integrating ict into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

11
This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library] On: 22 October 2014, At: 13:18 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Australian Planner Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapl20 Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges Kirralie Houghton a , Evonne Miller b & Marcus Foth c a School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Urban Informatics Research Lab, Brisbane 4059, Australia b School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia c School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Urban Informatic Research Lab, Brisbane, Australia Published online: 07 Mar 2013. To cite this article: Kirralie Houghton, Evonne Miller & Marcus Foth (2014) Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges, Australian Planner, 51:1, 24-33, DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2013.770771 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.770771 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: marcus

Post on 27-Feb-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 22 October 2014, At: 13:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian PlannerPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapl20

Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts,opportunities and challengesKirralie Houghtona, Evonne Millerb & Marcus Fothc

a School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Urban Informatics ResearchLab, Brisbane 4059, Australiab School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australiac School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Urban Informatic Research Lab,Brisbane, AustraliaPublished online: 07 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Kirralie Houghton, Evonne Miller & Marcus Foth (2014) Integrating ICT into the planning process:impacts, opportunities and challenges, Australian Planner, 51:1, 24-33, DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2013.770771

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.770771

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

Kirralie Houghtona*, Evonne Millerb, and Marcus Fothc

aSchool of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Urban Informatics Research Lab, Brisbane 4059, Australia; bSchool of

Design, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; cSchool of Design, Queensland University of Technology,Urban Informatic Research Lab, Brisbane, Australia

(Received 10 July 2012; accepted 8 January 2013 )

One of the most significant lifestyle and technological trends of the twenty-first century is the emergence andincreased ubiquity of mobile information and communication technologies (mICT). The potential of mICT raisescritical questions for planners, potentially enabling citizen engagement and enhancing the urban planning processthrough facilitating communication, interaction and collaboration between planning professionals and the public.

To date, although technology has become integral to all functions within our urban environment, little is knownabout how urban planners perceive mICT and its current and potential future role in the planning process. Thisresearch explores this knowledge gap, via empirical data gathered from town planners of various sectors based in

Queensland. The findings illustrate that these planners believed ICT offered strong potential to shareinformation, creatively build community, connect with users of public spaces and adapt places in swift andtemporary ways. This paper explores the issues of integrating mICT into planning practice and the affordances

that these technologies offer for community consultation and placemaking. The paper aims to spark a discussionto find the best ways to overcome key barriers to making ICT part of the daily practice of planning professionals,including knowledge, skill, agency and time constraints.

Keywords: Community engagement; mobile information and communication technologies; urban

informatics; urban planning

Introduction

The twenty-first century has been defined by two key

lifestyle and technological trends: rapid urbanisation

and the increased accessibility and ubiquitous use of

mobile information and communication technology

(mICT) systems (Tibaijuka 2009, 3). Increased urba-

nisation is placing pressure on infrastructure and

lifestyle, with half of the world’s population, and 87%

of Australians, now living in cities (ABS 2003; United

Nations 2012). At the same time, the rapid and

increasing use of mICT is changing patterns of

communication and behaviour, participation and

accessibility to information. In Australia, for example,

smartphone traffic tripled in 2011, with the number of

mobile wireless connections (excluding mobile hand-

sets) rising to 4.8 million in June 2011 (ABS 2011). To

date, although technology has become integral to

many functions within our urban environment, little

research has explored how planners �whomanage and

develop urban form � perceive mICT and how it mightinfluence the form and function of cities.

Urbanplanning � defined as the internal ordering ofcities and placemaking � demands complex and orga-nised systems, as it encompasses the interplay between

the needs of the city and its population (Kieran 2002).Information and communication systems have alwaysbeen a critical component of urban planning. Commu-nication is vital for cities, and mobile communicationsare, in some measure, redefining our cities (Castell andLinchuan 2006). For urban planning, the communica-tion with, or involvement of, stakeholders is a well-established principle, integral to the objectives of localarea sustainability (UNCED 1993). This is linked toconcepts of citizenship, choice and localisation (Parkes2005).

In the last decade, mICT has significantly changedsocio-spatial relationships and patterns of behaviour,meaning and representation in cities. For example,mICT has blurred the lines of work-time, leisure,

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Australian Planner, 2014Vol. 51, No. 1, 24�33, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2013.770771

# 2013 Planning Institute Australia

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 3: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

social and community public spaces, with new flex-ibility and the extension of workplaces (for example,people working on tablets in public spaces or check-ing and responding to emails on public transport),they are revitalising and changing interactions withinthe urban setting (Paay and Kjeldskov 2007). Simi-larly, mICT and social media has been increasinglyused for crisis management situations within cities �for example, during the Brisbane floods in 2011(Bruns 2011). Such activities powerfully illustratethe potential of mICT and the emerging new intelli-gence of cities, which Mitchell (2007) likens to livingorganisms; he conceptualises ICT networks as thebrains, the use of embedded sensors and tags assensory organs and the software as providing cogni-tive competence and knowledge, arguing that howthese parts come together and function provides a:‘very significant expression of ideology, mediators ofconsciousness and instruments of power’ (5). To date,despite growing interest concerning how mICT mightimpact the practice of urban planning and shape thedesign of public spaces (Shin and Shin 2012), little isknown about planners’ experiences, perspectives orexpectations. This paper addresses this knowledgegap, exploring the potential value of mICT for publicparticipation and placemaking within the holisticurban informatics framework, which emphasises theinterrelationships between people, place and technol-ogy (Foth, Choi, and Satchell 2011; Sheth 2009).

Considering, first, the background literature formICT and its potential for urban planning, withparticular reference to public engagement and place-making, this paper then outlines the methodologyand approach of the research. The findings ofplanners’ perceptions revealed through qualitativefocus groups are presented in three themes. Thethemes are: first, the potential of ICT for planning;second, recreating place with ICT; while the thirdtheme relates to the barriers to ICT usage in theplanning context. The final section of the paperdiscusses the findings and draws conclusions abouturban planning and ICT directions.

The potential of mICT � technology and ‘ubiquitous oreverywhere computing’

First, it is essential to acknowledge the impact of thisnew digitally connected society and the practicalplanning implications and opportunities it heralds.Today, information technology surrounds us to theextent that it is termed ‘ubiquitous’ (Weiser 1993,137) or ‘everyware’ (Greenfield 2006, 9) computing.Although there were many initial concerns that theInternet would destroy any sense of real place(Meyrowitz 1985), these have largely proven to be

unfounded. McCullough (2004) asserts that place isnot replaced, but rather is reconfigured by ubiquitouscomputing. What we see is that ICT developmentwent wireless, and the population (no longer tetheredto the desktop) ventured out into the parks, streetsand plazas with laptops, smartphones and, morerecently, tablets (Hampton and Gupta 2008). Yet,although ICT (which incorporates all types of ubi-quitous computing, from radio-frequency identifica-tion, mobile phones, integrated infrastructure systemsand surveillance cameras) provides a large amount ofreal-time data across an urban environment, thereality is that most planners and decision-makers donot currently utilise this information very often(Miller et al. 2011). As Dodgson and Gann (2011)explain (through a case study of the IBM Corpora-tion’s smart cities approach), this under-utilisation ofdata is due, in part, to the ‘data deluge’ andsystematic complexities associated with informationof, and for, the city. ICT, Dodgson and Gann (2011)argue, provides an opportunity to reframe the orga-nisational systems of cities, their governance andcollaborative planning processes. To date, however,there has been limited discussion and implementationof these technologies; indeed, it is not yet part of thecontemporary planning discourse or practice.

The potential of mICT � public engagement, inclusionand participation

Second, in terms of engaging people, mICT providesa critical conduit for many social connections andinteractions within the urban environment. Publicconsultation and engagement is a fundamental valuein urban planning, with the literature rich in discus-sion, examples and debate about the importance ofinclusion, democracy, collaboration and shared own-ership within ‘community’ (Innes and Booher 2004).Variously described as engagement, participation,consultation and inclusion, the effectiveness of meth-ods varies greatly with Arnstein’s (1969) classicparticipation ladder describing eight levels of partici-pation, ranging from the weak level of manipulationto strong participation where there is a measure ofcitizen control over process and outcomes (see alsoInternational Association for Public Participation2012). ICT provides a new mechanism, throughwhich planners might communicate and interactwith communities: an obvious example is how thesocial nature of some of the most prominent Internetsystems (consider Facebook, Twitter and Four-square) are changing the methods and expectationsof communication within society. Of course, as Quickand Feldman (2011) argue, a distinction shouldbe drawn between participation and inclusion:

Australian Planner 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 4: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

participation is defined as practices that involve publicinput into programs and policies, whilst inclusion isdefined as a process of continuous communityinvolvement resulting in the co-production of thepolicies and programs that address public issues.

Given a growing expectation of meaningful com-munity participation in civic and economic matters,mICT and digital media provide new and excitingways to connect with an increasingly busy andoccupied community (Coyne 2009). There have beenseveral interesting high-profile examples of citizenactivation through mICT. Coyne (2009) describeshow the mobile phone and social media can developcollective agency in communities and facilitate theparticipatory design process, citing examples such asObama’s presidential campaign, the Iranian electionsof 2009 and the availability of existing social media togenerate a crowd. In addition, a growing body ofresearch has also illustrated the potential of digitalmedia as a consultation tool, as well as a potentialcommunity design tool, with projects such as Secondlife as an Engagement Tool (Foth et al. 2009; Gordonand Manosevitch 2010), Discussions in Space (Schro-eter and Houghton 2011) and Hub2 (Gordon andManosevitch 2010).

Discussions in Space provides an example of theuse of mICT for urban planning. It was used withinthe context of Brisbane City Council’s Bright Ideaspublic consultation program, allowing for short textmessages (or SMS) and Twitter messages to be viewedon a large screen within a public place. Schroeter andHoughton (2011) identified that its ability to engagingyounger ‘tech-savy’ community members in planningissues was an advantage for the planning engagementprocess. Its novelty, support of brainstorming ideas,ability to uncover ‘community lingo’ and ability topick up on community issues were also identified asadvantages. One of its strengths was in situ engage-ment, allowing for targeted deployment, capturingthe ideas of people who actively use those spaces, incontrast to placeless online forums.

Wallin and Horelli (2010) also utilised the affor-dances of ICT and mICT for the development of auser-sensitve approach to service design for urbanplanning. It was aimed at embedding urban planninginto a local context and everyday life. Trialled in twoFinnish cities, the approach focused on an expandednotion of planning as: ‘a democratic process and atool for community development’ (779). ICT wasutilised as a tool for gathering the mulitple perspec-tives of stakeholders. The role of ubiquitous digitaltechnology was in the creation of new mash-ups ofdata and the development of software applications.These were deployed across a number of platforms,including mICT, personal computers and urban

screens. The use of ICT technology in this projectaims to realign the planning process with communityaspirations for everyday life. The focus was todevelop constant negotiation and interaction betweenstakeholders, rather than create a process of enforce-ment.

The potential of mICT � placemaking and spatialitythrough digitally mediated interactions

Third, there can be little doubt that ubiquitous mICTis altering people’s relationships and interactions with‘place’. Although good places are built on under-standing how people interact and experience space,the potential of mICT for planning and placegovernance has not yet been fully explored. In part,this is because the interaction and communication ofpeople in urban spaces is relatively unseen, barringparticular behaviours of the individual in possessionof the mobile phone (Burke et al. 2006; Guzzetta andBollens 2003; Katz 2006). The layer of digital infor-mation is illusive to the naked eye and yet it holdspotential to build a community, connect us with thehistorical detail of place, inform, invite, entertain andentice its users in relation to the physical place and tostrategically change the use, vision and aspirationsthat we hold for places. For example, Paay andKjeldskov (2007) noted how social and culturalmeaning is created within the context of public placesby the presence and activities of people and that this,in turn, developed into a sense of place. In order toinform the design of mICT, they undertook a fieldstudy at Federation Square in Melbourne, using rapidethnography to understand the social experience ofphysical space. Three of their findings that informedtheir mICT design were: (1) sharing place � findingthat people use past experiences to make decisionsabout where to go; (2) indexing place or wayfinding �the data showed that physical familiarity with a placewas important for finding your way around, over theuse of maps or guides; (3) knowing the existence ofother people within the space provides a ‘sense of whatis happening’. Based on these three aspects of peopleand place interactions, they developed a context-aware prototype mICT intervention to facilitate socialinteraction in the urban context.

For planners, unpacking the change and shifts ofthese nuances, in regards to how technologies mightimpact people and space (and vice versa), is critical toany discussion about placemaking in the twenty-firstcentury (Sheller 2004). Unfortunately, the currentreality is that there are many unanswered questionsabout how mICT impacts spatial awareness andplacemaking (Cresswell 2004), with no empiricalresearch exploring planners’ perspectives on the role

26 Houghton et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 5: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

of mICT. Thus, through three focus groups and in-depth interviews with urban planning practitioners,this research directly addresses this knowledge gap.

Methodology

To explore and understand the current relationshipbetween planners and the changing nature of ICT forplacemaking, a series of three qualitative focusgroups were held with urban planners. Based inBrisbane, Queensland � one of the fastest growingregions in Australia � it provided a case study of aplanning context under fast-paced development pres-sures. Using the planners’ own perspectives � aphenomenologist’s lens that is ‘concerned with under-standing social and psychological phenomena fromthe perspectives of people involved’ (Welman andKruger 1999, 189) � the study aimed to contextualisethe perception and use of ICT for place managementfrom a practicing urban planner’s perspective, devel-opment processes and the cultural nuances of theplanning profession. As Table 1 illustrates, the focusgroups involved a total of twelve planners from arange of backgrounds, including three local govern-ments, state government, private sector consultants,community planners and educators. (Table 1 shows abreakdown of gender, professional perspective andages of the participants.)

Planners were recruited through the convenienceof known networks (including the Planning Instituteof Australia and university contacts) to ensure amixed sample, covering the various perspectives ofthe profession. Potential participants were emailedand offered gift card incentives ($100) to participateand thank them for their time. The focus groups wereheld at the university and ran for approximately 90minutes each. The discussion was broken into twodistinct parts. The first part focused on the potential

use of location-based mobile media for public con-sultation; a particular program for short message insitu consultation was demonstrated and discussed(Discussions in Space, see Schroeter and Houghton2011). The second part was directed at understandinghow the planners currently understood and interactedwith social media and other mICT media in their dailyprofessional context, as well as any potential orconcerns that they had about its use in the future.Although these areas provided a guide of key issues tobe covered, a semi-structured approach was purposelyutilised to ensure the focus group moderator (firstauthor, KH) had the flexibility to probe into emergentissues and adapt questions as required, fully exploringand understanding the participants’ perspectives. Thesessions were videotaped and were then transcribedand thematically analysed to identify meaningfulcategories or recurring themes that emerged fromthe data (Guest, MacQueen, and Namey 2012).

Results

Through each of the focus groups, it emerged thatthere was little, if any, current engagement ofplanners with the affordances of ICT in their profes-sional practices. There was also a range in the level ofexposure to mICT in daily life, which, in turn,affected their conceptions and understandings aboutthe potential of, and barriers to, mICT in theirplanning practice.

In understanding the potential of ICT for plan-ning, three clear sub-themes emerged. First, there wasa wide spectrum of awareness about the potential ofICT, with the potential vision for mICT and urbanplanning much greater where the planner had perso-nal experience in the use of technology, such assmartphones and tablets. The second theme considersthe potential to recreate place with ICT. The finaltheme focused on barriers to the usage of ICT byplanners. Planners perceived these barriers as beingtheir own limited agency to create and innovate andtheir lack of knowledge, skill and time constraints.

Theme 1. The potential of ICT for planning � personalexperience, potential, ownership

One key issue that kept arising for planners was theneed to interpret the community’s visions and aspira-tions for public places. Identifying ways that ICTcould elicit this information from the public wasdiscussed within each of the focus groups. Allplanners could foresee was that there was ‘somethingthere’, but the question of ‘what’ remained unan-swered.

Table 1. Study participants.

Code Gender Professional perspective Age bracket*

UP1 Male Local government planner 25�35UP2 Female Local government planner 25�35UP3 Female Local government planner 40�50UP4 Female Local government planner 30�40UP5 Male Local government planner 30�40AC6 Female Academic 40�50AR7 Male Architect 50�65C8 Female Community planner 25�40LP9 Male Landscape architect 30�40LP10 Female Landscape architect 25�35CP11 Male Consultant planner 40�50CP12 Male Consultant planner 50�65

Note: * Age estimates only.

Australian Planner 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 6: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

Planners’ roles focused on gleaning community

aspirations (in traditional ways) about places and

balancing this with political, financial and physical

limitations, as well as juggling a wide variety of �sometimes opposing and contradictory � visions,

views and expectations, as they emerge from the

community. The idea of place and ownership, pro-

gress and development were complicated by the

variety of views, the role of power and governance

and competing interests in place. A clear common

purpose of planning unfolded � the ‘unpacking the

variety and complexity of interests’ [AC 6], in order

for good design to suit the community as a whole and

provide a voice for the greater community interest.Some expressed the belief that, as technology

evolved, community acceptance and take-up would

lead the use of ICT in community engagement on its

own terms, rather than being proactively initiated by

councils or planners. Some planners expressed con-

cerns about the perceived risks and questions of

control over a consultation process, expressing fears

that: ‘something may be unleashed without the

control or perspective of the bigger picture’ [UP5].

It was felt that, like traditional media interactions, an

emotive public response could facilitate an ‘out of

control’ engagement, where issues become blown out

of proportion or the key issue is ‘railroaded’ by

political agendas or unsubstantiated fear. There was

also a concern that the overload of information

limited the meaningful use of systems, such as the

council Twitter account, and that personalisation or

streaming of the discussions were required.

If you think about the way Brisbane City is engagingin Twitter at the moment, it is kind of like there is onetwitter account, who wants to know necessarily about

all these diverse things, there is probably a lot ofdiverse audiences out there, they want more tailoredcommunication, to purpose, and to place, and totheir interest. Once that diversity occurs, I think a lot

more people will engage and there will be more needfor public screens in public places [UP1].

Planners also mentioned that the use of technologies

to allow people to voice a reaction, to be heard and to

be publicly acknowledged was a legitimate function

of community participation. The planners felt that

the need to converse and debate was considered, for

many citizens, to be less important than being heard.

One interesting example was described, reflecting on a

showcase artistic event, where comments were pro-

jected on a live screen � an idea that could be used as

a possible means of allowing the community to voice

their opinions and concerns on planning matters.

In an artistic sense, a playful sense, it had atherapeutic role where people could say somethingand put it out there . . . there will be some of those

spaces that will be an outlet and it is not necessarilyconversation [UP 3].

A key influence identified by planners was thequestion of ownership, including the reality thatmuch of the public space of our urban environmentsis privately owned � for instance, shopping centres,cinemas and entertainment places. They felt that ICTcould be seen as a matter for the day-to-day manage-ment of these places, rather than the role of the urbanplanner. As one planner explained: ‘suburban envir-onments are so aggressively privatised the idea ofpublic space is very different to urban spaces, andshopping centers are the public spaces . . .You needplatforms to raise a different kind of awareness ofpublic space in those environments’ [AC6].

Theme 2. Recreating place with ICT

The vision of the potential to use ICT as a tool inplacemaking grew throughout the focus group dis-cussion. As the group saw the ideas and suggestionsof others, the applications and use of urban infor-matics in a city’s environment inspired the planners’own thoughts and notions. Some had heard of waysthat ICT had activated certain spaces with events,such as flash mobs, ‘Occupy’ rallies and nationaluprisings. The interesting point for the planners wasthe ability for decision-makers to ‘connect dots andmaking linkages’ from community information. Asone explained, the opportunity was in: ‘how thepublic and the private owners of property areprepared to ‘‘make’’ their spaces and what sort ofconnections are they prepared to start mappingacross communities and larger catchments’ [AC6].

When thinking about relevant design considera-tions for public places in response to ICT, oneplanner commented:

Council is rolling out a lot more wireless to all theregional libraries where previously they only had it in

metropolitan libraries, so presumably the spaces outsidethe libraries are going to go through a change [UP1].

Attracting more people into places of wireless con-nectivity was seen as a positive way to activate placeand put eyes on the street. The State Library ofQueensland was referred to in this context as a goodexample. Wi-Fi access was seen as playing: ‘a role inenhancing and making a place more desirable andsafer’ [AR7]. In this way, Wi-Fi was identified by theplanners as a potential tool to draw people into public

28 Houghton et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 7: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

spaces, as well as a way to discover or create new

experiences, which enhance the experience of placethrough added information, which could be of

historical interest, advisory, entertaining or just forsocially connecting. One thought that excited younger

planners, particularly, was the concept of ‘spontane-ity of place’, where an ad hoc use of place could

develop through the affordances of ICT social net-works. They described how: ‘people become more

fluid in their plans and this (was) being acceleratedwith Twitter and Facebook and other telephone

based, immediate communications’ [UP1].

There is probably going to be more things where you

know you’ve got your iPhone that’s location enabledand you’ve got your Facebook account and yourFacebook account has got your preferences . . . Ithink there will be a lot more of that uncoveringnew places by digital means than previously [UP1].

Traditionally, we see places developed in concrete and

mortar, which are permanent and unyielding tochange. Their form limits their use at any given point

in time; essentially, the design lacks a robustness orflexibility of form. There is limited ability to change a

space to become something else or to evolve andtransform in relation to community needs. However,

as one planner observed, ICT has the potential toenrich robustness:

It does open up the opportunity to actually investi-gate temporal and temporary spaces, you know

where you can even drive a new type of architecturewhere you have demountables, and big trees in potsso you can move them around. Or even new publicspaces where you can move the furniture so it

becomes a really engaging and interactive space,and it depends on people’s moods and what theyactually want to do with the space, the people who

actually use it � there is a great opportunity [UP3].

The use of space or the creation of flexible spaces is

one of the most exciting and conceptually significantinfluences of ICT on ‘place’. Planners raised the

notion of flash mobs and the spontaneous organisa-tion of people as an element of interest, although they

had not personally witnessed any. They suggestedthat their use has the potential to creatively build a

community. Working with place in this way involvesmany players, including the landowners and commu-

nity. However, the necessary creative vision andcoordination for this type of activity was seen as

beyond the planners’ scope of professional involve-ment, input and agency.

Some of the participants were aware that therehave been some initial attempts at incorporating ICT

networks in new suburbs, through the incorporationof broadband networks into neighbourhoods or thedevelopment of community social networks that arelocalised to the specific area. One planner suggestedexamples like Springfield Lakes and Craigieburn,where a community Internet network had beenattempted from the beginning of development (nofurther details of the success or impact was noted).Planners felt this provided an example of an impor-tant way in which ICT can aid the planning anddevelopment of urban (and regional) areas, support-ing new or older developed areas. (It is noted thatthese early versions of intranets had limited successand were quickly outdated by social media (Arnold,Gibbs, and Wright 2003)).

Theme 3. Barriers to ICT usage � agency, knowledge,skill and time constraints

Who has the agency to engage, use and determinewhat technology influences place? Within each of thefocus groups, the question of agency was raised.Planners felt that they were tightly controlled byregulation and process. This limited what new andinnovative approaches they could use, with the sensethat they often had to wait for the system or legalprocesses of law to catch up with technologicaldevelopments. There was a feeling that the planneris given a specific set of guidelines for how theyoperate and that, beyond that, they had littleinfluence. Few of the planners within the groupwere able to see themselves as designers, even ifthey were in strategic planning roles. They saw thatthe development of policy, or the constraints of it,made them regulators, not creators.

The discussion included legislative frameworksthat govern planning, effectively establishing the levelof agency of their positions. In contrast, ICT devel-opment was seen as fluid and fast-paced, whilemoving the legislative framework is a slow and oftencomplex process. There are many good reasons forthe framework of legislation and the role it playswithin the structure of civil society, but it created, forplanners, a sense that they lacked the autonomy forcreative innovation. The view that was predominantwas that planners were often the ‘meat in thesandwich’, situated between politics and the commu-nity and left with the role of coordination andnegotiation. The issue of agency was not limited toICT development necessarily, but any type of innova-tion. Indeed, finding a tangible relationship betweenthe physical environment and the digital was notsomething the planners had given much thought to,making the idea of how the two could potentiallysupport and enhance each other new; until the focus

Australian Planner 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 8: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

group discussion, the planners’ paradigm had notincluded a link between ICT and planning. Whileplanners demonstrated knowledge or interest in thetypes of data that might be available from otheragencies or companies, such as the telecommunica-tion sector, there was a perceived barrier in access tothat information, preventing further exploration of itsuse by planners.

. . . If Brisbane City Council could get access to thatinformation for data of the population of Brisbane to

evaluate its use to public spaces in a time sense and anumber sense, we do counts, you can’t get good datato argue good things and you might find where your

real key good places are to do further research intothose areas [UP1].

Discussion

This research has illustrated that, in spite of thedevelopment of mICT and the changing patterns ofbehaviour relating to them, planning, as a profes-sional practice, has been slow to respond to theopportunities that new technologies afford. Yet, asthe key function of planning is to coordinate com-munity needs and views, it can potentially greatlybenefit from the key affordances offered by mICT,through its capacity to engage, build networks andshare community knowledge. The potential of infor-mation and communication technologies for profes-sional planning practice, should be directed to someextent by planners themselves.

Inspiration and exposure to the potential of ICTs

Whether it is by individual initiative or team devel-opment, a measure of leadership and vision for, andabout, place is required, as well as the supportinggovernance structure (Houghton 2010). The neces-sary catalyst of passion and personal drive can comefrom planners and designers, community workers oreven the general public. Planners, however, are in theunique position to see potential and act, leadingpeople in relation to the use and perception of place.In some cases, seeing urban informatics as within thescope of their role as local government increasinglybecomes increasingly aware of the benefits of place-making, it can be used to augment communityaspirations and build stronger connections with place.

However, as this research has illustrated, mICTand planning are not necessarily perceived as beinglinked or connected. Our sample of Brisbane-basedplanners explained how the planning paradigm, todate, has not included the use of ICT or social media,and they had significant concerns about the agency,knowledge and ability of planners to lead in the

innovation and application of ICT in public places

and spaces. It was also noted that there is little or no

scope to learn about mICT within the formal plan-

ning education or as ongoing professional develop-

ment, with scope to build capacity in both of these

areas. This is an area where the Planning Institute and

planning schools can increase their offerings in

relation to technological literacy and capabilities.

There is also scope for planners to increase their

dialogue with other disciplines, such as human-

computer interaction, cultural geography, locative

media and urban informatics, to name a few. This

can be enhanced through seminars; networks and

reference support, like those provided through the

Asia Pacific Design Library at the State Library of

Queensland; technology speakers at conferences; and

website links and forums to share ideas and experi-

ence. Partnering with mICT designers and researchers

for specific projects is another way to further under-

standing and experience for planners in this area.

However, the most significant changes will occur as

planners start experimenting and working with var-

ious forms of mICT for themselves, including social

media strategies within public participation projectsand engaging in the ongoing discussion with the

communities that they serve. The Finnish examples of

Wallin and Horelli (2010) show a method of recon-

ceptualised urban planning processes through the use

of ICT, in order to meet the complex needs of urban

centres in a globalised world. Tools such as

Discussions in Space (Schroeter and Houghton 2011)

could be part of this type of development, set within a

holistic approach to community engagement tailored

to a specific community.While the planners saw opportunities with ICT

for community interaction on planning matters

through location-based mICT conversations, there

was a sense that leadership in this area was not their

core role, and, to date, they felt that the level of use

within the community may not warrant expensive

exploration. This response was heavily based on their

own lack of experience or exposure to mICT. Three

functional barriers to their involvement in ICT

development included: the legislative focus of their

roles, which governs and controls the context and

limit innovation; the existing complexity of their

occupation, leaving little time for creative innovation

in ICT; and limited exposure, either during initial

training or beyond. Developing modules of learning

based around the opportunities or affordances of ICTfor urban planning could serve to both inform and

inspire planners. These could be delivered within

urban planning or urban design degrees or continuing

professional education (CPE) courses.

30 Houghton et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 9: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

Typologies of urban informatics support

Evaluating the feedback from planners, this was usedto develop a model for the types of uses of ICT as asupport mechanism for planning. These typologies ofsupport are broken down into three categories, asillustrated in Table 2. The first is the analysis of placein areas such as traffic management, heritage valuesand development assessment, where ICT can be ahighly effective tool to gather data and improve ourunderstanding of places. Second involves its usewithin the context of place to enhance and enlivenplaces, while the third is about communicationchannels to the public. As ICT continues to developat a fast pace, the inclusion of more potential toolswill increase, but these three key typologies provide aframework within which the planner can understandand utilise these new tools and assess their merit forprofessional practice.

Conclusion

There is a broad range of urban planning functions,responsibilities and foci that capture the urbanplanners’ time and attention. Concentrating on thedetail and complexities of individual issues andcircumstances in land-use development may limit aplanner’s potential capacity for experimentation orinnovation, specifically in areas that remain untestedor under-utilised throughout the community, such asa sophisticated level of Internet connectivity throughthe use of mobile phones, which is still in the earlystages for most of the population. The ability toconnect with the community’s future visions throughtechnology and interpret technological trends, whilehaving an obvious potential benefit for their work,still requires advanced development and program-ming to be meaningful. Much of this lies away fromour training and areas of expertise as urban plannersand our daily duties; hence, it remains outside of the‘comfort zone’ for many colleagues. The use of ICT inplanning will require a multidisciplinary approachbeyond the planners’ own field to incorporate hu-man-computer interaction and related disciplines. Asplanners juggle the social and physical constraintswith given opportunities to create patterns of place,ICT’s real value will come in the development of waysof gathering available and potential data, so that itcan be synthesised into functional and meaningfulinsights, thus assisting them in the process of placecreation. There is a marked contrast between therapid and constant advancement of technology on theinternational stage and the localised stage of plan-ning, which is focused on town, site or precinctspecific issues and is governed at a local government

level. This may mean that there is no single model ofapplication of ICT-enabled projects, but that acustomisable approach to meet local needs is re-quired. Community perceptions about the ease ofinvolvement and interaction are also changing. Localgovernance will need to consider ways of interactingwith the community to enable participation, as well asthe levels of involvement and influence that can begenerated through mICT and its various applications.Future research should explore what expectations areraised within the community, through the facilitationof communication with mICT.

Planners generally focus on the ‘creation’ of place,where key urban design principles (such as www.urbandesign.gov.au) are established and proven. Howtechnology influences spatial design is an area that isunder-explored and ripe for further rigorous assess-ment. Table 2 shows three key areas for ICT usewithin a planning context and provides some exam-ples of existing tools for application in these areas.This is just the beginning. With the steady growth anddevelopment in this field, there will be new andexciting developments. With the application of plan-ners’ expertise, there is the potential to tailor the useand application to provide meaningful input into theplanning process. Although the role of ICT inplacemaking is emerging in the communication fields(Gordon and Manosevitch 2010), much remainsexperimental, in that few occasions of computersimulations and community involvement have led toreal results in place. There is ample scope for furtherresearch that documents case studies and tests pro-totype development of planning with urban infor-matics tools. This research was limited to a relativelysmall number of planners in one city. The collectiveexperience of the group concerning ICT and newapplications was limited. This low level of exposuremeant that time needed to be spent explaining anddemonstrating some of the potentials of ICT. Givenmore time and a demonstration of a wider range ofICT possibilities, the planners in our study may haveenvisaged further potential uses within their field.

The ability of urban planners to understand, directand utilise the collection and flow of data willdetermine efficiencies or potential to be gained by theuse of mICT. It offers a new tool for planners forshaping place, adding meaning and social connection.Now is the time for planners to consider this techno-logical sphere and to utilise it to its full potential,directing that potential and staking a claim in themanagement of urban informatics. Planners need toemphasise their understandings of the systems of citiesand relationships between people and place, specificallyas regards to how this offers an interpretive basisfor developing and utilising the wealth of urban

Australian Planner 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 10: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

informatics’ data, which is becoming more and more

readily available. As the age of information and

creativity burgeon into the urban environment, plan-

ners must forge new interdisciplinary relationships with

ICT professionals. Given the potential impact of

changing social patterns of information and commu-

nication, planners need to engage with these new

technologies to understand and have influence on

how they will alter our cities, our interactions and our

use of space.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2003. ‘‘2035.0 �Census of Population and Housing: Population

Growth and Distribution, Australia, 2001.’’ Australian

Bureau of Statistics Census. Accesssed June 4. http://

www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/e8ae5488b598

839cca25682000131612/4274f3e53c143e57ca256d46008

193a0!OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2011. ‘‘Catalogue

No. 8153.0 � Internet Activity, Australia, June 2011.’’

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Perth. http://www.abs.

gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/8153.0Arnold, M., M. Gibbs, and P. Wright. 2003. ‘‘Intranets and

Local Community: ‘Yes, an Intranet is All Very Well,

But Do we Still Get Free Beer and a Barbeque?’’’ In

Communities and Technologies, edited by Marleen

Huysman, Etienne Wenger, and V. WulfKluwer,

185�204. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. ‘‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation.’’

JAIP 35 (4): 216�224.Bruns, A. 2011. ‘‘Towards Distributed Citizen Partici-

pation.’’ Paper presented at the Conference for

E-Democracy and Open Government, Danube Uni-

versity Krems, Austria, May 6.Burke, J. A., D. Estrin, M. Hansen, A. Parker, N.

Ramanathan, and S. Reddy. 2006. ‘‘Participatory

Sensing.’’ eScholarship, University of California. Ac-

cessed 16 June 2012. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/

19h777qd.pdf

Table 2. Typology of ICT potential for planners.

Pote

ntia

l are

as o

r us

ePo

tent

ial a

reas

or

use

Pote

ntia

l are

as o

r us

e

Traffic management

Heritage values – record and in situ evaluation

Development assessment

Change of use – zoning and re-zoning

Environmental monitoring

ICT

tool

s or

con

cept

sIC

T to

ols

or c

once

pts

ICT

tool

s or

con

cept

s

• Data harvests social network for interpreting needs, desires andaspirations

• Design tools – GIS, CAD and multimedia

• Augmented reality – viewing data in situ

• Social media– crowd-sourced information• - Sensors – environmental monitoring

Heritage

Placemaking

Social planning / inclusions

Social engagement

Community building and interaction

• Large screens – public interaction • Enhancing experience in place through augmentation of

place layering digital information • Navigation of place• Games in physical place• Shared knowledge of place• Changing use of space• Occupation of place• Increased safety in place

3. Technology for community engagement about place.Engaging community in the planning processby sharing public knowledge about places.

Public consultation

Short messages

Location-based messaging

Additions / evolution of the IAP2 toolkit

• Large screens – public interaction • Social media – shared knowledge of place• Discussion boards and forums• Talking with community placemaking Web 2.0, involving

community in governance and decision-making

• Short messages systems

1. Technology for analysis of place – tools for understanding place.Providing and gathering up-to-date information for planners to make informed decisions.

2. Technology in place – enhancing spaces with ICT.Providing information about spaces – crowd-sourced and professionally developed.

32 Houghton et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 11: Integrating ICT into the planning process: impacts, opportunities and challenges

Castell, M., and J. Linchuan. 2006. Mobile Communicationand Society: A Global Perspective. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Coyne, R. 2009. ‘‘Interpretative Communities as DecisiveAgents: On Pervasive Digital Technologies.’’Architecture Research Quarterly (ARQ) 13 (2): 127�132. doi:10.1017/S1359135509990212.

Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: A Short Introduction. Malden:Blackwell.

Dodgson, M., and D. Gann. 2011. ‘‘Technological Innova-tion and Complex Systems in Cities.’’ Journal of UrbanTechnology 18 (3): 99�111. doi:10.1080/10630732.2011.615570.

Foth, M., J. H. -J. Choi, and C. Satchell. 2011. ‘‘UrbanInformatics.’’ Paper presented at the ACM Conferenceon Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Hang-

zhou, China, March 19�23.Foth, M., B. Bajracharya, R. A. Brown, and G. Hearn.

2009. ‘‘The Second Life of Urban Planning? Using

Neogeography Tools for Community Engagement.’’Journal of Location Based Services 3 (2): 97�117.doi:10.1080/17489720903150016.

Gordon, E., and E. Manosevitch. 2010. ‘‘Augmented

Deliberation: Merging Physical and Virtual Interactionto Engage Communities in Urban Planning.’’ NewMedia & Society 13 (1): 75�95. doi:10.1177/1461444810365315.

Greenfield, A. 2006. Everyware: The Dawning Age ofUbiquitous Computing. Berkeley: New Riders.

Guest, G., K. M. MacQueen, and E. E. Namey. 2012.‘‘Applied Thematic Analysis’’. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.

Guzzetta, J. D., and S. A. Bollens. 2003. ‘‘Urban Planners’Skills and Competencies: Are We Different from OtherProfessions? Does Context Matter? Do We Evolve?’’Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (1): 96�106. doi:10.1177/0739456X03255426.

Hampton, K. N., and N. Gupta. 2008. ‘‘Community andSocial Interaction in the Wireless City: Wi-Fi Use in

Public and Semi-Public Spaces.’’ NewMedia Society 10(6): 831�850. doi:10.1177/1461444808096247.

Houghton, K., M. Foth, and G. Hearn. 2010. ‘‘Creativity,

Knowledge, Engagement: Keys to Finding the RightGovernance Model for a Regional Community Pre-cinct.’’ In MediaCity 2010: Interaction of Architecture,Media and Social Phenomena, edited by F. E. J.

Geelhaar, B. Rudolf, S. Zierold, and M. Markert,211�232. Weimar: Bauhaus University Weimar. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/37979/

Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 2004. ‘‘Reframing PublicParticipation: Strategies for the 21st Century.’’ PlanningTheory & Practice 5 (4): 419�436. doi:10.1080/

1464935042000293170.Katz, J. E. 2006. ‘‘Mobile Commmunication and the

Transformation of Daily Life: The Next Phase of

Research on Mobiles.’’ Knowledge, Technology andPolicy 19 (1): 62�71. doi:10.1007/s12130-006-1016-4.

Kieran, B. 2002. ‘‘Understanding Placemaking: Economics,Politics and Everyday Life in the Culture of Cities.’’

Canadian Journal of Urban Research 11 (1): 1.

McCullough, M. 2004. Digital Ground � Architecture,

Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Meyrowitz, J. 1985. No Sense of Place: The Impact of

Electronic Media on Social Behaviour. New York:

Oxford University Press.Miller, E., T. R. Sahama, P. Grace, C. Wilson, and M.

Hefferan. 2011. ‘‘Motivations, Expectations and Ex-

periences of Australian Rural and Regional Planners.’’

Australian Planner 48 (4): 305�312.Paay, J., and J. Kjeldskov. 2007. ‘‘Understanding Situated

Social Interaction and a Case Study of Public Places in

the City.’’ Computer Supported Cooperative Work

(CSCW) Springer Netherlands 17 (2�3 April): 275�290. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9072-1.

Parkes, M. 2005. ‘‘Community Involvement Agendas:

Participation or Consultation?’’ In Planning, 1�36.London: Haymarket Business Publications Ltd.

Quick, K. S., and M. S. Feldman. 2011. ‘‘Distinguishing

Participation and Inclusion.’’ Journal of Planning

Education and Research 31 (3): 272�290. doi:10.1177/0739456X11410979.

Schroeter, R., and K. Houghton. 2011. ‘‘Neo-Planning:

Location-Based Social Media to Engage Australia’s

New Digital Locals.’’ Australian Planner 48 (3): 191�202.

Sheller, M. 2004. ‘‘Mobile Publics: Beyond the Network

Perspective.’’ Environment and Planning D: Society and

Space 22 (1): 39�52. doi:10.1068/d324t.Sheth, A. 2009. ‘‘Citizen Sensing, Social Signals, and

Enriching Human Experience.’’ IEEE Internet

Computing 13 (4): 87�92. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.77.

Shin, Y., and D. -H. Shin. 2012. ‘‘Community Informatics

and the New Urbanism: Incorporating Information

and Communication Technologies into Planning In-

tegrated Urban Communities.’’ Journal of Urban

Technology 19 (1): 23�42. doi:10.1080/10630732.2012.626698.

Tibaijuka, A. K. 2009. ‘‘United Nations Human Settle-

ments Programme’s Role in Sustainable Urbanization

in the Information Age.’’ Report, edited by Aliye P.

Celik, R. Zyman, and R. Mahdi. New York: United

Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs,

Division for Public Administration and Development

Management.

United Nations. 2012. ‘‘Urban Population 1950�2050.’’Accessed 20 November 2012. http://esa.un.org/unup/

CD-ROM/Urban-Rural-Population.htm.Wallin, S., and L. Horelli. 2010. ‘‘The Methodology of

User-Sensitive Service Design within Urban Plan-

ning.’’ Environment and Planning B, Planning & Design

37 (5): 775�791. doi:10.1068/b35130.Weiser, M. 1993. ‘‘Ubiquitous Computing.’’ Nikkei

Electronics December: 137�143.Welman, J. C., and S. J. Kruger. 1999. Research Methodol-

ogy for the Business and Administrative Sciences.

Johannesburg: International Thompson.

Australian Planner 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:18

22

Oct

ober

201

4