Xiao, H and Hao, S (2023) Public participation in infrastructure projects: An integrative review and prospects for the future research. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(2), pp. 456-477. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: In the past few decades, traditional project management theories mainly focused on quality, cost and schedule. However, with larger scale and wider influence of infrastructure projects, especially in megaprojects, social problems have gradually become pressing issues in the field of project governance. As the public is the main body of society, public participation has attracted the attention from both the academic field and industry field. Despite people are gradually realizing the significance of public participation, a deeper and more systematic understanding is still needed to be developed in this field. Therefore, this paper aims to conduct a systematic literature review on public participation in infrastructure projects. Based on existing literatures, this paper draws a knowledge map and develops a research framework in this field. Also, this paper tries to provide some theoretical and practical directions for the future. Design/methodology/approach: In total, 142 papers from Web of Science Core collection were selected to be used in this systematic review. Quantitative analysis of this paper is concentrated on the knowledge map with bibliometric tools. Qualitative analysis is concentrated on identifying the research framework. Findings: This paper reviewed existing literatures and the results are as below. Firstly, the results show a knowledge map containing knowledge domains, knowledge frontiers and knowledge evolution of research fields in public participation. Secondly, the results indicate a research framework in this field, including situational dimension, implementation dimension, individual dimension and influence dimension. Moreover, each dimension has several research topics, respectively. Finally, according to the results, the paper proposes practical suggestions for stakeholders and research directions for further study. Originality/value: It is the first paper to draw a holistic knowledge map and build up a multilevel framework for public participation in the field of infrastructure projects. This paper bridges the gap in both quantitative and qualitative identification of existing literatures in this field. Besides, this paper proposes some practical suggestions and research directions for further study and development of public participation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bibliometric; infrastructure projects; literature review; public participation; research framework |
| Index terms: | literature review, governance, quantitative analysis, megaproject, systematic literature review, society, dimension, public participation, multilevel framework, project management, methodology, infrastructure project, science, evolution, implementation, qualitative analysis |
| Subjects: | business, participation process, data analysis and analytics, research design and methodology, strategic project management, health monitoring assessment and metrics, research methods, specialized education, research evaluation and metrics, communities and social development, environmental science, project management theory and practice, infrastructure and transport systems, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Education, Research Practice, Project Management, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here