Planning and 3D Spatial Media: Progress, Prospects, and the Knowledge and Experiences of Local Government Planners in Ireland

Abstract

For three decades the case has been made for the development and adoption of digital tools that better support spatial decision-making in planning using 3D information. Here we report on a study that interviewed planners from local authorities in Ireland concerning their knowledge and experience of 3D spatial media. We consider the potential uses of these tools in planning, and the prospects for their adoption within local government planning departments. The interviews reveal that the planning system, as currently resourced and operated in Ireland, provides significant challenges and few incentives for the adoption of 3D spatial media.

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

“…Given this, to broaden inclusivity and uptake city dashboards need to be more user-oriented, especially to cater for different types of (expert and non-expert) users thereby addressing and reducing a digital divide. Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins (2021) provide similar observations in their analysis of 3D spatial media technologies. Again, they acknowledge participatorydemocratizationpotential, while noting that 3D spatial media is 'yet to be mainstreamed' (Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins 2021, 3).…”

“…It imagines a system of the future that is more user-friendly, more responsive to change … and more centred around the future needs and ideas of citizens. Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins (2021) and Young, Kitchin, and Naji (2021) take up the lack of mainstreaming. In their study of city dashboards, Young, Kitchin, and Naji (2021) reveal that although there is obvious potential for facilitating community participation in planning, they can be too specialized, complex, requiring high level spatial literacy skills.…”

“…However, others read the 'radical reforms' (MHCLG 2020) more critically with accusations of a 'bonfire of regulations' (Macfarlane 2020) and an 'attack on planning' (Toynbee 2020). Clearly, there is disagreement on the legitimacy of the plans to democratize, digitize and digitalize the English planning system, and it has reenergised debates on the relationship between digital technology, public participation and democratic involvement in planning practice (Devlin 2020;Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins 2021;Weise, Wilson, and Vigar 2020;Wilson, Tewdwr-Jones, and Comber 2019).…”

“…Going back to Arnstein (1969), this involves not just looking at levels of involvement, but rather the quality of involvement and genuine impact this has on plan-making. Importantly, digital technology has, over time, been introduced into the planning-democracy mix across international planning space to broaden involvement in planning decision-making (Batty 2021;Levenda et al 2020;Milz and Gervich 2021;Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins 2021;Porter et al 2019;Rzeszewski and Kotus 2019;Young, Kitchin, and Naji 2021). However, as Jankowski et al (2019, 513) report, 'despite numerous potential benefits, online methods might not be, after all, a panacea for … improving the quality of public participation processes'.…”

“…Planning systems have become more digital around the world. For example, in America Cavallo, Lynch, and Scull 2014;Milz and Gervich 2021;Unsworth, Forte, and Dilworth 2014), Poland (Jankowski et al 2019;Rzeszewski and Kotus 2019), Australia (Foth et al 2009;Porter et al 2019), Norway (Hemmersam et al 2015), Canada (Levenda et al 2020;Tenney and Sieber 2016), Greece (Pak, Chua, and Vande Moere 2017;Psaltoglou and Vakali 2021), Germany (Dembski et al 2020), Finland, Brazil, Italy (Haklay, Jankowski, andZwoliński 2018;Porter et al 2019) and Ireland (Kitchin, Young, and Dawkins 2021;Young, Kitchin, and Naji 2021). Previous work from Foth et al (2009, 98) argued, 'new technologies … have the potential to change the practice of urban planning substantially in terms of communication, collaboration and impact'.…”