Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While prior literature has explored how different participation modalities can align with pre-specified goals in public involvement programs, research is needed on how configurations of participation modalities can address informational goals that are unique to PPPs. This study addresses this need by integrating insights from the literatures on PPPs and on public involvement to develop a theoretical framework. This study underscores the importance of ensuring public consultation before design options are finalized and emphasizes the potential of virtual public involvement (VPI) tools to educate citizens and gain their perspectives on PPPs. Emerging and established tools in digital engagement thus offer great promise for meeting the informational needs of PPPs, yet traditional in-person consultations remain essential for achieving the community agreement needed to align projects with local preferences. VPI tools can also improve citizen exposure to project components, yet many present more opportunities for conveying technical details than financial ones.

Keywords

citizen participation public works public private partnerships privatization of services contracting

Introduction

Although public-private partnerships (PPPs) have gained popularity in advancing transportation infrastructure (Siemiatycki, 2007; Wang et al., 2021), growing evidence reveals significant challenges in incorporating the needs of the publics they aim to serve (Chen et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2023; Tariq & Zhang, 2020; Zhang & Ali Soomro, 2016). Improving the collection and communication of technical and financial information about PPPs remains an understudied aspect of public involvement challenges in these forms of project delivery (De Schepper et al., 2014; El-Gohary et al., 2006; Reynaers & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2015; Shaoul et al., 2010). While prior literature has explored how different participation modalities can align with pre-specified goals in public involvement programs (Floress & Cohen, 2022; Flyvbjerg, 2004; Grossardt et al., 2003; Pantic et al., 2021; Rowe & Frewer, 2000), research is needed on how configurations of participation modalities can address the informational goals that are unique to PPPs. Exploring these intersections is especially important given the increasing availability of virtual public involvement tools (VPI) for use by public managers. Two research questions therefore guide this study: how can information disclosure and information collection with the public be improved in transportation projects developed through PPPs, and how can VPI innovations enhance community relations and engagement in these projects?

This research aims to bridge a gap in the study of PPPs by integrating literature on public involvement and PPPs to develop a theoretical framework for guiding public involvement in PPPs. This framework can both explain why public involvement challenges in PPPs persist and present strategies for improving information dissemination and consultation in these projects. Research has long acknowledged the unique challenges of public involvement in transportation projects delivered through PPPs (Chen et al., 2013; Haughton & Mcmanus, 2012; Hayllar & Wettenhall, 2010; Song et al., 2018; Zhang & Ali Soomro, 2016). Scholars have also emphasized the growing need to both disseminate and gather information at various stages of PPPs (De Schepper et al., 2014; El-Gohary et al., 2006; Reynaers & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2015; Shaoul et al., 2010). However, further research can speak to how sequencing and configuring participation can address such informational requirements in PPPs.

This research also sheds new light on technology integration in public involvement (Mergel, 2013; Newell et al., 2008; Pantic et al., 2021) by identifying areas where virtual public involvement (VPI) may complement or outperform traditional participatory methods in PPPs (Chassin et al., 2022). Digital engagement has long been integral to public involvement (Evans-Cowley & Griffin, 2012; Russell & Herzer, 2002; Staffans et al., 2020) and the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the shift from in-person meetings to virtual community engagement (Floress & Cohen, 2022; Pantic et al., 2021). VPI practices are not mandated by law, however, and remain subject to the discretion of public managers (Slotterback, 2010; Yang & Callahan, 2007). Even with prior research calling attention to the use of digital tools in PPPs (Torvinen & Ulkuniemi, 2016), research is lacking on the implications of VPI innovations for the informational needs of these projects (Torvinen & Ulkuniemi, 2016).

Analysis of the World Bank’s Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) database indicates that nearly 5% of PPP infrastructure projects have been canceled since the 1980s (Li & Wang, 2023; Ruiz Díaz, 2020; Song et al., 2018), with insufficient information disclosure and inadequate community consultation frequently cited as contributing factors (De Schepper et al., 2014; El-Gohary et al., 2006; Reynaers & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2015; Shaoul et al., 2010). In response, multilateral development organizations have increasingly called for research to enhance democratic accountability and community representation in PPPs (OECD, 2007; Romero & Ravenscroft, 2018; UNECE, 2007). By addressing these persistent problems for PPPs (Boyer et al., 2015; Li et al., 2005a; Siemiatycki & Farooqi, 2012), this research can improve perceptions of both project legitimacy and the long-term accountability that may underlie them.

This paper proceeds as follows. A first section reviews the public involvement literature on the challenges of information distribution and consultation in PPPs, before a second section draws from that literature to assess techniques for sequencing and structuring engagement before design options are finalized. The third section introduces configurations of public involvement modalities—including emerging technological tools—to develop a framework of engagement techniques applicable across the phases of project development. The final section summarizes the theoretical and practical contributions of the research, highlighting gaps and tensions addressed by the proposed framework and outlining directions for future research to strengthen public engagement in PPPs.

Characteristics and Challenges of Public Involvement in PPPs

Prior literature highlights challenges around information disclosure and consultation throughout the lifecycle of PPPs, both in pre-construction and post-construction phases (Ruiz Díaz, 2019; Spiller, 2008) (see Table 1: Potential Public Involvement Challenges in PPPs). While informing and consulting the public during the planning of these projects is well studied, PPPs demand a more sustained and adaptive approach to public engagement due to their long-term contractual nature. With private partners often managing infrastructure assets for 30 years or more beyond construction, public involvement strategies must extend well beyond initial planning (Amadi et al., 2018; De Schepper et al., 2014; Henjewele et al., 2013; Ismail et al., 2019; Sheppard & Beck, 2023). Throughout other project phases, members of the public require access to technical and financial information to reduce misunderstandings, to alleviate contractual conditions that limit transparency, and to improve accountability. While consultation is typically more comprehensive during planning than during operational stages, feedback mechanisms remain essential during the delivery phase of the projects (El-Gohary et al., 2006).

Table 1.

Potential Public Involvement Challenges in PPPs

Pre-Construction	Issue	Subdimension	Information/consultation required
Information and educational challenges	Members of the public may have preconceived notions about private partners in public services.	Members of the public may assume PPPs serve government and private partners at the cost to them.	Technical information: Performance outcomes achieved due to the PPP structure, as well as basic education about the PPP structure and associated implications.
		Members of the public may perceive private partners as profiting at their expense.	Financial information: Scope of public sector obligations to private partners, including risks borne by private partners.
	Institutional characteristics of PPPs present challenges in public relations.	The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not apply to PPPs, and commercial confidence measures may further limit project information to the public.	Technical information: The core design and operational elements of the project, and their expected impacts on the community, including the timeline for delivery and implementation.
		Long-term contracts involving non-compete clauses can limit regional transportation development.	Financial information: Allowable explanations of technical and financial risk sharing, including financial contributions, subsidies, guarantees, and in-kind transfers to private partners over short-term and long-term time horizons.
		Large-scale projects are highly visible and likely impactful on a wide spectrum of citizen stakeholders.
		Complex risk configurations in PPP contracts can fuel public misunderstanding of private roles in projects.
Consultation challenges	Public and private interests in PPPs can limit public feedback and consultation.	Members of the public may be treated as consumers rather than citizens.	Technical components: Citizen shaping of project designs and service goals, including standards of performance assessment.
Consultation challenges		Citizens may self-organize to express concerns over projects.	Financial components: Scope and scale of public sector obligations and tolling rates.

Post-Construction	Issue	Subdimension	Information/consultation required
Information and educational challenges	Reporting on project performance may prove limited.	Citizens receive inaccurate information on project impacts beyond their direct experiences.	Technical information: Meeting performance targets, completion of project milestones for delivery, contract modification and renegotiations, and contract violations and associated penalties applied, including independent evaluations.
Information and educational challenges	Reporting on project performance may prove limited.	Citizens receive limited information to discern if a project is achieving its intended objectives.	Financial information: Actual measures of revenues generated, user demand, government payments and obligations to partners, public payments through tolls and user fees, financial position of the project SPV in comparison to forecasted figures, including independent audit and evaluation results.
Consultation challenges	Leaders may be unaware of citizen criticism of projects.	Citizens may self-organize in-person or online to express frustration.	Technical components: User feedback and experiences, including concerns over social and environmental impacts.
Consultation challenges	Leaders may be unaware of citizen criticism of projects.	Citizens may seek media outlets to express their concerns if they feel unheard.	Financial components: Perceptions of private profits, toll rates, government obligations.

The “public” here refers to any non-governmental actors “(1) who may have information relevant to the issue at hand, and/or (2) whose participation in decision making is necessary to assure successful implementation.” Following Thomas (2012, pp. 146–147):

Those actors can encompass a wide array of groups, including traditional interest groups (e.g., business lobbies, labor unions), program beneficiaries, consumer and environmental groups, other public interest groups, residential groups (organized homeowners’ association or unorganized residents of an area), advisory groups that include representatives of any of the other groups, plus previously unorganized groups that might share an interest in the issue.

Information and Educational Components of Public Involvement (Pre-Construction)

A central challenge in the pre-construction phase of PPPs is to adequately inform and educate the public about the nature, conditions, and potential impacts of these complex projects. Misconceptions can arise from skepticism about privatization reforms (Battaglio & Legge, 2009) and related misunderstandings of the roles of private partners in PPPs (Delmon, 2010). PPPs are complex contracts that distribute technical and financial risks between a government agency and a special purpose vehicle (SPV), the private partner in a PPP, to facilitate long-term development of transportation infrastructure (Grimsey & Lewis, 2007; Hodge & Greve, 2010). The public often misunderstands contractual arrangements due to their legal and financial complexities (Coghill & Woodward, 2005; Reeves et al., 2015; Savas, 2000). Although there are varying configurations of risk allocation in PPPs (Delmon, 2010), greater delegation of responsibilities to private partners typically increases concerns that private companies may profit at the public’s expense (Kivleniece & Quelin, 2012; Ni, 2012; Roehrich & Kivleniece, 2022). Concerns about PPPs are often exacerbated by the limited transparency of these arrangements, as information disclosure is restricted to protect intellectual property and proprietary business interests (Li et al., 2005b; Liu et al., 2015; Tariq & Zhang, 2020). Private companies are not subject to the same freedom of information laws as their government counterparts, which can further compromise public understanding (Li et al., 2005b). Government leaders may also lean on commercial confidence-related provisions to withhold unfavorable information about PPPs (Haughton & Mcmanus, 2012; Siemiatycki & Farooqi, 2012), potentially resulting in “selective disclosure” of projected benefits while potential costs are obscured (Siemiatycki, 2007).

PPPs typically involve contractual commitments that bind the public to specific payment terms and service conditions extending decades into the future (Boyer et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2013). PPPs that contain toll collection, for example, often include a “non-compete clause” to protect the future earnings of private partners (Ni, 2012). Such provisions can limit traveler choices, exacerbate traffic congestion, and undermine public satisfaction (Haughton & Mcmanus, 2012).

A range of information can help counter public preconceptions about the role of private firms in PPPs by demonstrating how their involvement can advance infrastructure planning and enhance public services. Technical information, in particular, can communicate the anticipated community benefits, such as improved road safety, reduced congestion, enhanced accessibility, and integration of innovative technologies, while also clarifying the performance measures to which the project will be accountable (Amadi et al., 2018; Ismail et al., 2019; Sheppard & Beck, 2023; World Bank, 2017). Trainings and educational resources can complement public understanding of the PPP and its contributions to infrastructure development (El-Gohary et al., 2006; Henjewele et al., 2013).

Public communication in PPPs should also include a clear and accessible explanation of the rationale for selecting PPP delivery over alternative delivery mechanisms (Reynaers & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2015; Shaoul et al., 2010). Such explanations may include analyses of the costs and benefits of alternative delivery models, such as value for money (VFM) assessments or public sector comparators, to provide evidence of the PPP financial advantages (Sheppard & Beck, 2023; World Bank, 2017). Posting contract-related documents, including contract summaries, requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for qualifications (RFQs) can also help (Valverde & Moore, 2019). Even though contract documents may be difficult for the average citizen to digest, their distribution enables other parties, such as the press and interest groups, to distill their implications for general consumption (World Bank, 2017).

Consultative Components of Public Involvement in PPPs (Pre-Construction)

The misalignment of incentives between public and private partners can complicate consultative efforts. Large-scale PPP projects enable governments to advance major projects using private financing (Feng et al., 2023) and allow private companies to secure long-term revenue streams (Hellowell et al., 2015). These incentives can encourage efforts to restrict public input in order to protect political and commercial interests (Chen et al., 2013; Hodge & Greve, 2010; Williamson & Ruming, 2019).

Nevertheless, meaningful public consultation during project planning plays a critical accountability role by ensuring that the affected community has an opportunity to influence the shape of projects (Hayllar & Wettenhall, 2010). In doing so, public involvement can move beyond questions about willingness to pay for tolls or fees, to include broader discussions about preferred project types (Chen et al., 2013; Gofen, 2015). Communicating how public preferences shape project components can alleviate public criticism, which may be expressed outside traditional public involvement and can snowball into self-organizing (Kivleniece & Quelin, 2012).

To be effective, consultation requires public input on both the technical and financial dimensions of projects (De Schepper et al., 2014; Torvinen & Ulkuniemi, 2016). Public input can inform project design around such local preferences as mobility needs, environmental goals, and aesthetic and cultural consideration, and help establish performance measures grounded in community-defined values (Ismail et al., 2019; Sheppard & Beck, 2023; Wang & Gao, 2020). Public shaping of this kind can lay the groundwork for justifying and verifying the work of project partners over the long-term horizon of most PPPs.

Even with the challenges in collecting public input on the financial aspects of PPPs (Dannin, 2011; Shaoul et al., 2010; Sheppard & Beck, 2023), the consultative process can influence such project components as non-compete clauses or toll-rates. It is critical to obtain this public input prior to the awarding of the contract for it to factor into contractual terms (Dannin, 2011; Valverde & Moore, 2019).

Information and Educational Components of Public Involvement in PPPs (Post-Construction)

Following construction, PPPs pose new challenges in keeping the public informed about project performance. These challenges stem from both limited public awareness of project achievements and the incentives that may lead private partners to prioritize operational efficiencies over the user experience. For example, reducing infrastructure aesthetics or quality may be more cost-effective for private partners than investing in innovations that improve service quality (Acerete et al., 2010; Shaoul et al., 2010; Siemiatycki, 2011; Siemiatycki & Friedman, 2012). Additionally, a lack of accurate and timely information about the project’s performance, such as traffic congestion levels, roadway safety (Shaoul et al., 2010; Wang & Lin, 2023), and environmental outcomes, can fuel public misunderstanding and frustration with the projects (Spiller, 2008).

It is critical at this stage for PPP partners to provide detailed explanations of how well the project met its objectives, especially those shaped in the earlier public consultation. Performance might be further clarified by comparing outcomes to those of projects developed through traditional procedures (Sheppard & Beck, 2023). Public faith in the project can also be enhanced by highlighting penalties associated with areas where the contractor fell short of performance objectives (Ismail et al., 2019). Disclosing any renegotiations and associated modifications to the contract can alleviate public misunderstandings and improve public perception of the government overseeing the project (World Bank, 2017). Public trust can be further enhanced by publicizing evaluations of project outcomes, ideally by independent engineers and/or auditing officials (World Bank, 2017).

Financial transparency is equally important at this stage, including how actual demand aligns with expected demand, how actual revenue aligns with expected revenue, and how the rate of toll collection aligns with expectations (World Bank, 2017). PPP contracts often include provisions for “compensation events” whereby the government must pay the contractors to utilize the roadways in ways that could disrupt revenue generation, such as for street repair, festival use, holidays or related events (Dannin, 2011). Public disclosure here can shed light on actual taxpayer commitments to private profits (Shaoul et al., 2010).

Consultative Components of Public Involvement in PPPs (Post-Construction)

After construction, PPPs pose additional challenges in identifying and responding to evolving public concerns, as when PPPs impose tolls on roadways that were previously free to use. In some cases, opposition to tolls has prompted community members to create an informal handbook with suggestions for how to avoid them (Chen et al., 2013). Citizens may self-organize through online platforms or social media to share their concerns and exert pressure on project authorities (Bakht & El-Diraby, 2014; Chen et al., 2013; Chilvers & Longhurst, 2016). Activist groups often play a key role here by helping to mobilize and coordinate public opposition (Chilvers & Longhurst, 2016; Kivleniece & Quelin, 2012). When citizens feel project authorities fail to respond to their concerns, they may appeal to the press or reach out to elected leaders (Chen et al., 2013). In some cases, users have boycotted toll roads in protest (Chen et al., 2013; Haughton & Mcmanus, 2012; Zhang & Ali Soomro, 2016), as has happened in the United Kingdom (Zhang & Ali Soomro, 2016), Australia (Haughton & Mcmanus, 2012) and China (Chen et al., 2013). Public frustration has also been directed at PPP non-compete clauses which can exacerbate congestion by limiting the development of competing roadways (Haughton & Mcmanus, 2012; Li et al., 2005b).

Alleviating public concerns in the operational phase requires mechanisms for collecting citizen perceptions. Effective communications with the public cannot only help justify the PPP model and the selection of specific partners, but also reinforce public trust in government (Amirkhanyan et al., 2024; O'Leary et al., 2020). Moreover, members of the community can also express their views on how well project goals are being met (de Graaff et al., 2024), serving an accountability function through their feedback (McCubbins & Schwartz, 1984; Spiller, 2008).

Collecting citizen input on technical project components requires attention to user experiences, including public views on issues like traffic congestion, safety, and road quality (Amadi et al., 2018) as well as environmental impacts. Central to these efforts is determining public awareness of service conditions and their perceptions of the quality of transportation services (Amadi et al., 2018; De Schepper et al., 2014). Related issues may include citizen views on how noncompete clauses may contribute to traffic congestion (Dannin, 2011; Haughton & Mcmanus, 2012). The technical components of the projects are often easier to achieve than the financial ones, so technical issues may prove less controversial than the financial (Shaoul et al., 2010). Understanding the public’s perspectives on achievement of technical goals is essential, however, as positive views toward such conditions can alleviate public concerns around financial components (Shaoul et al., 2010).

Citizen feedback on the financial project conditions is also essential, yet too often neglected (Amadi et al., 2018; Ambituuni, 2025; Dannin, 2011; El-Gohary et al., 2006). It is therefore necessary to establish systems for collecting and responding to citizen views on the project costs and the associated obligations of government, including compensation events, guarantees, and direct payments for services (availability payments). Related matters may include public views on the performance bonuses or penalties issued to contractors, and the ways that contractor performance is shown to outperform government-administered projects.

Public Involvement Literature and Consulting the Public

The public involvement literature offers valuable insights for addressing the informational challenges associated with PPPs, particularly regarding the sequencing and structuring of consultations with the public. A key lesson from this body of this work is the importance of soliciting community input early in the process, before design specifications are finalized (Bailey et al., 2007; Fotaki, 2011; Grossardt et al., 2003). Early engagement allows citizens to define key project features, rather than only react to pre-determined options defined by someone else (Banerjee et al., 2006; Rowe & Frewer, 2000).

Critical points for soliciting input include the time prior to contract award and again before the completion of construction and commencement of service delivery. Each of these stages marks a point after which design modifications become increasingly difficult to incorporate (World Bank, 2017). An associated challenge involves reconciling community perspectives with the technical, financial, and political constraints faced by public agencies and private partners. Negotiation here is likely to be more effective when project planners clearly identify and communicate any non-negotiable project conditions prior to public consultation (Griffin & Jiao, 2019; Hayllar & Wettenhall, 2010; Song et al., 2018). Clarifying these constraints at the outset helps manage expectations and provides a transparent framework for engagement (Thomas, 2012, p. 139). Once design options have been developed with feedback from the public, the participating public is more likely to feel a sense of ownership and buy-in (Bailey et al., 2007). It is also essential to provide a clear explanation of how these alternatives reflect expressed public preferences (Bailey et al., 2015).

The success of consultation also depends on the depth of engagement (Arnstein, 1969; Fung, 2004, 2010) and the meaningful incorporation of citizen perspectives in project designs (Thomas, 2013). Achieving this level of engagement requires sustained social interactions between the community and government (Griffin & Jiao, 2019), enabling the integration of top-down information provided by planners with bottom-up information from the public (Bailey et al., 2015; Griffin & Jiao, 2019). Equally important is ensuring that feedback is gathered from a broad and diverse cross-section of the community to accurately capture the full range of public preferences. This balance between engagement depth and stakeholder representation is illustrated in Figure 1: Balancing Depth and Representation in Public Consultation.

Figure 1.

Balancing Depth and Representation in Public Consultation

Ensuring the representativeness of public consultations remains a significant challenge (Bailey et al., 2015; Camay et al., 2012; Pantic et al., 2021). To enhance representativeness, planners must “undertake aggressive recruitment of representatives of relevant publics,” which requires both careful identification of target groups and the deployment of diverse techniques to ensure their voices are heard (Thomas, 2012, pp. 150-152). Addressing structural barriers is also critical. This includes overcoming digital divides that may limit the participation of underserved populations (Camay et al., 2012; Floress & Cohen, 2022; Griffin & Jiao, 2019), reducing the geographical distance to in-person events to enhance accessibility (Chassin et al., 2022), and minimizing scheduling and other obstacles to participation (Bailey et al., 2015; Evans-Cowley & Griffin, 2012).

Differentiating Traditional From Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) Modalities

The combined needs for transmitting and soliciting information and in broadening consultation point to the importance of effectively aligning participation modes with those goals (Camay et al., 2012; Floress & Cohen, 2022; Flyvbjerg, 2004; Nyerges & Aguirre, 2011). Given the factors that make PPPs more politically volatile than other delivery mechanisms (Lee et al., 2018; Ni, 2012; Riccio, 2014; Romero & Ravenscroft, 2018), effective engagement requires innovation beyond standard planning processes (Barnes & Langworthy, 2004). It is therefore imperative to assess the potential contribution of various participation modalities, including those involving VPI.

For example, VPI offers a wide array of modalities that can contribute to public engagement in PPPs (Pantic et al., 2021), including social media, virtual meetings, GIS-related technologies, interactive visualizations, and emerging artificial intelligence applications (Camay et al., 2012; Floress & Cohen, 2022; Steinmetz et al., 2021; Stewart et al., 2018). VPI approaches can either supplement or substitute for more traditional engagement formats, such as public meetings and community forums (Bakht & El-Diraby, 2014; Camay et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2013; Ebdon & Franklin, 2004; Song et al., 2018).

Information and Educational Components of Public Involvement

A range of traditional dissemination tools can help address preconceived notions about the role of private partners in PPPs. These include press releases and media outreach that aim at generating broader press coverage of the project (Laurian & Shaw, 2009), as well as dedicated project websites that provide accessible information on project concepts and elements that are open to public influence (Ebbers et al., 2008; Thomas & Streib, 2003; USDOT, 2002). Project brochures serve a complementary function by providing information on preliminary plans for a proposed project (Laurian & Shaw, 2009; Nabatchi, 2012). In addition to providing background information, these tools can raise awareness about consultation processes and help to expand avenues for community engagement (Grossardt et al., 2003). Such tools could prove important in distributing both technical and financial information about PPPs, as many U.S. states mandate the development of project website to host fundamental project information for PPPs (World Bank, 2017).

Virtual modalities, such as social media, can enhance traditional information dissemination by offering complementary content alongside mainstream news coverage (Williamson & Ruming, 2019) and by enabling more rapid distribution of materials across social networks (Camay et al., 2012; Steinmetz et al., 2021). Transportation agencies often possess the capacity for these forms of information broadcasting (Camay et al., 2012; Meijer & Torenvlied, 2014; Mergel, 2012). Experience from previous PPP projects underscores the importance of these tools for correcting public misconceptions and increasing community engagement. AI can also be employed through chatbots that process citizens’ information and service requests to (Chen et al., 2023; Yigitcanlar et al., 2024). The chatbots may be able to “understand client inquiries and respond automatically” to clarify meeting options and availability (Senadheera et al., 2024, p. 2). By expanding the reach of project information, such tools can bridge knowledge gaps and promote more inclusive participation than traditional methods alone.

Some virtual technologies can help to overcome the common challenges of explaining transportation designs in ways accessible to the public. Geographic information systems (GIS) have been utilized since the 1990s in public involvement (Zhong et al., 2008) for their ability to overlay a spatial dimension to design options (Depietri et al., 2021). Project websites can feature virtual maps that allow citizens to highlight design elements they view as desirable or undesirable (Griffin & Jiao, 2019). Enhanced visualizations through augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) can also provide more realistic depictions of proposed transportation improvements. 3D visualizations provide an immersive “virtual landscape” that visually integrates proposed facilities with their existing surroundings (Ehab et al., 2023). Some applications allow citizens to see virtual renderings of infrastructure plans overlaid on “real” geographical plans (Chassin et al., 2022) as through headsets that provide a fully immersed virtual reality (Ehab et al., 2023; Hanzl, 2007). Some smartphone camera apps enable users to visualize proposed designs while they are in the project’s proposed environment (Wang & Lin, 2023). An important caveat to these approaches is that they are most effective after design options have been introduced. Employed too early in the process, they may unintentionally heighten citizen concerns that project concepts are being imposed without meaningful input.

Another important qualification in the use of these technologies is that they are generally more effective at enhancing public understanding of technical than financial project aspects. Visualization tools excel at illustrating complex engineering designs, such as proposed road enhancements (e.g., lane expansions, exit ramp creations), right-of-way boundaries, and/or changes to pedestrian and rail alignments. They are not designed to convey financial elements, underscoring the need for complementary strategies to communicate such information.

Consultative Components of Public Involvement in PPPs

Traditional, in-person consultation in physical “brick and mortar” venues remains a cornerstone of public involvement (Bakht & El-Diraby, 2014). Such formats are likely essential for achieving the depth of engagement required to reconcile local perspectives with expert and institutional priorities in PPPs. They can also counter perceptions that project designs are being advanced without genuine community input.

In-person meetings continue to be among the most widely used tools in public participation processes, including such vehicles as public hearings, consensus-building conferences, citizen advisory committees, citizen panels and juries, focus groups, and project open houses (Ebdon & Franklin, 2004; Renn, 2015; Rowe & Frewer, 2000). They facilitate direct interactions that can clarify misunderstandings that are often difficult to address in virtual settings (Floress & Cohen, 2022). Additionally, their less structured nature permits informal “side conversations,” which can yield deeper insights into sociocultural contexts and foster more meaningful engagement (Pantic et al., 2021). Within public meetings, for example, community preferences can be unveiled when attendees are:

divided into small groups, with each group charged to discuss and report back to the full group on the meeting’s central issue. This approach achieves the goal of face-to-face small-group discussions nested in the context of a much larger group (Thomas, 2012, p. 178)

Public participation geographical information systems (PPGIS) can be applied to public meetings by having community members assign comments to geographical renderings of project plans, specifying their desired amenities such as public use spaces, pedestrian zones or bike zones (Floreddu & Francesca, 2014; Ganapati, 2011; Griffin & Jiao, 2019; Zhong et al., 2008). The scope and scale of in-person events typically support the reconciliation of community differences, the alignment of expert and local perspectives, and the provision of multiple opportunities to exchange both technical and financial information.

Despite the potential of in-person venues to enhance engagement, they also pose barriers to participation, barriers that virtual public involvement can help to mitigate. For example, engaging the public through social media can enable participation from persons who are unable to attend in-person events (Depietri et al., 2021; O’Leary et al., 2020). This may be particularly attractive to younger people who are less likely to participate in traditional participation formats (Steinmetz et al., 2021) as well as to people with mobility-related challenges or other accessibility barriers (Chen et al., 2013).

Social media can improve citizen participation by connecting with citizens through widely used online platforms. In the U.S., a majority of residents report using either or both YouTube and Facebook social media platforms, making social media a potentially valuable tool for reaching diverse audiences (Camay et al., 2012; Gottfried, 2024). These platforms enable participation in virtual meetings unconstrained by geographic location (Krykewycz et al., 2011; Slotterback, 2010). While limited access to the internet and personal computing devices can restrict some individuals’ participation (Clark et al., 2013), the widespread use of smartphones suggests a more accessible means of engagement for many communities. In addition, incorporating traditional telephone calls alongside other virtual platforms can further expand participation opportunities, particularly for persons uncomfortable with newer digital tools (Floress & Cohen, 2022).

Social media reduces costs for participation and enables more flexible and informal modes of generating citizen input (Brabham, 2009; Evans-Cowley & Griffin, 2012; Newell et al., 2008). One result is “micro-participation” that can be more accessible to time-constrained individuals (Chilvers & Longhurst, 2016; Evans-Cowley & Griffin, 2012). Moreover, the anonymity often afforded by digital platforms may encourage individuals to voice opinions on sensitive issues they might be hesitate to express in public forums (Mattila & Nummi, 2022). GIS can also be integrated with social media to enable users to comment and even cast votes on design options (Chassin et al., 2022), thus broadening avenues for citizen input. Enhanced visualization can also reveal citizen preferences for technical design concepts, like the “percentage of a site with covered buildings…the amount of green space in an area…[or] the length of street walls among buildings in respect to the length of a side block” (Wang & Lin, 2023, pp. 6–7). Citizen-generated feedback displayed through these mediums can then be analyzed through AI. For example, Natural Language Processing (NLP) can identify common themes by breaking down individual phrases and words (Senadheera et al., 2024).

Actively monitoring and soliciting feedback from citizen stakeholders through online communication channels in a timely and transparent manner (Bakht & El-Diraby, 2014; Mattila & Nummi, 2022) can significantly expand opportunities for gauging public attitudes toward PPPs. Online surveys and other web-based interfaces can generate useful understanding of views towards projects in operation (Ismail et al., 2019; Sheppard & Beck, 2023). Government can enhance such efforts by providing email addresses and online portals where citizens can submit project-related concerns (West, 2006). Moreover, AI tools, such as chatbots, can enhance engagement by facilitating two-way communication and collecting citizen input in real time (Chen et al., 2023; Senadheera et al., 2024). These systems can broaden access to consultation processes, lower the effort required to participate, and increase the likelihood that citizens feel heard.

An important qualification to the use of VPI tools is that the very mechanisms that broaden participation may simultaneously constrain the depth of interaction by limiting the scope of public exchange. While VPI can enhance access and engagement, it may fall short in facilitating rich deliberation because social media platforms typically limit the number of comments/characters per post (Steinmetz et al., 2021), thereby restricting the depth of public input. Additionally, the creation of a social media page or post does not guarantee meaningful engagement (Agostino & Arnaboldi, 2016) since effective facilitation of virtual meetings requires skills that may not be available within public agencies (Barry et al., 2024). Building consensus and reconciling divergent community perspectives faces greater obstacles in virtual settings than in in-person forums where informal interactions and nonverbal cues support deeper understanding. These limitations demonstrate the importance of combining virtual and in-person methods to achieve both inclusivity and deliberative depth in engagement around PPPs.

Developing an Integrated Framework of Improving Public Involvement in PPPs

By integrating insights from the literatures on PPPs and public involvement, this research contributes to the longstanding inquiry into how public involvement modalities can be aligned with pre-existing goals (Floress & Cohen, 2022; Flyvbjerg, 2004; Grossardt et al., 2003; Pantic et al., 2021). Specifically, it identifies configurations of public involvement approaches that are particularly well-suited to addressing the unique informational needs in both the pre-construction and post-construction phases of PPPs (see Figure 2: Framework of Public Involvement in PPPs During Pre-Construction and Post-Construction Phases).

Figure 2.

Framework of Public Involvement in PPPs During Pre-construction and Post-construction Phases

Regarding our first research question, we see persuasive arguments for the potential for VPI to advance informing and educating the public as well as hearing from the public about PPPs. Digital engagement tools that support visualization and geolocation of project plans can mitigate misinterpretations about the technical aspects of PPPs and their impacts on the community. Additionally, social media platforms and related digital content can improve public comprehension of project components and help dispel misunderstandings about the role of private partners in infrastructure delivery. Such approaches are likely to be critical in overcoming preconceived notions about privatization (Battaglio & Legge, 2009) and the roles of private companies in PPPs (Kang & Vedlitz, 2024). Our first proposition, therefore, emphasizes the potential for VPI to reduce information asymmetries between planners and the public during the development of PPPs.

P₁: Digital engagement tools are likely to improve public understanding of PPPs by addressing common misperceptions about private roles in infrastructure delivery and by mitigating the institutional barriers to information disclosure.

The potential contributions to public understanding depend, however, on when they are introduced. Digital tools that improve comprehension of existing plans are likely to be most effective when deployed after a degree of consensus around community priorities has been established and incorporated into design alternatives. Introducing these tools before engaging the public in the formulation of project goals and design could potentially diminish confidence in the project’s utility and reinforce perceptions that design decisions primarily serve external interests. This leads to our second proposition as an important qualification to the potential benefits of VPI for public engagement in PPPs:

P₂: Digital engagement tools that enhance public comprehension of infrastructure designs are most effective when introduced after design elements have been shaped with community engagement. The success of VPI depends on its ability to link technical features to goals and priorities established through community consultation, thereby avoiding the perception that plans conflict with local values.

Digital technologies such as GIS and advanced visualization platforms offer useful enhancements to how the public can engage and understand the technical components offered through PPPs, but they remain limited in their ability to improve understanding of the financial intricacies of PPPs. This points to the need for contract disclosure that includes both legal texts and plain-language explanations of financial obligations. Supplementary material may include executive summaries, schedules of payments, and scenario-based illustrations of community impacts, leading to this third proposition:

P₃: While VPI technologies can help citizens comprehend the design characteristics of PPPs, they offer limited utility for communicating financial details. Public disclosure of a wide range of financial and contract materials are therefore also necessary to ensure the public understands a PPP’s financial implications.

Following the completion of infrastructure projects and the commencement of service delivery, digital engagement tools become essential for disseminating information on project performance and monitoring public sentiment. Since it is unrealistic to expect the public to independently seek out performance data, a proactive communication strategy is necessary to convey the achievements and features of the project. Social media and related digital platforms are especially valuable here given their utility for public discourse and the window they can provide to changes in public sentiments, suggesting our fourth proposition:

P₄: Social media outreach and monitoring, supported by targeted digital content, are essential tools for enhancing public understanding of the benefits associated with project services and for tracking shifts in public sentiment.

As for our second research question on the potential for digital engagement to enhance traditional approaches to public involvement, the evidence indicates that while VPI can broaden participation, it may constrain the depth of interactions with the public and limit the extent to which local preferences can be incorporated into infrastructure designs. Achieving the depth of interaction required to incorporate public views into technical designs calls for in-person, professionally facilitated discussions in traditional forums, leading to our fifth proposition:

P₅: While VPI can significantly expand the reach of community engagement, achieving the depth of mutual understanding needed to integrate local priorities into PPP design requires in-person engagement. Traditional formats such as workshops, design charrettes, and public hearings remain essential for building public trust.

Conclusions

While prior research has emphasized the need for public debate in the planning of PPP transportation projects (Hayllar & Wettenhall, 2010), this study underscores the critical importance of convening discussions with the public before any plans are drafted (Griffin & Jiao, 2019; Hayllar & Wettenhall, 2010; Li & Wang, 2023; Rowe & Gammack, 2004; Song et al., 2018). Given the potential tradeoff between public consultation and timely project delivery (Sheppard & Beck, 2023), governments should restrict public involvement to those mechanisms that yield significant public input and likely public support. Mechanisms lacking that yield should be jettisoned once their marginal value is evident.

At the same time, planners will benefit from realizing that “timely project delivery” rests on both (1) as efficient a decision-making process as possible and, once the decision is made, (2) as efficient an implementation process as possible. Since additional time taken to involve the public could reduce the time needed for implementation, a lengthier involvement process that wins public support and thereby facilitates implementation will usually be preferable to a shorter process that does not win that support. Put differently, short-circuiting public involvement to achieve timely project delivery could have the opposite effect by catalyzing public opposition that delays or paralyzes implementation (Thomas, 2012, p. 141).

The findings of this study hold practical implications for policymakers, government agencies, and PPP practitioners seeking to improve public involvement. During the planning of PPPs, VPI can reduce information asymmetries by accelerating information dissemination and communication of technical complexities. In turn, GIS-based applications and immersive visualizations can enhance public understanding of designs and their impacts, while AI-powered chatbots can respond to individual questions. Social media engagement can also broaden participation by reducing the costs of participation and by diversifying avenues for gaining feedback. Natural language processing technologies can then help to synthesize qualitative feedback.

During the project delivery of PPPs, VPI can enhance public understanding of goal attainment as citizens directly experience project outcomes. Social media enable public engagement in real time, including eliciting views on project milestones. Mechanisms such as comment portals, linked email addresses, and online surveys can also assist stakeholders in sharing their impressions of infrastructure quality. AI-powered chatbots can elicit timely responses to public inquiries, responses that natural language processing tools can synthesize.

The findings of this study also suggest some promising directions for future research. First, scholars could investigate how enhanced citizen engagement, particularly through virtual tools, contributes to private partners’ environmental, social, and governance outcomes as well as broader objectives such as profitability, sustainability, and reputational gains (Berg et al., 2022; Fatemi et al., 2018). Second, while this study focuses on transportation infrastructure, additional research is needed on how public involvement innovations influence PPPs in the social infrastructure sector, such as healthcare, education, and housing. Third, future studies could further examine the equity implications of VPI and how alternative strategies, such as public broadband initiatives or partnerships with community-based organizations, could reduce the digital divide. As challenges related to community consultation and public understanding in PPPs persist, this research offers lessons to guide future scholarship and practice in identifying and addressing the needs of diverse communities throughout the development of PPPs.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Eric J. Boyer

Can Chen

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Correction (November 2025):

The alignment and text in Table 1 have been updated since the article’s original publication.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Eric J. Boyer is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and MPA Director at the University of Texas at El Paso. His research focuses on government contracting and public-private partnerships, emphasizing safeguards to protect the public interest; as well as on organizational strategies that improve nonprofit management and governance.

Can Chen is an Associate Professor and Director of the PhD Programs in the Department of Public Management and Policy at the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. His research focuses on public budgeting, public financial management, and infrastructure finance and policy.

John Clayton Thomas is emeritus professor of public management and policy in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. He has written five books and more than sixty scholarly articles and served for thirty years as editor of the American Review of Public Administration.

References

Acerete

J. B.

Shaoul

Stafford

Stapleton

(2010). The cost of using private finance for roads in Spain and the UK. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(s1), S48–S60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00654.x

Agostino

Arnaboldi

(2016). A measurement framework for assessing the contribution of social media to public engagement an empirical analysis on Facebook. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1289–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1100320

Amadi

Carrillo

Tuuli

(2018). Stakeholder management in PPP projects: External stakeholders’ perspective. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 8(4), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1108/bepam-02-2018-0048

Ambituuni

(2025). Infrastructure transparency initiative and anticorruption in public infrastructure projects: A principal-agent perspective to the antecedents that enable (or hinder) the effectiveness of transparency. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-02-2025-0273

Amirkhanyan

Roberts

Meier

K. J.

Song

M. Y.

(2024). Examining attitudes toward public participation across sectors: An experimental study of food assistance. Public Administration, 102(4), 1604–1623. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12991

Arnstein

S. R.

(1969). Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Bailey

Grossardt

Pride-Wells

(2007). Community design of a light rail transit-oriented development using casewise visual evaluation (CAVE). Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 41(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2006.04.002

Bailey

Grossardt

Ripy

(2015). High-performance public involvement frameworks, performance measures, and data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2499(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.3141/2499-07

Bakht

M. N.

El-Diraby

T. E.

(2014). Hidden social networks that drive online public involvement in infrastructure construction case study of light rail transit projects in North America. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2453(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.3141/2453-11

10.

Banerjee

S. G.

Oetzel

J. M.

Ranganathan

(2006). Private provision of infrastructure in emerging markets: Do institutions matter? Development Policy Review, 24(2), 175–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2006.00321.x

11.

Barnes

Langworthy

(2004). Understanding and managing conflict in transportation project public involvement. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1895(1), 102–107. https://doi.org/10.3141/1895-14

12.

Barry

Novacevski

Boyco

Legacy

(2024). Planners’ changing relationships with participation: The impact of new training and certification schemes. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 45(3), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X241242707

13.

Battaglio

R. P.

Legge

J. S.

(2009). Self-interest, ideological/symbolic politics, and citizen characteristics: A cross-national analysis of support for privatization. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 697–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02018.x

14.

Berg

Kölbel

J. F.

Rigobon

(2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033

15.

Boyer

E. J.

Van Slyke

D. M.

Rogers

J. D.

(2015). An empirical examination of public involvement in public-private partnerships: Qualifying the benefits of public involvement in PPPs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv008

16.

Brabham

D. C.

(2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209104824

17.

Camay

Brown

Makoid

(2012). Role of social media in environmental review process of National Environmental Policy Act. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2307(1), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.3141/2307-11

18.

Chassin

Ingensand

Christophe

Touya

(2022). Experiencing virtual geographic environment in urban 3D participatory e-planning: A user perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 224, 104432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104432

19.

Chen

Hubbard

Liao

C. S.

(2013). When public-private partnerships fail: Analysing citizen engagement in public-private partnerships - Cases from Taiwan and China. Public Management Review, 15(6), 839–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.698856

20.

Chen

Gascó-Hernandez

Esteve

(2023). The adoption and implementation of artificial intelligence Chatbots in public organizations: Evidence from U.S. state governments. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(3), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231200522

21.

Chilvers

Longhurst

(2016). Participation in transition(s): Reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 18(5), 585–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2015.1110483

22.

Clark

B. Y.

Brudney

J. L.

Jang

S.-G.

(2013). Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: Investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12092

23.

Coghill

Woodward

(2005). Political issues of public-private partnerships. In Hodge

Greve

(Eds.), The challenge of public-private partnerships (pp. 81–94). Edward Elgar.

24.

Dannin

(2011). Crumbling infrastructure, crumbling democracy: Infrastructure privatization contracts and their effects on state and local governance. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 6(1), 47–105. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol6/iss1/3.

25.

de Graaff

Rutz

Stoopendaal

van de Bovenkamp

(2024). Involving citizens in regulation: A comparative qualitative study of four experimentalist cases of participatory regulation in Dutch health care. Regulation & Governance, 18(5), 1411. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12589

26.

Delmon

(2010). Understanding options for public-private partnerships in infrastructure - sorting out the forest from the trees: BOT, DBFO, DCMF, concession, lease…. The World Bank.

27.

Depietri

Ghermandi

Campisi-Pinto

Orenstein

D. E.

(2021). Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101277

28.

De Schepper

Dooms

Haezendonck

(2014). Stakeholder dynamics and responsibilities in public–private partnerships: A mixed experience. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1210–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.006

29.

Ebbers

W. E.

Pieterson

W. J.

Noordman

H. N.

(2008). Electronic government: Rethinking channel management strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 25(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.11.003

30.

Ebdon

Franklin

A. L.

(2004). Searching for a role for citizens in the budget process. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0275-1100.2004.02401002.x

31.

Ehab

Burnett

Heath

(2023). Enhancing public engagement in architectural design: A comparative analysis of advanced virtual reality approaches in building information modeling and gamification techniques. Buildings, 13(5), 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051262

32.

El-Gohary

N. M.

Osman

El-Diraby

T. E.

(2006). Stakeholder management for public private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.009

33.

Evans-Cowley

J. S.

Griffin

(2012). Microparticipation with social media for community engagement in transportation planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2307(1), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.3141/2307-10

34.

Fatemi

Glaum

Kaiser

(2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001

35.

Feng

Song

J. B.

Yang

X. X.

Guo

(2023). Contractual flexibility, firm effort, and subsidy design: A comparison of PPP project contracts. European Journal of Operational Research, 307(1), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.09.018

36.

Floreddu

P. B.

Francesca

(2014). Assessing public participation through different lens: The case of public participation geographic information systems (Publication Number 978-1-4614-8461-5). Springer.

37.

Floress

Cohen

(2022). Pandemic-era participation in public lands governance: Lessons from the USDA forest service. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 745727. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.745727

38.

Flyvbjerg

(2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000250195

39.

Fotaki

(2011). Towards developing new partnerships in public services: Users as consumers, citizens And/Or co‐producers in health and social care in England and Sweden. Public Administration, 89(3), 933–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01879.x

40.

Fung

(2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton University Press.

41.

Fung

(2010). Democracy as problem solving: Civic capacity in communities across the globe. City & Community, 9(1), 132–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2009.01307.x

42.

Ganapati

(2011). Uses of public participation geographic information systems applications in e-government. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02226.x

43.

Gofen

(2015). Citizens’ entrepreneurial role in public service provision. Public Management Review, 17(3), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.822533

44.

Gottfried

(2024). Americans’ social media use. Pew Research Center.

45.

Griffin

G. P.

Jiao

J. F.

(2019). The geography and equity of crowdsourced public participation for active transportation planning. Transportation Research Record, 2673(1), 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118823498

46.

Grimsey

Lewis

M. K.

(2007). Public private partnerships: The worldwide revolution in infrastructure provision and project finance. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

47.

Grossardt

Bailey

Brumm

(2003). Structured public involvement: Problems and prospects for improvement. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1858(1), 59–102. https://doi.org/10.3141/1858-13

48.

Hanzl

(2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003

49.

Haughton

Mcmanus

(2012). Neoliberal experiments with urban infrastructure: The cross city tunnel, Sydney. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01019.x

50.

Hayllar

M. R.

Wettenhall

(2010). Public-private partnerships: Promises, politics and pitfalls. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(s1), S1–S7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00657.x

51.

Hellowell

Vecchi

Caselli

(2015). Return of the state? An appraisal of policies to enhance access to credit for infrastructure-based PPPs. Public Money & Management, 35(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2015.986896

52.

Henjewele

Fewings

Rwelamila

P. D.

(2013). De-marginalising the public in PPP projects through multi-stakeholders management. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 18(3), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfmpc-05-2013-0021

53.

Hodge

Greve

(2010). Public-private partnerships: Governance scheme or language game? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(s1), S8–S22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00659.x

54.

Ismail

Musawa

M. S.

Ahmad

(2019). Transparency of public private partnership (PPP): The extent of mandatory information disclosure. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(5), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1108/bepam-01-2018-0020

55.

Jiang

Lyu

Zhang

Guo

(2023). Research on the differences between risk-factor attention and risk losses in PPP projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(9), 04023090. https://doi.org/10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-13108

56.

Kang

K. E.

Vedlitz

(2024). Public reaction to public-private partnerships (PPPs): Citizen assessments of four different types of PPPs and policy support. Policy Studies, 46(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2024.2302439

57.

Kivleniece

Quelin

B. V.

(2012). Creating and capturing value in public-private ties: A private actor's perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0004

58.

Krykewycz

Pollard

Canzoneri

(2011). Web-based “Crowdsourcing” Approach to Improve Areawide “Bikeability” scoring. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2245(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3141/2245-01

59.

Laurian

Shaw

M. M.

(2009). Evaluation of public participation: The practices of certified planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08326532

60.

Lee

Han

Quisin

P. F.

Lin Villaruel

(2018). Hazard analysis on public–private partnership projects in developing Asia. Asian Development Bank.

61.

Akintoye

Edwards

P. J.

Hardcastle

(2005a). Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry. Construction Management & Economics, 23(5), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500041537

62.

Akintoye

Edwards

P. J.

Hardcastle

(2005b). Perceptions of positive and negative factors influencing the attractiveness of PPP/PFI procurement for construction projects in the UK: Findings from a questionnaire survey. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 12(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980510584485

63.

Wang

(2023). Exploring risk factors affecting sustainable outcomes of global Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects: A stakeholder perspective. Buildings, 13(9), 2140. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092140

64.

Liu

Love Peter

E. D.

Smith

Regan

Davis Peter

(2015). Life cycle critical success factors for public-private partnership infrastructure projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(5), 04014073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000307

65.

Mattila

Nummi

(2022). The challenge of the digital public sphere: Finnish experiences of the role of social media in participatory planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 23(3), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2022.2074527

66.

McCubbins

M. D.

Schwartz

(1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110792

67.

Meijer

A. J.

Torenvlied

(2014). Social media and the new organization of government communications: An empirical analysis of Twitter usage by the Dutch police. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014551381

68.

Mergel

(2012). Social media in the public sector: A guide to participation, collaboration and transparency in the networked world. Jossey Bass.

69.

Mergel

(2013). A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.015

70.

Nabatchi

(2012). A manager’s guide to evaluating citizen participation (Fostering transparency series, issue). IBM Center for The Business of Government.

71.

Newell

Reeher

Ronayne

(2008). The trusted leader: Building relationships that work. CQ Press.

72.

A. Y.

(2012). The risk-averting game of transport public-private partnership: Lessons from the adventure of California’s state route 91 express lanes. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(2), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.2753/pmr1530-9576360205

73.

Nyerges

Aguirre

R. W.

(2011). Public participation in analytic-deliberative decision making: Evaluating a large-group online field experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(3), 561–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.563669

74.

OECD . (2007). OECD principles for private sector participation in infrastructure. https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/38309896.pdf

75.

O’Leary

A. A.

Miller

J. S.

Youngblood

R. D.

Cook

D. B.

Wynne

S. L.

Cobb

T. D.

(2020). Using performance measures to strengthen public involvement in identifying targeted transportation investments. Transportation Research Record, 2674(11), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121379

76.

Pantic

Cilliers

Cimadomo

Montano

Olufemi

Mallma

S. T.

van den Berg

(2021). Challenges and opportunities for public participation in urban and regional planning during the COVID-19 pandemic-lessons learned for the future. Land, 10(12), 1379. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121379

77.

Reeves

Palcic

Flannery

(2015). PPP procurement in Ireland: An analysis of tendering periods. Local Government Studies, 41(3), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2014.982108

78.

Renn

(2015). Stakeholder and public involvement in risk governance. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0037-6

79.

Reynaers

A.-M.

Grimmelikhuijsen

(2015). Transparency in public–private partnerships: Not so bad after all? Public Administration, 93(3), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12142

80.

Riccio

L. J.

(2014). Public-Private Partnerships: Pitfalls and Possibilities [Editorial Material]. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 50–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12169

81.

Roehrich

J. K.

Kivleniece

(2022). Chapter 26: Creating and distributing sustainable value through public-private collaborative projects. In George

Haas

Joshi

McGahan

Tracey

(Eds.), Handbook on the Business of Sustainability: The Organization, Implementation, and Practice of Sustainable Growth (pp. 474–500). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839105340.00036

82.

Romero

M. J.

Ravenscroft

(Eds.), (2018). History RePPPeated: How public private partnerships are failing: The World Bank.

83.

Rowe

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

84.

Rowe

Gammack

J. G.

(2004). Promise and perils of electronic public engagement. Science and Public Policy, 31(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154304781780181

85.

Ruiz Díaz

(2019). Opportunism and third-party influence on long-term public contracts. Utilities Policy, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2019.100978

86.

Ruiz Díaz

(2020). What drives the failure of private participation in infrastructure projects? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(6), 1167–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-12-2019-0298

87.

Russell

Herzer

J. K.

(2002). Enhancing public involvement through full utilization of communications technology. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1817(1), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.3141/1817-23

88.

Savas

E. S.

(2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships. Chatham House.

89.

Senadheera

Yigitcanlar

Desouza

K. C.

Mossberger

Corchado

Mehmood

R. Y. M.

Cheong

P. H.

(2024). Understanding Chatbot adoption in local governments: A review and framework. Journal of Urban Technology, 32(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2023.2297665

90.

Shaoul

Stafford

Stapleton

(2010). Financial black holes the disclosure and transparency of privately financed roads in the UK. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(2), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011023200

91.

Sheppard

Beck

(2023). Transparency trade-offs in the operation of national public private partnership units: The case of Ireland’s national development finance agency. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 42(4), 107111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2023.107111

92.

Siemiatycki

(2007). What’s the secret? Confidentiality in planning infrastructure using public/private partnerships. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 388–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360708978520

93.

Siemiatycki

(2011). Urban transportation public-private partnerships: Drivers of uneven development? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43(7), 1707–1722. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43572

94.

Siemiatycki

Farooqi

(2012). Value for money and risk in public-private partnerships evaluating the evidence. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2012.715525

95.

Siemiatycki

Friedman

(2012). The trade-offs of transferring demand risk on urban transit public-private partnerships. Public Works Management & Policy, 17(2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724x12436993

96.

Slotterback

C. S.

(2010). Public involvement in transportation project planning and design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 27(2), 144–162. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030901.

97.

Song

Feng

(2018). Factors influencing early termination of PPP projects in China. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(1), 05017008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000572

98.

Spiller

(2008). An institutional theory of public contracts: Regulatory implications. Regulation, Deregulation, Reregulation: Institutional Perspectives, NBER Working Paper 14152. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14152

99.

Staffans

Kahila-Tani

Geertman

Sillanpää

Horelli

(2020). Communication-oriented and process-sensitive planning support. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 9(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2020040101

100.

Steinmetz

Rahmat

Marshall

Bishop

Thompson

Park

Corkery

Tietz

(2021). Liking, tweeting and posting: An analysis of community engagement through social media platforms. Urban Policy and Research, 39(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2020.1792283

101.

Stewart

A. F.

Zegras

P. C.

Tinn

Rosenblum

J. L.

(2018). Tangible tools for public transportation planning: Public involvement and learning for bus rapid transit corridor design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(8), 785–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118797462

102.

Tariq

Zhang

(2020). Critical failure drivers in international water PPP projects. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000581

103.

Thomas

(2012). Citizen, customer, partner: Engaging the public in public management. M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

104.

Thomas

J. C.

(2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109

105.

Thomas

J. C.

Streib

(2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug010

106.

Torvinen

Ulkuniemi

(2016). End-user engagement within innovative public procurement practices: A case study on public–private partnership procurement. Industrial Marketing Management, 58, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.015

107.

UNECE . (2007). Guidebook on promoting good governance in public-private partnerships. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).

108.

USDOT . (2002). Public involvement techniques. https://www.planning.dot.gov/publicinvolvement/pi_documents/toc-foreword.asp

109.

Valverde

Moore

(2019). The performance of transparency in public-private infrastructure project governance: The politics of documentary practices. Urban Studies, 56(4), 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017741404

110.

Wang

Lin

Y. S.

(2023). Public participation in urban design with augmented reality technology based on indicator evaluation. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4, 1071355. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1071355

111.

Wang

Shao

Tiong Robert

L. K.

(2021). Data-driven prediction of contract failure of public-private partnership projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(8), 04021089. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002124

112.

Wang

Y. L.

Gao

R. L.

(2020). Risk distribution and benefit analysis of PPP projects based on public participation. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 24(4), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2020.12329

113.

West

D. M.

(2006). Global e-government, 2006. https://www.brown.edu/Research/egov2006.pdf

114.

Williamson

Ruming

(2019). Urban renewal and public participation in Sydney: Unpacking social media strategies and use for contesting consensus. Urban Policy and Research, 37(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2019.1585340

115.

World Bank . (2017). A framework for disclosure in public-private partnerships. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

116.

Yang

K. F.

Callahan

(2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00711.x

117.

Yigitcanlar

Senadheera

Marasinghe

Bibri

S. E.

Sanchez

Cugurullo

Sieber

(2024). Artificial intelligence and the local government: A five-decade scientometric analysis on the evolution, state-of-the-art, and emerging trends. Cities, 152, 105151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105151

118.

Zhang

Ali Soomro

(2016). Failure path analysis with respect to private sector partners in transportation public-private partnerships. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(1), 04015031. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000384

119.

Zhong

Young

R. K.

Lowry

Rutherford

G. S.

(2008). A model for public involvement in transportation improvement programming using participatory geographic information systems. Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 32(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2007.08.010

An Integrated Framework to Improve Public Involvement in Public-Private Partnerships: Aligning Participatory Modes With Informational Needs in PPPs

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Characteristics and Challenges of Public Involvement in PPPs

Information and Educational Components of Public Involvement (Pre-Construction)

Consultative Components of Public Involvement in PPPs (Pre-Construction)

Information and Educational Components of Public Involvement in PPPs (Post-Construction)

Consultative Components of Public Involvement in PPPs (Post-Construction)

Public Involvement Literature and Consulting the Public

Differentiating Traditional From Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) Modalities

Information and Educational Components of Public Involvement

Consultative Components of Public Involvement in PPPs

Developing an Integrated Framework of Improving Public Involvement in PPPs

Conclusions

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Correction (November 2025):

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Author Biographies

References