Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Jongwng Ju
 -- 1353 2023-11-02 10:22:51 |
2 only format change
Alfred Zheng
 Meta information modification 1353 2023-11-03 04:35:21 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Ju, J.; Kim, J. Applications of Delphi Method in Policy and Planning. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51085 (accessed on 16 May 2024).
Ju J, Kim J. Applications of Delphi Method in Policy and Planning. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51085. Accessed May 16, 2024.
Ju, Jongwng, Jaecheol Kim. "Applications of Delphi Method in Policy and Planning" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51085 (accessed May 16, 2024).
Ju, J., & Kim, J. (2023, November 02). Applications of Delphi Method in Policy and Planning. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51085
Ju, Jongwng and Jaecheol Kim. "Applications of Delphi Method in Policy and Planning." Encyclopedia. Web. 02 November, 2023.
Applications of Delphi Method in Policy and Planning
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/land12101941

In participatory planning, fostering authentic dialogue among diverse stakeholders is paramount. Such dialogue not only facilitates information exchange but also promotes mutual understanding and trust, leading to consensus. Initially developed in the 1950s, the Delphi technique was designed to facilitate agreement among experts regarding future forecasts. Known as ‘classical Delphi’, this original form aims to organize group interactions in a way that minimizes the drawbacks commonly associated with face-to-face discussions, such as biases related to authority, hasty conclusions, and inflexibility in initial viewpoints.

participatory planning Delphi method

1. Introduction

In participatory planning, fostering authentic dialogue among diverse stakeholders is paramount [1][2]. Such dialogue not only facilitates information exchange but also promotes mutual understanding and trust, leading to consensus [3][4]. Face-to-face interactions are often the preferred method of communication in the participatory planning process [5][6][7][8]. However, factors such as social or power imbalances among stakeholders can make these interactions uncomfortable for some, and this discomfort can lead them to become ‘voiceless’ [9][10][11]. In this study, ‘voiceless’ stakeholders are defined as those who, due to such discomfort, lose the will or interest to participate and voice their opinions in the planning process. The existing literature emphasizes the importance of supporting these less-vocal groups by empowering them through education and information sharing, as well as technical and financial assistance [5][12][13]. Nevertheless, due to the significant time and effort required by such methods [12], practicing planners face challenges, particularly when administrative support for community involvement is weak or when project constraints limit time and resources [10][14]. Therefore, it is vital to identify practical strategies that practicing planners can adopt within given constraints. Delphi methods may be one such strategy to address these challenges. They offer a way for both outspoken stakeholders and those who are less vocal to find common ground more efficiently than through traditional community empowerment approaches [15][16]. By employing Delphi methods, all stakeholders including the less vocal can maintain anonymity and engage in a form of two-way communication, avoiding the potential conflicts that often arise from face-to-face interactions. This is achieved through repeated participation in surveys and receiving feedback on the survey results [17][18]. Particularly, the policy Delphi approach, which is generally better suited for heterogeneous groups, may be more appropriate for participatory planning compared to the classical Delphi approach, which is intended for homogeneous groups.

2. Applications of the Delphi Method in Policy and Planning

2.1. Key Elements and Limitations of Participatory Planning

In a world where society is becoming more diverse, participatory planning may help fix some of the flaws of representative democracy. When done right, it ensures that the different needs and interests of various groups are not overlooked [19]. However, merely adopting this approach does not guarantee success. If planning only relies on one-way communication such as public hearings or surveys and leaves out important stakeholders, then public involvement might just remain surface-level. This shallow engagement could potentially erode trust in the resultant policies and the wider administrative system [1][20][21].
Consequently, contemporary planning practices emphasize the value of collaborative participation, which often involves face-to-face meetings among a diverse group of stakeholders [1]. The principles of collaborative participation, have been propounded in both collaborative and communicative planning literature [22][23]. Judith Innes and Patsy Healey are key figures in the field of collaborative and communicative planning theory [24]. Both theorists emphasize communication, social relationships, and human resources as core elements of communicative planning while they differ in how they articulate these concepts.
Innes and Booher [1] identify three foundational elements of collaborative participation: authentic dialogue, networks, and institutional capacity. Firstly, authentic dialogue ensures that all stakeholders, regardless of their stature, have an equal voice, access to uniform information, and actively engage in listening to one another [1][12][25]. Such dialogical interactions promote accurate information sharing and mutual understanding among stakeholders, and often lead to a re-evaluation of initial stances, thereby aiding in building consensus [1][3]. Authentic dialogue is crucial for genuine collaborative participation, while networks and institutional capacity arise as outcomes of the participatory planning process [12]. Secondly, networks refer to the relationships established among stakeholders in the planning process [1]. In the participatory planning process, stakeholders encounter new individuals, resolve conflicts with those holding divergent interests via authentic dialogue, and build trust [26][27][28]. Once established, these networks create a foundation that facilitates improved outcomes in subsequent collaborations [29]. Thirdly, institutional capacity encompasses intellectual capital, social capital, and political capital [30]. Intellectual capital relates to the knowledge resources underpinning decision-making, social capital speaks to the relational resources that bolster collaboration among stakeholders, and political capital signifies the ability to define and execute agendas [31]. Through authentic dialogue, stakeholders become better informed, collaborate with a diverse set of individuals to address issues, and gain confidence in the process [1][32]. The networks and institutional capacities formed in this manner not only enhance the current planning mechanisms but also equip stakeholders to tackle forthcoming local challenges beyond the immediate planning framework [12][25][33].

2.2. Applications of the Delphi Method in the Fields of Policy and Planning

Initially developed in the 1950s, the Delphi technique was designed to facilitate agreement among experts regarding future forecasts [34]. Known as ‘classical Delphi’, this original form aims to organize group interactions in a way that minimizes the drawbacks commonly associated with face-to-face discussions, such as biases related to authority, hasty conclusions, and inflexibility in initial viewpoints [18][35]. In the classical Delphi approach, experts from relevant fields are typically selected as panelists. Anonymity is maintained among these panelists, who individually respond to questions. These responses are then collected, and statistical feedback summarizing the group’s collective opinions is provided to the panelists [35][36]. Upon reviewing this group feedback, panelists have the opportunity to re-evaluate and adjust their initial answers for the subsequent round of feedback [37]. The classical Delphi process usually involves two to three iterative rounds and concludes when researchers determine that a state of equilibrium has been reached in participant responses [36][38].
While classical Delphi methods were primarily developed for future forecasting, policy Delphi methods were introduced by Turoff [15] as a tool to clarify varied perspectives on policy topics. Similar to the classical Delphi process, policy Delphi methods involve iterative rounds where participants compare their views with others and reconsider their initial opinions. However, policy Delphi methods differ from classical ones in the following ways: First, the panels for policy Delphi methods are generally composed of stakeholders involved in the policy issues, whereas those for classical methods consist of experts in related fields for future forecasting. Second, due to the influence of various beliefs and values in policy fields, the panels for policy Delphi methods often comprise heterogeneous groups with diverse viewpoints, while those for classical methods are made up of homogeneous expert groups [15][39][40][41]. Finally, unlike classical Delphi methods, which focus on panel consistency, policy Delphi methods may adjust their panel composition to better represent diverse interests [38].
However, in planning practices, the Policy Delphi methods have often been used simply for building consensus among stakeholders, even though they were originally designed to both clarify diverse stakeholder views and build consensus [42][43]. For example, Schneider [44] empirically validated the capability of the Delphi technique to achieve consensus among stakeholders. Morgan et al. [45] highlighted its use in establishing unified objectives among community leaders for a comprehensive plan in the early stages. In the study by Baumann et al. [46], the Delphi approach was once again used as a one-way communication tool; however, Baumann also highlighted its potential as a tool for consensus-building, particularly when face-to-face dialogues are impractical in participatory planning. Such research emphasizes the Delphi method’s viability for achieving consensus in participatory planning. However, the policy Delphi processes in the above studies failed to reflect the diverse views of different stakeholders, particularly those of less vocal ones, mainly for the following two reasons: First, the panels were made up of stakeholders already involved in the planning process who were vocal about their interests. As a result, those who had not participated in the planning process were excluded from the Delphi process. Second, the entire policy Delphi process was largely document-based. In other words, panelists read and responded to questionnaires, and their answers were then summarized and delivered back to the panel in written form. This document-centric approach could pose challenges for some panelists who may have difficulty understanding the questionnaires or articulating their opinions without expert guidance [47][48].

References

  1. Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Plan. Theory Pract. 2004, 5, 419–436.
  2. Cooper, T.L.; Bryer, T.A.; Meek, J.W. Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Management. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 76–88.
  3. Innes, J.E. Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1996, 62, 460–472.
  4. Healey, P. Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Town Plan. Rev. 1992, 63, 143–162.
  5. Bryson, J.M.; Quick, K.S.; Slotterback, C.S.; Crosby, B.C. Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 23–34.
  6. Kathi, P.C.; Cooper, T.L. Democratizing the Administrative State: Connecting Neighborhood Councils and City Agencies. Public Adm. Rev. 2005, 65, 559–567.
  7. Nabatchi, T. Putting the ‘Public’ Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Adm. Rev. 2012, 72, 699–708.
  8. Yang, J.; Yang, L.; Ma, H. Community Participation Strategy for Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Xiamen, China. Land 2022, 11, 600.
  9. John, P. Can Citizen Governance Redress the Representative Bias of Political Participation? Public Adm. Rev. 2009, 69, 494–503.
  10. Yang, K.; Callahan, K. Citizen Involvement Efforts and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Participatory Values, Stakeholder Pressures, and Administrative Practicality. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 249–264.
  11. Fainstein, S.S. The just city. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2014, 18, 1–18.
  12. Innes, J.E. Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Plan. Theory 2004, 3, 5–20.
  13. Davidoff, P. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1965, 31, 331–338.
  14. Choguill, M.B.G. A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries. Habitat Int. 1996, 20, 431–444.
  15. Turoff, M. The design of a policy Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1970, 2, 149–171.
  16. Geist, M.R. Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: A comparison of two studies. Eval. Program Plan. 2010, 33, 147–154.
  17. Linstone, H.A.; Turoff, M. Delphi: A brief look backward and forward. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 1712–1719.
  18. Linstone, H.A.; Turoff, M. The Delphi Method; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975.
  19. Cain, B.E.; Dalton, R.J.; Scarrow, S.E. Democracy Transformed?: Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies; Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY, USA, 2003.
  20. Michels, A.; De Graaf, L. Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policy Making and Democracy. Local Gov. Stud. 2010, 36, 477–491.
  21. Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224.
  22. Forester, J. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
  23. Healey, P. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, 2nd ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  24. Westin, M. The framing of power in communicative planning theory: Analysing the work of John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes. Plan. Theory 2022, 21, 132–154.
  25. Healey, P. Collaborative Planning in Perspective. Plan. Theory 2003, 2, 101–123.
  26. Susskind, L.; Ozawa, C. Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: The Planner as Mediator. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 1984, 4, 5–15.
  27. Coleman, K.; Stern, M.J.; Widmer, J. Facilitation, Coordination, and Trust in Landscape-Level Forest Restoration. J. For. 2017, 116, 41–46.
  28. Connick, S.; Innes, J.E. Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2003, 46, 177–197.
  29. Booher, D.E.; Innes, J.E. Network power in collaborative planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2002, 21, 221–236.
  30. Healey, P. Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 1998, 30, 1531–1546.
  31. Khakee, A. Assessing Institutional Capital Building in a Local Agenda 21 Process in Göteborg. Plan. Theory Pract. 2002, 3, 53–68.
  32. Dryzek, J.S. Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building. Comp. Political Stud. 2009, 42, 1379–1402.
  33. Friedmann, J. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1987.
  34. Dalkey, N.; Helmer, O. An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts. Manag. Sci. 1963, 9, 458–467.
  35. Dalkey, N. An experimental study of group opinion: The Delphi method. Futures 1969, 1, 408–426.
  36. Rowe, G.; Wright, G.; Bolger, F. Delphi: A reevaluation of research and theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1991, 39, 235–251.
  37. Williams, P.L.; Webb, C. The Delphi technique: A methodological discussion. J. Adv. Nurs. 1994, 19, 180–186.
  38. de Loë, R.C.; Melnychuk, N.; Murray, D.; Plummer, R. Advancing the State of Policy Delphi Practice: A Systematic Review Evaluating Methodological Evolution, Innovation, and Opportunities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 104, 78–88.
  39. Crisp, J.; Pelletier, D.; Duffield, C.; Adams, A.; Nagy, S. The Delphi method? Nurs. Res. 1997, 46, 116–118.
  40. Rauch, W. The decision Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1979, 15, 159–169.
  41. Hussler, C.; Muller, P.; Rondé, P. Is diversity in Delphi panelist groups useful? Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 1642–1653.
  42. Glass, J.J. Citizen Participation in Planning: The Relationship Between Objectives and Techniques. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1979, 45, 180–189.
  43. Delbecq, A.L.; Van de Ven, A.H.; Gustafson, D.H. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes; Scott Foresman: Northbrook, IL, USA, 1975.
  44. Schneider, J.B. The policy Delphi: A regional planning application. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1971, 3, 481–497.
  45. Morgan, D.R.; Pelissero, J.P.; England, R.E. Urban Planning: Using a Delphi as a Decision-Making Aid. Public Adm. Rev. 1979, 39, 380–384.
  46. Baumann, N.; Ervin, O.; Reynolds, G. The Policy Delphi and Public Involvement Programs. Water Resour. Res. 1982, 18, 721–728.
  47. Lilja, K.K.; Laakso, K.; Palomäki, J. Using the Delphi method. In Proceedings of the PICMET ‘11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), Portland, OR, USA, 31 July–4 August 2011; pp. 1–10.
  48. Hsu, C.-C.; Sandford, B.A. Minimizing non-response in the Delphi process: How to respond to non-response. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2007, 12, 17.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Regional & Urban Planning
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Jongwng Ju
,
Jaecheol Kim
View Times: 146
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 03 Nov 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback