Citizen participation in local public meetings is crucial for planning decision-making processes. This study employed large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT models, to analyze more than 4,000 transcripts of local planning public meetings in the United States between 2006 and 2023. We quantify citizen participation levels and explore their relationship with public meeting topics. Findings align with previous scholarship that local public meetings do not consistently result in citizen empowerment. We also identify actionable strategies—such as fostering solution-oriented discussions and increasing civic organization involvement—that can enhance participatory planning. These insights suggest data-driven approaches for inclusive and equitable planning processes.
AcemogluDaronRobinsonJames A.2006. “De Facto Political Power and Institutional Persistence.” The American Economic Review96 (2): 325–30. doi:10.1257/000282806777212549.
2.
AdamsBrian. 2004. “Public Meetings and the Democratic Process.” Public Administration Review64 (1): 43–54. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00345.x.
3.
ArnsteinSherry R.1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners35 (4): 216–24. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.
4.
BarariSoubhikSimkoTyler. 2023. “LocalView, a Database of Public Meetings for the Study of Local Politics and Policy-making in the United States.” Scientific Data10 (1): 135–35. doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02044-y.
5.
BerryJeffrey M.PortneyKent E.BablitchMary BethMahoneyRichard. 1984. “Public Involvement in Administration: The Structural Determinants of Effective Citizen Participation.” Journal of Voluntary Action Research13 (2): 7–23. doi:10.1177/089976408401300203.
6.
BickerstaffKarenWalkerGordon. 2005. “Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning.” Urban Studies42 (12): 2123–44. doi:10.1080/00420980500332098.
7.
BrattRachelReardonKenneth M.2013. “Beyond the Ladder: New Ideas about Resident Roles in Contemporary Community Development in the United States.” In. Policy, Planning, and People : Promoting Justice in Urban Development, edited by CarmonNaomiFainsteinSusan S, 356–82. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
8.
CampbellScott D.2016. “The Planner’s Triangle Revisited: Sustainability and the Evolution of a Planning Ideal that Can’t Stand Still.” Journal of the American Planning Association82 (4): 388–97. doi:10.1080/01944363.2016.1214080.
9.
CannonClare E. B.ChuEric K.NatekalAsiyaWaalandGemma. 2024. “Institutional Designs for Procedural Justice and Inclusion in Urban Climate Change Adaptation.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. doi:10.1177/0739456X241274579.
10.
ChaskinRobertKhareAmyJosephMark. 2012. “Participation, Deliberation, and Decision Making: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Mixed-Income Developments.” Urban Affairs Review48 (6): 863–906. doi:10.1177/1078087412450151.
11.
CheckowayBarry. 1981. “The Politics of Public Hearings.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science17 (4): 566–82. doi:10.1177/002188638101700411.
12.
ClarkJill K.2021. “Public Values and Public Participation: A Case of Collaborative Governance of a Planning Process.” American Review of Public Administration51 (3): 199–212. doi:10.1177/0275074020956397.
13.
Cohen-BlankshtainGalitGofenAnat. 2022. “Serial Participation in Urban Planning: The Trouble Makers as City Makers?”Journal of the American Planning Association88 (2): 149–62. doi:10.1080/01944363.2021.1947872.
14.
CollinsKevinIsonRay. 2009. “Jumping off Arnstein’s Ladder: Social Learning as a New Policy Paradigm for Climate Change Adaptation.” Environmental Policy and Governance19 (6): 358–73. doi:10.1002/eet.523.
15.
DavidoffPaul. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners31 (4): 331–38. doi:10.1080/01944366508978187.
16.
DengZhongfenYoonSeunghyunBuiTrungDernoncourtFranckTranQuan HungLiuShuaiqiZhaoWentingZhangTaoWangYiboYuPhilip S.2023. “Aspect-based Meeting Transcript Summarization: A Two-stage Approach with Weak Supervision on Sentence Classification.” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData), Sorrento, December 15–18.
17.
EinsteinKatherine LevineGlickDavid M.PalmerMaxwell. 2023. “Public Participation.” In A Research Agenda for US Land Use and Planning Law, edited by InfrancaJohn J.SchindlerSarah, 93–107. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
18.
EinsteinKatherine LevinePalmerMaxwellGlickDavid M.2019. “Who Participates in Local Government? Evidence from Meeting Minutes.” Perspectives on Politics17 (1): 28–46. doi:10.1017/S153759271800213X.
19.
FainsteinSusan S.2005. “Planning Theory and the City.” Journal of Planning Education and Research25 (2): 121–30. doi:10.1177/0739456X05279275.
20.
FitzgeraldJoan. 2022. “Transitioning from Urban Climate Action to Climate Equity.” Journal of the American Planning Association88 (4): 508–23. doi:10.1080/01944363.2021.2013301.
21.
FuXinyu. 2024. “Natural Language Processing in Urban Planning: A Research Agenda.” Journal of Planning Literature39 (3): 395–407. doi:10.1177/08854122241229571.
22.
FuXinyuBrinkleyCatherineSanchezThomas W.LiChaosu. 2025. “Text Mining Public Feedback on Urban Densification Plan Change in Hamilton, New Zealand.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science52:646–66. doi:10.1177/23998083241272097.
23.
FuXinyuLiChaosuZhaiWei. 2023. “Using Natural Language Processing to Read Plans: A Study of 78 Resilience Plans from the 100 Resilient Cities Network.” Journal of the American Planning Association89 (1): 107–19. doi:10.1080/01944363.2022.2038659.
24.
FuXinyuSanchezThomas W.LiChaosuJunqueiraJuliana Reu. 2024. “Deciphering Public Voices in the Digital Era: Benchmarking ChatGPT for Analyzing Citizen Feedback in Hamilton, New Zealand.” Journal of the American Planning Association90 (4): 728–41. doi:10.1080/01944363.2024.2309259.
25.
FuXinyuWangRuoniuLiChaosu. 2023. “Can ChatGPT Evaluate Plans?”Journal of the American Planning Association90 (3): 525–36. doi:10.1080/01944363.2023.2271893.
26.
GarrisonJessica Debats. 2019. “Seeing the Park for the Trees: New York’s “Million Trees” Campaign vs. the Deep Roots of Environmental Inequality.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science46 (5): 914–30. doi:10.1177/2399808317737071.
27.
GerberElizabeth R.PhillipsJustin H.2003. “Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science47 (7): 625–39. doi:10.2307/3186123.
28.
GlassJames J.1979. “Citizen Participation in Planning: The Relationship between Objectives and Techniques.” Journal of the American Planning Association45 (2): 180–89. doi:10.1080/01944367908976956.
29.
GodschalkDavid R.RouseDavid C.2015. Sustaining Places : Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
30.
GundryKathleen G.HeberleinThomas A.1984. “Research Report: Do Public Meetings Represent the Public?” Journal of the American Planning Association50 (2): 175–82. doi:10.1080/01944368408977173.
31.
HanAlbert TonghoonLaurianLucieDewaldJim. 2021. “Plans Versus Political Priorities: Lessons From Municipal Election Candidates Social Media Communications.” Journal of the American Planning Association87 (2): 211–27. doi:10.1080/01944363.2020.1831401.
32.
HerberleinThomas A.1976. “Some Observations on Alternative Mechanisms for Public Involvement: The Hearing, Public Opinion Poll, the Workshop and the Quasi-Experiment.” Natural Resources Journal16 (1): 197–212.
33.
InnesJudith E.BooherDavid E.2004. “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st century.” Planning Theory & Practice5 (4): 419–36. doi:10.1080/1464935042000293170.
34.
JohnsonKajsa N.JohnsonRebecca L.EdwardsDaniel K.WheatonChristopher A.1993. “Public Participation in Wildlife Management: Opinions from Public Meetings and Random Surveys.” Wildlife Society Bulletin21 (3): 218–25.
35.
KarnerAlexBrownKeith BrowerMarcantonioRichardAlcornLouis G.2019. “The View From the Top of Arnstein’s Ladder: Participatory Budgeting and the Promise of Community Control.” Journal of the American Planning Association85 (3): 236–54. doi:10.1080/01944363.2019.1617767.
36.
KojimaTakeshiGuS.ReidMachelMatsuoYutakaIwasawaYusuke. 2023. Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners. Paper presented at the arXiv.
37.
KrumholzNorman. 1982. “A Retrospective View of Equity Planning Cleveland 1969–1979.” Journal of the American Planning Association48 (2): 163–74. doi:10.1080/01944368208976535.
38.
LoganJohn R.MolotchHarvey L.1987. Urban Fortunes : The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
39.
LoganJohn R.RabrenovicGordana. 1990. “Neighborhood Associations: Their Issues, Their Allies, and Their Opponents.” Urban Affairs Quarterly26 (1): 68–94. doi:10.1177/004208169002600104.
40.
LohCarolyn G.KimRose. 2021. “Are We Planning for Equity? Equity Goals and Recommendations in Local Comprehensive Plans.” Journal of the American Planning Association87 (2): 181–96. doi:10.1080/01944363.2020.1829498.
41.
Loukaitou-SiderisAnastasiaSiderisAthanasios. 2010. “What Brings Children to the Park? Analysis and Measurement of the Variables Affecting Children’s Use of Parks.” Journal of the American Planning Association76 (1): 89–107. doi:10.1080/01944360903418338.
42.
McComasKatherine A.2001. “Public Meetings about Local Waste Management Problems: Comparing Participants to Nonparticipants.” Environmental Management27 (1): 135–47. doi:10.1007/s002670010139.
43.
McComasKatherine A.BesleyJohn C.BlackLaura W.2010. “The Rituals of Public Meetings.” Public Administration Review70 (1): 122–30. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02116.x.
44.
MeerowSaraPajouheshPaniMillerThaddeus R.2019. “Social Equity in Urban Resilience Planning.” Local Environment24 (9): 793–808. doi:10.1080/13549839.2019.1645103.
45.
MittelstadtBrentWachterSandraRussellChris. 2023. “To Protect Science, We Must Use LLMs as Zero-shot Translators.” Nature Human Behaviour7 (11): 1830–32. doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01744-0.
46.
OjhaHemant R.2006. “Techno-bureaucratic Doxa and Challenges for Deliberative Governance: The Case of Community Forestry Policy and Practice in Nepal.” Policy & Society25 (2): 131–75. doi:10.1016/S1449-4035(06)70077-7.
47.
OsmaniSiddiqur R.2008. “Participatory Governance: An Overview of Issues and Evidence.” In Participatory Governance and the Millennium Development Goals, edited by United Nations, 1–45. New York: Department for Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations.
48.
PritchettWendell E.2003. “The “Public Menace” of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain.” Yale Law & Policy Review21 (1): 1–52.
49.
RiveraDanielle ZoeJenkinsBradleighRandolphRebecca. 2022. “Procedural Vulnerability and Its Effects on Equitable Post-disaster Recovery in Low-income Communities.” Journal of the American Planning Association88 (2): 220–31. doi:10.1080/01944363.2021.1929417.
50.
RosenJovannaPainterGary. 2019. “From Citizen Control to Co-production: Moving beyond a Linear Conception of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Planning Association85 (3): 335–47. doi:10.1080/01944363.2019.1618727.
51.
SchlosbergDavid. 2009. Defining Environmental Justice : Theories, Movements and Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
SciaraGian-Claudia. 2017. “Metropolitan Transportation Planning: Lessons from the Past, Institutions for the Future.” Journal of the American Planning Association83 (3): 262–76. doi:10.1080/01944363.2017.1322526.
53.
ScottJames C.1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance : Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
ShinBokyong. 2021. “Exploring Network Measures of Social Capital: Toward More Relational Measurement.” Journal of Planning Literature36 (3): 328–44. doi:10.1177/0885412221999415.
55.
SinclairM.1977. “The Public Hearing as a Participatory Device: Evaluation of the IJC Experience.” In Public Participation in Planning, edited by SewellW. R. DerrickCoppockJ. T., 105–22. London and New York: Wiley.
56.
SlotterbackCarissa Schively. 2010. “Public Involvement in Transportation Project Planning and Design.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research27 (2): 144–62.
57.
SlotterbackCarissa SchivelyLauriaMickey. 2019. “Building a Foundation for Public Engagement in Planning: 50 Years of Impact, Interpretation, and Inspiration from Arnstein’s Ladder.” Journal of the American Planning Association85 (3): 183–87. doi:10.1080/01944363.2019.1616985.
58.
SmithPatrick D.McDonoughMaureen H.2001. “Beyond Public Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making.” Society & Natural Resources14 (3): 239–49. doi:10.1080/089419201750111056.
59.
StapperE. W.DuyvendakJ. W.2020. “Good Residents, bad Residents: How Participatory Processes in Urban Redevelopment Privilege Entrepreneurial Citizens.” Cities107:102898. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102898.
60.
SullivanGail M.ArtinoAnthony R.Jr.2013. “Analyzing and Interpreting Data from Likert-Type Scales.” Journal of Graduate Medical Education5 (4): 541–42. doi:10.4300/JGME-5-4-18.
61.
TalenEmily. 1998. “Visualizing Fairness: Equity Maps for Planners.” Journal of the American Planning Association64 (1): 22–38. doi:10.1080/01944369808975954.
62.
TritterJonathan QuetzalMcCallumAlison. 2006. “The Snakes and Ladders of User Involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein.” Health Policy76 (2): 156–68. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.008.
63.
YinLiHanMoNieXuanyi. 2024. “Unlocking Blended Emotions and Underlying Drivers: A Deep Dive into COVID-19 Vaccination Insights on Twitter Across Digital and Physical Realms in New York, Using ChatGPT.” Urban Science8 (4): 222. doi:10.3390/urbansci8040222.
64.
ZandiatashbarAhouraLauritoAgustina. 2023. “An Empirical Analysis of the Link between Built Environment and Safety in Chicago’s Transit Station Areas.” Journal of the American Planning Association89 (2): 225–39. doi:10.1080/01944363.2022.2069590.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
