MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390365870 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.181208

Assessing Stakeholder Collaboration and Participation in Spatial Planning: A Case Study of Talang Kelapa Urban Area, South Sumatera, Indonesia

2023· article· en· W4390365870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Een Zarlin, Alfitri Alfitri, Amin Rejo, Ari Siswanto

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Economic Development and Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderEnvironmental planningSpatial planningEnvironmental resource managementUrban planningGeographyBusinessStakeholder engagementCivil engineeringPolitical scienceEngineeringEnvironmental sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The comprehensive spatial planning is a complex long-term plan prepared to achieve sustainable urban growth.To strive for an optimal drafting process, the level of participation and collaboration of each stakeholder element must be measured to avoid potential problems among stakeholders in the future.The present study aims to assess the process of stakeholder collaboration and participation in spatial planning for the Talang Kelapa urban area, Banyuasin Regency, South Sumatra Province, Indonesia.The research was conducted by qualitative interviews followed by the Structural Equation Model (SEM) to analyze the main indicators of collaboration and the level of participation of the stakeholders involved.Furthermore, Confirmatory Factor Analysis is used to measure the level of validity and reliability of each indicator used.The results of the study show that nine indicators determine the success of the participation and collaboration during spatial planning, namely (1) the history of collaboration, (2) the existence of collaborative groups on the environmental dimension, (3) mutual understanding (in the dimension of member characteristics), (4) flexibility (in the dimensions of structure and process), (5) communication intensity (in the communication dimension), (6) goal achievement, (7) shared vision (in the goal dimension), (8) adequacy of funds, and (9) human resource improvement (in the resource dimension).The level of participation and collaboration of stakeholders in the studied area is in the medium category meaning that the relationship between each stakeholder is still formal and has not occurred optimally.The results could be a first step to figure out where the participation and collaboration between stakeholder and optimally conduct the suggested model to perform spatial planning.The aim is to make the best spatial planning and avoid the future problem in Talang Kelapa.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicLocal Economic Development and PlanningFrench-language works237,207