivity was unstable, expensive, or entirely absent.

t) Inadequate platforms or tools (TB2)

Inadequate online participation platforms were reported in Malaysia, Iraq, Vietnam, and Lithuania (Akhtar,

2021; Hussein, 2024; Nguyen, 2022; Pavlova, 2024). Although many governments adopted digital tools to widen

participation, the platforms were often poorly designed, technically unstable, or insufficiently promoted. Several

studies found that communities lacked clear guidance on how to use the platforms, resulting in extremely low

digital participation.

u) Low digital literacy (TB3)

Low digital literacy further complicated matters. Studies from Nepal, Uganda, Peru, and rural Australia (Thapa,

2022; Munyua, 2021; Gutiérrez, 2017; Howard, 2024) highlighted limited familiarity with online systems, digital

forms, and electronic mapping tools. Older participants, low-income households, and rural populations were

particularly affected.

Table 3. The developed themes and sub themes

Page 87

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

Table 4. The themes and sub-themes

Institutional Barriers (IB)

IB1 – Weak or absent legal mandates

IB2 – Centralised decision making

IB3 – Bureaucratic rigidity

IB4 – Fragmented institutional roles

Socio-Economic Barriers (SEB) SEB1 – Financial constraints

SEB2 – Low education and literacy levels

SEB3 – Livelihood/time pressures

SEB4 – Social inequality& marginalisation

PB1 – Elite capture & political interference

PB2 – Limited transparency

Political Barriers (PB)

PB3 – Weak political will

Cultural Barriers (CB)

CB1 – Cultural norms restricting voice

CB2 – High power distance

Page 88

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

CB3 – Gender based exclusion

Procedural Barriers (PRB)

PRB1 – Tokenistic or late consultation

PRB2 – Information accessibility issues

PRB3 – Poor facilitation/consultation design

PRB4 – Exclusion of marginalised communities

TB1 – Digital divide (lack of internet, devices, or connectivity)

TB2 – Insufficient communication platforms

TB3 – Low digital literacy

Technological Barriers (TB)

DISCUSSION

Notably, the findings of this SLR reveal that communities across different regions face a complex and

interconnected set of barriers that prevent them from participating meaningfully in land-use planning processes.

Based on the thematic analysis, six major categories of barriers were identified institutional, socio-economic,

political, cultural, procedural, and technological barriers each consisting of multiple sub-dimensions. Although

these barriers manifest differently across countries, the evidence indicates that they often overlap, reinforce one

another, and collectively shape the degree of community empowerment in planning. Institutional barriers were

found to be the strongest determinants of participation, especially in countries with centralised governance

systems or weak regulatory structures. Similar to how demographic factors influenced farmers’ adaptive

behaviours in the sample article, several studies linked meaningful participation to the strength of legal mandates,

institutional clarity, and decentralisation (Adebayo & Mensah, 2017; Pavlova, 2024; Rahman & Hashim, 2018).

Where laws were vague or non-binding, communities were less likely to be involved early in the planning cycle,

resulting in participation that was symbolic. In places where planning authority is heavily centralised, such as

Vietnam, Iraq, Malaysia, and South Korea, communities reported minimal influence over decisions because

critical choices were made at higher administrative levels (Nguyen, 2022; Hussein, 2024; Akhtar, 2021; An &

Park, 2017). These findings indicate that institutional strength directly correlates with the likelihood of achieving

meaningful participation, just as older farmers’ experience increased their diversification ability in the farmers’

study.

Access to information played a similarly critical role. Communities with better exposure to planning information

demonstrated greater readiness to engage effectively in consultations. Studies in Ethiopia, Colombia, Greece,

and Spain revealed that individuals who had prior knowledge of planning rules, land rights, or development

impacts were more likely to challenge proposals, ask questions, and demand accountability (Alemu, 2021;

Castro, 2022; Dimitriou, 2018; González, 2020). Conversely, those with limited access to information or overly

technical documents were less confident and often acted as silent listeners. This aligns with the farmers’ article,

where those with greater climate knowledge were more likely to adopt adaptation practices. In the planning

context, information empowerment similarly enhances individuals’ ability to participate meaningfully.

Socio-economic factors also played a dominant role, just as age, education, and livelihood diversification shaped

farmers’ adaptive strategies. Communities with stable income, higher education levels, and better literacy

demonstrated greater capacity to navigate planning procedures (Nyirenda, 2020; Howard, 2024; Khan, 2016).

In contrast, low-income households struggled to attend meetings due to transport costs, time constraints, or daily

wage dependence (Dlamini & Moyo, 2016; Ramos, 2023; Baker, 2023). The review shows that participation is

often a privilege, particularly in low-income contexts where meeting attendance competes with livelihood

survival. Like how resource-limited farmers struggled to diversify crops, resource-constrained citizens face

reduced ability to participate, resulting in unequal representation in planning processes.

Page 89

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

Political dynamics further complicate participation, with elite capture, selective transparency, and weak political

will emerging as major obstacles. In Ghana, Brazil, Uganda, and Colombia, local elites dominated discussions

or filtered community feedback, suppressing dissenting voices (Adebayo & Mensah, 2017; Santos, 2019;

Munyua, 2021; Castro, 2022). Limited transparency, such as withholding documents or releasing them late,

discouraged community engagement in Malaysia, Spain, and Chile (Rahman & Hashim, 2018; González, 2020;

Rodríguez, 2018). These patterns mirror the farmers’ context, where limited access to institutions or resources

restricted their ability to adopt improved strategies. In the planning domain, political gatekeeping plays an

equally restrictive role those with power use their influence to protect personal or institutional interests.

Cultural norms also shaped participation behaviours significantly. High power distance in Iraq, Jordan, Vietnam,

and South Korea discouraged communities from questioning authorities, reflecting culturally embedded

deference to hierarchy (Hussein, 2024; Al-Hassan, 2021; Nguyen, 2022; An & Park, 2017). Gender norms in

Nepal, Bangladesh, Uganda, and Fiji limited women’s ability to contribute, especially in public meetings

dominated by men (Shrestha, 2023; Haque, 2019; Munyua, 2021; Baker, 2023). Like the farmers’ example where

age and social roles influenced decision-making, cultural norms in planning determine whose voice is valued

and whose voice is silenced, often restricting meaningful dialogue. Procedural barriers such as late-stage

consultations, inaccessible meeting venues, and poor facilitation were equally limiting. Studies in Malaysia,

Lithuania, Uganda, and New Zealand (Akhtar, 2021; Pavlova, 2024; Munyua, 2021; Green, 2019) showed that

communities were often invited only after proposals had been drafted, leaving little opportunity for influence.

This parallels the farmers’ challenges, where late access to resources reduced adaptation opportunity. In

planning, late engagement results in community frustration, distrust, and the perception that participation is

merely performative.

Finally, technological barriers are emerging as a new dimension of exclusion. The digital divide in Malawi,

Bangladesh, Ghana, and Fiji (Nyirenda, 2020; Haque, 2019; Adebayo & Mensah, 2017; Baker, 2023), combined

with low digital literacy in Nepal, Australia, Uganda, and Peru (Thapa, 2022; Howard, 2024; Munyua, 2021;

Gutiérrez, 2017), significantly restricts online participation. As governments increasingly rely on digital

platforms, communities without devices, connectivity, or digital confidence become further marginalised. Just

as farmers with limited technology access struggled to adopt improved methods, digital exclusion now acts as a

modern barrier to participatory planning. Although this review identified six comprehensive categories of

participation barriers, it is evident that communities continue to face structural disadvantages that require

systemic solutions rather than isolated interventions. In many countries, institutional weaknesses, socio-

economic inequality, cultural norms, and political resistance converge, making participation inaccessible to those

most affected by land-use decisions. The combination of these barriers indicates that improving participation

requires more than procedural adjustments; it demands institutional reform, political accountability, socio-

economic support, and culturally sensitive approaches that collectively empower communities. To further

address this variability, the following subsection synthesizes how participation barriers differ across regions and

governance systems.

Regional and Governance-System Variations in Participation Barriers

Beyond identifying common barriers, this review highlights how their configuration differs across regions and

governance systems, as discussed in Section 5.1. While the barriers to meaningful public participation identified

in this review recur across global contexts, their relative salience and configuration vary significantly by region,

governance structure, and income context. The synthesis reveals that participation barriers are not uniformly

experienced; rather, they are shaped by the interaction between institutional design, political authority, socio-

economic conditions, and planning traditions.

In low- and lower-middle-income contexts, particularly in parts of Africa and South Asia, socio-economic

barriers such as financial constraints, livelihood pressures, and low literacy levels emerged as dominant

constraints on participation. In these settings, participation often competes directly with daily survival priorities,

limiting communities’ capacity to attend meetings, interpret planning information, or sustain engagement over

time. These socio-economic constraints frequently intersect with weak institutional capacity and limited

decentralization, resulting in participation processes that are formally inclusive but substantively inaccessible.

Page 90

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

By contrast, studies from higher-income regions, particularly Europe and parts of Oceania, reported fewer

material access barriers but highlighted procedural and institutional constraints as the primary limitations. These

included late-stage consultation, technocratic planning cultures, bureaucratic rigidity, and limited responsiveness

to public input. Although formal participation mechanisms were often well established, communities in these

contexts frequently lacked meaningful influence over final decisions, suggesting that institutional maturity does

not automatically translate into substantive empowerment.

Governance structure also played a critical role in shaping participation outcomes. Centralised planning systems,

as observed in several Asian and Middle Eastern contexts, were consistently associated with top-down decision-

making, weak local discretion, and symbolic consultation. In contrast, decentralised or multi-level governance

systems did not necessarily guarantee meaningful participation, in several Latin American and African cases,

fragmented institutional roles and elite capture constrained community influence despite the presence of

participatory provisions. These findings indicate that participation barriers are less a function of formal

decentralization alone and more closely tied to how authority, accountability, and decision-making power are

distributed in practice.

Overall, socio-economic barriers dominate in lower-income and rural contexts, while procedural and

institutional barriers are more salient in higher-income planning systems. Centralised governance structures

consistently correlate with symbolic participation, whereas decentralised systems face risks of fragmentation

and elite capture. These patterns indicate that participation barriers are governance-contingent rather than

universal.

Fig.2. Conceptual framework synthesizing interrelated institutional, socio-economic, political, cultural,

procedural, and technological barriers shaping the quality of public participation in land-use planning

Figure 2 synthesizes the review findings into an integrative conceptual framework illustrating how interrelated

barriers shape the quality of public participation in land-use planning. Institutional and political barriers

influence authority structures, decision-making rules, and power relations within planning systems. Socio-

economic and cultural barriers affect communities’ capacity and willingness to participate, while procedural and

technological barriers shape how participation is designed and implemented in practice. Together, these

interacting factors determine whether public participation remains tokenistic or progresses toward more

meaningful and inclusive engagement.

Page 91

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

CONCLUSION

This systematic review synthesised evidence from fifty-eight empirical studies to identify the core barriers that

hinder meaningful public participation in land-use planning across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and

Oceania. The review identified six overarching themes institutional, socio-economic, political, cultural,

procedural, and technological barriers which collectively shape the inclusiveness, equity, and effectiveness of

participatory planning processes. The analysis demonstrates that participation challenges are rarely the result of

a single factor; rather, they emerge from the interaction of structural weaknesses, governance limitations, cultural

hierarchies, and socio-economic inequalities embedded within planning systems.

Institutional weaknesses, including weak legal mandates, bureaucratic fragmentation, and centralised decision-

making, were found to be the most persistent obstacles to meaningful engagement. These factors often set

restrictive parameters around who is consulted, when engagement occurs, and how community feedback is

incorporated into planning decisions. Socio-economic inequalities, such as financial hardship, low literacy, and

livelihood pressures, further limit the ability of marginalised groups to participate. Political influences especially

elite capture, selective transparency, and weak political will shape whose voices are privileged and whose

concerns are sidelined. Cultural norms around authority, gender, and community hierarchy also play a crucial

role in determining who feels confident to speak in public settings. Meanwhile, the rise of digital consultation

introduces new forms of exclusion for individuals and communities affected by the digital divide or low digital

literacy.

Overall, the findings confirm that barriers to participation are deeply systemic, requiring more than procedural

reforms. Improving participation depends on addressing broader institutional, political, and socio-economic

structures that determine how planning power is distributed. The insights from this review contribute to

strengthening participatory governance by informing planners, policymakers, and scholars about the multi-

layered dynamics that shape community involvement in land-use decision.

Recommendation for future studies

The findings of this review highlight several important directions for future research on meaningful public

participation in land-use planning.

First, the evidence shows that existing studies are heavily concentrated in a limited set of countries, particularly

within Africa, South Asia, and parts of Latin America (e.g., Adebayo & Mensah, 2017; Khan, 2016; Castro,

2022). Regions such as the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Pacific remain significantly

underrepresented. Expanding research into these areas is essential to capture the diversity of political cultures,

planning traditions, and institutional contexts that shape participatory outcomes. Broader geographic coverage

will strengthen the global applicability of future SLRs and reduce regional bias in participatory planning

scholarship.

Second, very few studies employ comparative or longitudinal designs. Most existing research focuses on

participation within a single country or planning episode (e.g., Rahman & Hashim, 2018; Munyua, 2021;

González, 2020), limiting our understanding of how participation barriers evolve over time or vary across

governance systems. Comparative studies such as cross-country analyses between different administrative

structures could reveal how institutional reforms, decentralization initiatives, or shifting political environments

influence participation. Longitudinal research tracking the same communities over time would provide insights

into whether improvements in legal frameworks, procedural guidelines, or decentralised governance would

translate into sustained changes in community empowerment.

Third, the rapid digitalization of public engagement calls for deeper research into digital participation. Several

studies noted challenges related to digital exclusion, uneven internet access, and low digital literacy (Nyirenda,

2020; Haque, 2019; Howard, 2024; Thapa, 2022). However, few examined how platform design, accessibility,

or user experience shaped digital engagement outcomes. Future research should explore hybrid participation

models, the effectiveness of online consultation tools in low-resource settings, and strategies to prevent digital

technologies from reinforcing existing social inequalities. Lastly, the review identifies an important gap in

Page 92

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

outcome-focused research. While many studies documented participation processes or community perceptions

(e.g., Dimitriou, 2018; Bianchi, 2021; Rodríguez, 2018), far fewer examined how public input influenced actual

planning decisions, land allocations, conflict reduction, displacement patterns, or environmental outcomes.

Future research should assess the tangible impacts of participation and identify which approaches genuinely

enhance community influence versus those that remain largely symbolic. Such research will be critical to

designing evidence-based reforms that strengthen participatory governance and improve planning outcomes

Recommendation for policymakers

The findings of this review provide several important insights that can guide policymakers in strengthening

meaningful public participation in land-use planning.

First, the persistence of weak legal mandates and centralised planning systems across many countries (Adebayo

& Mensah, 2017; Rahman & Hashim, 2018; Hussein, 2024; Nguyen, 2022) demonstrates the need for

policymakers to establish clear, enforceable legal frameworks that embed participation at every stage of the

planning cycle. Strengthening statutory requirements for early-stage consultation, mandating public disclosure

of planning documents, and clarifying institutional responsibilities can reduce bureaucratic inconsistencies and

prevent participation from becoming symbolic. These reforms can bring planning processes closer to

communities and ensure that engagement is treated as a legal obligation rather than an administrative formality.

Second, socio-economic inequalities emerged as a major barrier to inclusive participation, particularly in low-

income and rural settings (Nyirenda, 2020; Ramos, 2023; Dlamini & Moyo, 2016; Baker, 2023). Policymakers

should therefore implement targeted support measures such as transportation subsidies, childcare assistance,

community-based meeting locations, and compensation for lost work time to ensure that marginalized

households can participate without bearing disproportionate costs. Simplifying technical information, translating

materials into local languages, and using accessible communication formats can further help reduce literacy-

related barriers (Alemu, 2021; Castro, 2022; Khan, 2016). These measures collectively ensure that

socioeconomic status does not predetermine one’s ability to engage in decision-making.

Third, political influences especially elite capture, selective transparency, and weak political will were found to

significantly distort participation outcomes in several countries (Santos, 2019; Castro, 2022; Toure, 2020;

Rodríguez, 2018). To address this, policymakers must strengthen transparency and accountability mechanisms,

including mandatory public release of planning documents, open access to environmental or social impact

assessments, and publicly traceable records of how community feedback influences final decisions. Anti-

corruption safeguards and independent monitoring bodies can help curb elite capture and ensure that planning

decisions reflect broader community interests rather than narrow political or economic agendas.

Fourth, cultural norms related to gender, hierarchy, and authority significantly shape participation behaviors

(Shrestha, 2023; Khan, 2016; Kamara, 2018; An & Park, 2017). Policymakers should incorporate culturally

sensitive engagement strategies, such as separate dialogues for women and youth, facilitated small-group

discussions, or partnerships with trusted community leaders who can encourage participation among socially

marginalized groups. Such culturally attuned strategies can help build confidence among participants who might

otherwise remain silent due to social expectations or power dynamics.

Fifth, procedural reform is essential for improving the quality of engagement. Findings show that consultations

are often conducted too late, poorly facilitated, or structured around one-directional communication (Akhtar,

2021; Green, 2019; Dimitriou, 2018; Wijesinghe, 2020). Policymakers should promote deliberative and iterative

consultation models, ensuring that communities are engaged at problem identification, option evaluation, and

decision-finalization stages. Training programs for facilitators, guidelines for inclusive meeting design, and

community-led monitoring mechanisms can support more meaningful dialogue and reduce procedural exclusion.

Lastly, the rise of digital participation requires policymakers to address the risks associated with digital

inequality. The review highlights substantial gaps in internet access, device availability, and digital literacy

(Nyirenda, 2020; Haque, 2019; Howard, 2024; Thapa, 2022). To prevent digital exclusion, policymakers should

promote hybrid participation models that combine online and in-person engagement, invest in community ICT

Page 93

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

centers, and implement digital literacy targeting low-income and rural populations. Online platforms must also

be designed with usability, linguistic accessibility, and user support in mind (Akhtar, 2021; Hussein, 2024;

Pavlova, 2024). By addressing these technological barriers, policymakers can ensure that digital transformation

enhances, rather than restricts, public involvement.

Overall, the findings indicate that strengthening meaningful public participation requires systemic and multi-

level reforms that address institutional weaknesses, reduce socio-economic inequalities, promote transparency,

respect cultural dynamics, enhance procedural design, and ensure equitable access to both physical and digital

participation spaces. These recommendations can guide policymakers in creating more inclusive, accountable,

and democratic land-use planning systems that genuinely reflect the needs, knowledge, and aspirations of the

communities they serve.

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

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

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

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

5. Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental

decisions. Resources for the Future.

6. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

(2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

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

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

9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic

analysis?

https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

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

Qualitative

Research

in

Psychology,

18(3),

328–352.

&

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

12. Cheema, G. S., & Rondinelli, D. A. (2007). Decentralizing governance: Emerging concepts and

practices. Brookings Institution Press.

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

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

15. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2018). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-

analysis (3rd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.

16. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community

Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010

17. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

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

SAGE.

Page 94

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

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

20. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford

University Press.

21. Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive representation. American Political Science Review,

102(4), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080325

22. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke

University Press.

23. Fischer, F. (2020). Climate crisis and the democratic prospect: Participatory governance in sustainable

communities. Oxford University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

33. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press.

34. Healey, P. (2010). Making better places: The planning project in the twenty-first century. Palgrave

Macmillan.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

41. Lane, M. B. (2006). Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer,

37(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180600840870

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

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

Page 95

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

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

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.

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

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

48. Miraftab, F. (2004). Invited and invented spaces of participation. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 697–

712. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590410001678847

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

50. Myers, G. (2015). Urban environments in Africa: A critical analysis of environmental politics. Policy

Press.

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

52. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide.

Blackwell Publishing.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

59. Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis

studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29–40.

60. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. John Wiley & Sons.

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

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

63. Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. (2009). Public participation in environmental assessment: A critical review

of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.02.001

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

Canadian

practices.

Environmental

Impact

Assessment

Review,

29(5),

323–334.

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

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

Page 96

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025

67. UN-Habitat. (2009). Planning sustainable cities: Global report on human settlements 2009. UN-Habitat.

68. UN-Habitat. (2015). International guidelines on urban and territorial planning. UN-Habitat.

69. UN-Habitat. (2020). World Cities Report 2020: The value of sustainable urbanization. UN-Habitat.

70. Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., & Duineveld, M. (2014). Evolutionary governance theory. Springer.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 97

www.rsisinternational.org