Is a New ‘Planning 3.0’ Paradigm Emerging? Exploring the Relationship between Digital Technologies and Planning Theory and Practice

Potts, Ruth

doi:10.1080/14649357.2020.1748699

Cited by 40 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We agree with recent workfor example, Batty (2021), Chapman, Tait, and Inch (2020), Devlin (2020), Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins (2021), Levenda et al (2020) and Potts (2020) that digital technologies offer important and interesting opportunities for public participation in the planning process. Notwithstanding this, we must remain cognisant that Web 3.0, and future iterations of Web 4.0 and Web 5.0, and Planning 3.0 are not solutions to many of the problems associated with engaging those people who are not involved in the planning process.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The UK Government has identified PropTech (Potts 2020) and, we anticipate, PlanTech 11 (Devlin 2020) companies to design and deliver digitization and digitalization. As providers of the software, along with the public sector, they will be responsible for improving transparency and decision-making in the planning process.…”

Section: The White Paper On Planning Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In historical context, 'urban planning has transitioned through various paradigms since its inception as a profession in the UK' (Devlin 2020, 59). On the latest transition, Potts (2020) discusses Planning 3.0, whereby information and communication technologies (ICT) are creating a 'paradigm shift' in planning practice. Planning 3.0 is different from previous planning paradigms due to its 'reliance and use of ICTs to increasingly support a more interactive, intelligent, self-organising, and interconnected planning practice' (Potts 2020, 273).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’ in England: digitization, digitalization, and democratization

Boland

Durrant

McHenry

et al. 2021

International Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the planning-technology nexus. Recent work explores the potential of digital technology in overcoming the longstanding limitations of a lack of public engagement and citizen empowerment in the planning process. In August 2020, the Government published a White Paper to democratize, digitize, and digitalize the planning system. We interrogate whether these radical reforms constitute a 'planning revolution' or an 'attack on planning'; we focus on two important issues: democratic deficit and digital divide. The article examines how statements about digitization and digitalization may meet the Government's desire to make the planning process more inclusive (i.e. equitable, fair, just) by empowering greater numbers of people to influence planning decisions for their local communities. In this agenda-setting article, we reflect on the English planning landscape; more broadly, we critically reflect on the values and political rhetoric involved in embracing technological innovations, and how these intersect with societal concerns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: The White Paper On Planning Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’ in England: digitization, digitalization, and democratization

Boland

Durrant

McHenry

et al. 2021

International Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The implications of this finding concern the perceived intensity and the different objectives of citizen participation. First, it may be that greater familiarization with digital participatory tools among planning professionals and citizens is leading to the greater use of these tools in urban planning and is facilitating higher intensities of participation, as part of the digital turn in participatory planning practices [71,72]. Some researchers have noted a receding digital divide as urban populations become more acquainted with digital tools, including PPGIS applications [73].…”

Section: Moving Up the Spectrum?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Consultation and Collaboration: Self-Reported Objectives for 25 Web-Based Geoparticipation Projects in Urban Planning

Babelon

Pánek

Falco

et al. 2021

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Web-based participatory mapping technologies are being increasingly harnessed by local governments to crowdsource local knowledge and engage the public in urban planning policies as a means of increasing the transparency and legitimacy of planning processes and decisions. We refer to these technologies as “geoparticipation”. Current innovations are outpacing research into the use of geoparticipation in participatory planning practices. To address this knowledge gap, this paper investigates the objectives of web-based geoparticipation and uses empirical evidence from online survey responses related to 25 urban planning projects in nine countries across three continents (Europe, North America, and Australia). The survey adopts the objectives of the Spectrum for Public Participation that range from information empowerment, with each category specifying promises about how public input is expected to influence decision-making (IAP2, 2018). Our findings show that geoparticipation can leverage a ‘middle-ground’ of citizen participation by facilitating involvement alongside consultation and/or collaboration. This paper constitutes a pilot study as a step toward more robust and replicable empirical studies for cross-country comparisons. Empowerment (or citizen control) is not yet a normative goal or outcome for web-based geoparticipation. Our evidence also suggests that information is pursued alongside other objectives for citizen participation, and therefore functions not as a “low-hanging fruit” as portrayed in the literature, but rather as a core component of higher intensities of participation.

show abstract

“…However, although time appears to be an inseparable part of all planning processes, it still lacks an explicit and sweeping presence in the planning practice tools (Charbgoo and Mareggi, 2020), especially as responsive and interconnected planning processes (Potts, 2020) in real time.…”

Section: A Space-time Framework For Self-organization In the Post-zon...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial-temporal patterns of self-organization: A dynamic 4D model for redeveloping the post-zoning city

Levine

Sussman

Aharon-Gutman

2021

Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time is the main axis for understanding the functional, economic, and social aspects of self-organized redevelopment. When such processes are intensive and are conducted contemporaneously by large numbers of urban agents on different spatial and temporal scales and as a result of different motivations, urban planning is fragmented into multiple simultaneous and unexpected projects. The post-zoning era in urban planning stemmed from a recognition of this kind of complexity of urban dynamics and the need for a flexible planning system. Web-based geographic information systems (GIS) and planning support systems (PSS) are employed widely as digital tools to support planning practices. Still, the solutions tend to be isolated implementations that do not achieve sophisticated management of the complex temporal-spatial urban dynamics of self-organization. To this end, the article presents a useful set of multidimensional (2D, 3D, and 4D) planning tools that can be implemented by municipal planning departments to improve planning practices with relative ease. This toolbox facilitates the real-time updating of changes to individual buildings and allows all parties to see where delays are occurring, where they are impacting one another, and where environments of accelerated development are evolving in nearby urban plots. Identifying redevelopment clusters enables the formulation of an urban time-based planning policy. Using a spatial-temporal toolbox for planning, we argue, can facilitate recognition of the potential of self-organization as the leading form of contemporary urban planning.

show abstract

Is a New ‘Planning 3.0’ Paradigm Emerging? Exploring the Relationship between Digital Technologies and Planning Theory and Practice

Cited by 40 publications

References 92 publications

A ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’ in England: digitization, digitalization, and democratization

A ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’ in England: digitization, digitalization, and democratization

Between Consultation and Collaboration: Self-Reported Objectives for 25 Web-Based Geoparticipation Projects in Urban Planning

Spatial-temporal patterns of self-organization: A dynamic 4D model for redeveloping the post-zoning city

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About