Who Uses Which Tools

1
Who Uses Which Tools WhyA Review of
E-Governance in Planning

• Maria Manta Conroy Jennifer Evans-Cowley
• City Regional Planning
• The Ohio State University

2
Participation Planning

• Hallmark of practice
• Benefits to participants and to government
• Challenge to improve experience

3
Participation E-Governance

• Benefits
• Spark public interest
• Visualization enhances experience
• Increase communication opportunities
• Concerns
• Digital divide
• Limited influence

4
Planning E-Governance

• Ripeness of planning for e-governance
• Online public
• Challenges of face and file format
• Visual information base
• Payment applications
• What kind of online participation opportunities
  are being developed?

5
Methodology

• Community population minimum of 50,000
• Local planning departments
• Search for web presence
• Review of web offerings

6
Web Offering Evaluation

• 582 total communities
• 571 with web presence
• 554 with planning related site
• Participation tools
• Information based offerings
• Interaction offerings
• Language offerings
• Ease of navigation and content

7
Sample of Cities with no Web Presence

• Birmingham, Alabama
• Waterbury, Connecticut
• Terra Haute, Indiana
• East Orange, New Jersey

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
Information Based Offerings

• One way form of communication
• Zoning ordinances, land use plans, planning
  meeting agendas and minutes, audio/visual media

11
Information Offerings
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Information Offerings
15
(No Transcript)
16
Interaction based offerings

• Two way communication
• Staff email, commission email, applications,
  e-commerce, email news, discussion groups,
  interactive GIS

17
Interaction Offerings

• Applications included those at an interaction
  level as well as at an information level.

18
(No Transcript)
19
Interaction Offerings

• Applications included those at an interaction
  level as well as at an information level.

20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Interaction Offerings

• Applications included those at an interaction
  level as well as at an information level.

23
(No Transcript)
24
Interaction Offerings

• Applications included those at an interaction
  level as well as at an information level.

25
(No Transcript)
26
Language Offerings
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
Conclusions

• Easy dominates
• Enhancements challenging
• Increasing number of good examples
• User expectations increasing