Jed Poster

CPLN510-002

Introduction (Abstract)

The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in everyday life has
expanded at breakneck speed over the first decade-plus of the 21
st
century. The
rise of cheap, powerful mobile devices and home broadband internet access has
created a new generation of connected citizens who, in many respects, interact
with their surroundings in dramatically different ways. This, of course, is nothing
new: human history has been defined by periods of technological innovation that
fundamentally shifted established paradigms for pursuing core economic, social,
and political activities. In the 20
th
century, greater access to worldwide airplane
travel and telecommunications technology gradually and systematically broke
down barriers to global cooperation, spawning an era of multinational
corporations and transnational strategic alliances that have reshaped modern
life. In a similaryet vastly, incomprehensibly more rapidfashion, a variety of
technological platforms have dissolved the boundaries between previously
segregated spheres of existence.

Cities, home to more than half of the worlds population, are not immune to the
effects of this shifting paradigm. While citizens increasingly expect to interact with
institutions through new channels, municipal governments are forced to innovate
or die in the face of budget shortfalls, decaying infrastructure, and (in many
cases) eroding tax bases. In that context, planners and policymakers have
essentially been given an unfunded mandate to respond to a problem with no
clear solution: how, and to what extent, should ICT be integrated into the
planning and governance processes? The literature reflects the diversity of
opinions on the topic among planners, researchers, and private actors.
Background

Before plunging into the various lines of inquiry espoused by the relevant
literature on the topic, it is important to clarify what exactly is up for debate and,
perhaps more importantly, why we care. As alluded to earlier, cities are
increasingly expected to innovate without a clear consensus on what works or
an established approach to implementation. Perhaps as a result, the topic is
appropriate for this level of survey because the literature investigates a variety of
different issues that researchers and practitioners alike have sought to elucidate.

What makes this inquiry interesting and relevant is the proposition that personal
computing technology has carved out a larger role in many peoples lives over
the last decade. The evidence to support this idea is clear. In 2000, 37% of
Americans accessed the Internet via personal computer at home via dial-up or
high-speed broadband connection; this year, that number has spiked to 73%.
Whereas in 2000 only 3% of Americans had a broadband connection at home, by
2013, fully 70% of Americans had high-speed, always-on access to the Internet
in their homes.
1
Smartphones, which had barely cracked the surface of the
American consciousness before Steve Jobs 2007 keynote address introducing
the new iPhone, have turned into a multibillion-dollar industry in less than a
decade: in 2013, 56% of Americans own a smartphone, while 91% own a mobile
phone of some kind.
2
The presence of powerful mini-computers in the pockets of
so many Americans has also changed the way consumers access the World
Wide Web. In 2009, only 31% of American mobile phone users reported using
that device to access the internet or use email; this year, 63% report doing so,
including 21% who report using their mobile device as their primary means of
accessing the internet.
3
More people are accessing the Internet for longer
periods of time and with greater locational flexibility, but how does that impact the
way that technology has actually integrated itself into peoples daily lives?

Jed Poster [3]
Mundane activities that were previously carried out solely via physical,
interpersonal interaction have gradually migrated towards the virtual sphereand
especially toward mobile use. Fifty-one percent of Americans perform banking-
related activity online, up from only 18% in 2000; mobile banking, which began to
emerge in 2010-11, is now utilized by 32% of Americans.
4
Fifty-eight percent of
Americans have researched a product or service they might purchase using the
Internet; on a typical day, 21% of Americans perform this type of research.
5
Fifty-
five percent of Americans report having sought information about local
restaurants, bars, and clubs in any medium; among them, the Internet is the most
popular source of such information, registering as the first choice 51% of that
group.
6
Even activities that once required only a phone call, such as ordering
takeout food or calling for a taxi, have spawned scores of online and mobile
applications to carry out that function, like Seamless and Uber.

In addition to this shift in behavior from the physical realm to the digital, the rise
of Web 2.0
1
and social media platforms has had a dramatic effect on how many
people connect with friends, colleagues, and otherwise complete strangers.
2
In
2013, 72% of American adults who use the Internet are active users of social
networking sitesan increase of over 60% since 2005.
7
While it is often
assumed that young people make up the majority of social media users, research
has found that social networking has taken hold across the demographic
spectrum: while 89% of 18-29 year olds report using such sites, so do 60% of 50-
64 year olds and 43% of users older than 65. While adoption rates for senior
citizens predictably remain lower than those for younger people, use by that
cohort has tripled since 2009.
8
Further, social media use appears to transcend
socioeconomic, education, and locational divides. Sixty-seven percent of internet
users with no high school diploma report using social networking sites, while 73%

1
Web 2.0 refers to the generation of internet platforms in which content is dynamic, rather that
static; in other words, user-generated data forms a larger part of the platform than in the Web 1.0
universe.
2
11% of American internet users report having used an online dating service, according to Pew.
Jed Poster [4]
with a college degree (or higher) report the same; 75% of users with a household
income below $30,000 report use, as do 71% of those earning more than
$75,000 per year; and finally, 69% of rural users report use, as do 74% of urban
dwellers.
9


The range of activities that users carry out via social media has expanded as
well. The rise of the smartphoneand its onboard digital camerahas effectively
created a massive body of citizen journalists (or creative artists, or
documentarians). In 2013, 54% of internet users report having posted original still
photography or videos on social media platforms (an increase of 8% over the
previous year) while another 47% of users report sharing or reposting others
original content.
10
That latter group, often referred to as curators, can be seen
as the social force that causes an online story to become viral.
11
In addition,
Internet users are increasingly integrating their social networking activity into their
mobile usage patterns; 30% report having tagged a recent post with their
location, while 12% report having checked in to a business using a geosocial
service like Foursquare.
12
Taken with the 74% of smartphone users who report
having used their device to get directions or information about their immediate
surroundings, there is clearly a spatial component to the social networking
activity in which steadily increasing numbers of Americans are partaking. Like
social media use overall, this geospatial integration is surprisingly consistent
among all age, socioeconomic, and locational groups. While 80% of 18-29 year
olds report using location-based information services, nearly 60% of 65-and-
over users report having done the same; 70% of users with a household income
less than $30,000 report location-based use, while 65% of those earning $75,000
or more do; and while 75% of urban users report such use, even more rural users
do so76%.



Summary of Perspectives

Having established that citizens are using more technology to perform more of
the functions of their daily lives than ever before, can the theory and practice of
urban planning possibly ignore such a dramatic shift in the behavior of urban
citizens? If paradigms have been shattered throughout the consumer-facing
private sectorif companies are forced to create new ways to reach and interact
with their customersdoes that mean that a similar sea change must be in store
for the way that planners and municipal governments interact with their citizens?
In an economic climate in which public resources are scarce and numerous
issues compete for cities attention, can planners insist with a straight face that
new investments must be made into ICT platforms that may prove to be
ineffective or, perhaps worse, part and parcel of a fleeting trend that is close to a
point of oversaturation? As with any good topic for debate, there are few clear
answers to any of these questions, but no shortage of perspectives and opinions
from academics and practicing professionals. The goal of this paper is to explore
a variety of these points-of-view in hopes of elucidating what the rise of ICTs
has meant for urban planning, and for urban planners. How canor
shouldplanners seek to harness the potential of this new force in order to
improve the qualitative and quantitative product of their work? Before
delving into the literature, a survey of the landscape will be helpful for clarifying
exactly what has beenand will continue to bedebated.

The first, and perhaps most obvious, way in which practitioners and scholars
have theorized that technology can contribute towards creating better outcomes
in the planning process is by augmenting the community engagement and public
participation components of drafting a new comprehensive, neighborhood, or
strategic plan. If more and more people are not only using the internet, but also
relying on the internet to access, create, and share information, would it stand to
reason that citizens would respond positively to innovative ICT-based planning
Jed Poster [6]
solutions? Planners have long grappled with the inherent difficulty of accurately
gauging and incorporating citizens view of their own community and how they
envision its future: namely, how do we reach more people, and how we ensure
those people whom we do reach are truly reflective of the prevailing will of their
neighborhoods? There are various scholarly perspectives that reflect the range of
ideas for how ICT can be integrated in this process, many of which are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. Some suggest that overcoming the barrier of
non-professionalism should be a core tenet of the processone that can be
embodied by new communication platforms that help planners explicate technical
processes in order to level the playing field between trained planners and the
proverbial layperson.
1
Others have suggested using ICT platforms to create
virtual meetings that are likely to attract greater attendance than the public
hearings and town hall meetings on which planners have traditionally relied. This,
of course, raises further questions. By adopting a virtual solution to a brick-and-
mortar business, so to speak, are we unfairly skewing the process towards a
younger, more educated segment of the populace? Are we undermining our own
credibility with certain groups of stakeholders?

A second avenue for exploration concerns leveraging new ICT platforms into
public participation and input towards solving spatial and design challenges
within cities. Like in the first avenue discussed, the rationale for integrating ICT
into urban growth and development in more permanent ways in fairly obvious; if
consumers expect the institutions with which they transact to reach them through
new channels, shouldnt those same people expect the same outreach from
perhaps the most important (or, at least, the most visible) bureaucratic structures
in their lives before they make decisions that affect the built environment of their
communities? If we accept that supposition, we are then forced to confront a
crucial question: is citizen input essential for making decisions about how the
design elements of placemaking should proceed? If, after all, the power wielded
by government institutions derives solely from the people they represent, are we
Jed Poster [7]
then suggesting that governments fundamentally change the way they interact
with their citizens?

There is, of course, another possibility: use big data to figure out what people
wantor what would serve them bestwithout having to ask them! If Googles
data mining algorithms can so successfully interpret cultural trends as a function
of the search terms people execute, can innovative, nimble app developers
devise alternative solutions to problems that governments face? Once discussion
turns towards the viability of off-loading governance functions to the private
sector, we are forced to confront yet another issue: how can cities ensure that
their transition to ICT-augmented platforms do not leave people behind? The
statistics presented earlier indicate that more and more low-socioeconomic-
status citizens are using technology than before; nevertheless, does replacing old
technology with new leave people behind? Or, more troublingly, does replacing
the civic duty of government with the profit motive of private corporations do more
harm than good for vulnerable populations?








Evidence

How can ICT platforms be used to engage the community in the planning
process?


The most significant impact of new Web-based mapping and
survey tools in the planning field may be a transformation of public
participation efforts. While it is still too early to draw definitive
conclusions about how people will behave, organize, and interact
as a result of these emerging electronic technologies, there is the
reasonable hope that planning practices could be improved with
this revolutionary access.
1

(Al-Kodmany, 2000)

Why is community engagement essential for successful planning efforts?

Although the purpose of this paper is not to judge the merits of advocacy
planning as the foundation for all successful interventions, it is instructive to
understand the importance of community engagement in the planning process
with the spirit of Paul Davidoffs 1965 critique of the rational-comprehensive
model of planning. In his view, planning is never value-neutral, but rather an
exercise in making choices that are aligned with the vision a community has for
itself. For him, the only truly democratic public policy is one that the citizens have
played a role in shaping. The right course of action is always a matter of choice,
never of fact. In a bureaucratic age great care must be taken that choices remain
in the area of public view and participation.
2
Of course, planners are, in some
respects, professionally-trained precisely so that they have the judgment and
discretion to meld more idealistic notions of what a city could or should be with
the rational, pragmatic realities of the extraordinarily complex system that is a
city. With that, however, it is clearly incumbent upon planners to understand
those for whom they plan, if for no other reason than to ensure that stakeholders
Jed Poster [9]
take ownership over the final product. Planning should help draw people into
policy making through public hearings with public officialsThe more people who
take part in the planning process, the more they will feel that the final plan is their
plan.
3
The rise of communicative planning as described by Innes is inextricably
linked to a methodology that values the deliberative process as a valuable tool in
forming consensus, which can be seen as an essential factor contributing
towards the eventual goal of implementation. Williamson and Parolin relate
another researchers characterization of the evolution of post-modernist
planning as the communicative turn in planning theory.
4


Following that logic, one could argue that the internet and the vast potential held
by its communicative platforms can be seen as the next step in the evolution of
the post-modernist planning eraor, to retrofit a term used earlier, Planning 2.0.
If a key driver of the community engagement process is maximizing the amount
of community participation, new ICTs are then well-suited for changing this phase
of the planning process. Today, technology allows for an entirely new generation
of forms and practices of public participation that promise to elevate the public
discourse in an unprecedented manner while providing an interactive, networked
environment for decision-makingwhich allows for more democratic planning
and more meaningful participation.
5
But exactly which types of communication
platform engender the most meaningful engagement from the public?

How do we classify forms of communication between planners and citizens?

In order to conceptualize the various approaches cities and their planning
departments have adopted to pursue Planning 2.0, it is helpful to consider
McMillans four-part model of cyber interactivity
6
. Though the model was
originally devised in the context of understanding mass communications, it is
referenced frequently in the planning literature, notably by Evans-Cowley and
Conroy.
Jed Poster [10]


Figure 1. McMillans Four-Part Model of Cyber Interactivity
7


In this model, one can characterize different platforms into one of four categories
based on the level of interactivity between the disseminating party (i.e., the
planning department) and the receptive party (i.e., the citizens): monologue,
feedback, responsive dialogue, and mutual discourse. A monologue occurs
when the planner provides citizens with information. The planner creates and
disseminates information to citizens, but the citizens have no control over the
type of information provided or the method in which they receive the
information.
8
This type of communication can be as simple as a planning
departments publishing the time and date of a public hearing on a municipal
website; though this seems simplistic (and a not particularly sophisticated use of
ICT platforms), if ten times as many citizens are made aware of an upcoming
event as compared to simply publishing a notice in the newspaper, then it can be
viewed as a successfuland less expensiveengagement exercise. A feedback
interaction is one in which the communication is initiated by the citizen, but
without any guarantee of interaction on the part of the planners.
9
This type can
manifest itself as simply as an email sent to a publicly disseminated address for
Jed Poster [11]
which no reply is forthcoming; or, in other words, a virtual suggestion box. If that
email sent by the citizen receives a response, it becomes an example of the third
type of interaction, responsive dialogue. As implied by the term, this type
represents the lowest form of communication that can realistically viewed as two-
way, or collaborative. In this category, the level of control shifts from the citizen
to the planner because the planner is in control of the continuation of the
dialogue.
10
The final form, mutual discourse, is the type that represents a truly
collaborative interaction in which success depends on continued engagement by
both parties. In the context of devising online methods for conducting the
community engagement process in planning, research has found that planning
departments attempt to utilize tools of all four of these types of communication.

In 2006, Evans-Cowley and Conroy published one the first studies of how rapidly
municipal planning departments across the United States were implementing
online platforms to [provide] opportunities for citizen interaction with planners.
11

Operating on the established assumption that online participation by citizens
increased the success of the political process in planning, the study examined
not only the speed with which planning departments were adopting new
technology, but also how their offerings were responsive to the audience they
sought to capture. E-government holds promise for improving citizen
participation both in terms of the scope of interaction and the level at which
citizens can get involved. But do e-government web sites actually provide the
types of interaction that citizens need and desire?
12
They found that while
almost all of the study population of planning departments maintained a page on
the municipal web site, few moved far beyond the monologue level of
communication.
iii
Some monologue tools, however, were quite innovative for the
time period of the study. For example, Overland Park, Kansas had a Whats

"""
One primary exception was that many cities used a responsive dialogue platform to allow
citizens to pay application and building permit fees through an e-commerce platform. The
financial benefits of such a platform likely justified the costs of implementation.
Jed Poster [12]
Happening in My Neighborhood tool that allowed citizens to enter their
addresses[and receive] a list of every building permit, planning commission
application, capital improvement, event permit, and public works project within
one mile of her home. This feature allows citizens to become aware of what types
of planning activities are happening in their neighborhoods.
13
Further, even
during the pre-social media era in which message board and forum tools had to
be built in-house or licensed from a software developer, there were some notable
cases in which a municipal planning body had implemented a multi-faceted
approach to establishing its online presence. Indianapolis is the best example.
Its planning department has worked to provide as many opportunities for
interaction as possible, from interactive GIS to discussion forums. Municipal
planning departments providing the highest levels of interaction started small by
providing monologue and feedback communication and, over time, provided
responsive dialogue and mutual discourse opportunities.
14


Eons later (in internet years), Williamson and Parolin conducted a longitudinal
study from 2009 to 2012 investigating the types of communication used by all of
the Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the Australian state of New South Wales,
which is home to roughly one-third of the nations population. They found that
while many planning organizations had attempted to use all four of McMillans
types, in 2009 most appeared to concentrate their efforts on the monologue
typeparticularly the dissemination of static copies of planning instruments,
meeting agendas and minutes and electronic newsletters.
15
By 2012, many of
the municipalities that had lagged behind in monologue efforts had caught up,
with 90% of LGAs providing static zoning maps through local government
websites and 45% (an increase of 16%) disseminating GIS data.
16
Other
changes they observed over the period of the study, however, reveal the
increased effort and investment the LGAs placed on more sophisticated mutual
discourse tools. While in 2009, only 21% of metropolitan LGAs utilized social
media forums to disseminate information and collect feedback, by 2012 two-
Jed Poster [13]
thirds of the study group had adopted such technology.
17
Further, while only 12%
utilized a non-social media discussion forum in 2009, by 2012 that figure rose to
33%.
18
More interesting, perhaps, are the factors the study identified as
influencing the volume and sophistication (interpreted as the amount of mutual
discourse-type tools used) of the planning departments efforts. Regression
analyses revealed four statistically-significant correlations between
characteristics of the study area and the amount of technology deployed by its
respective planning department: population size, population growth, number of
planning staff, and socioeconomic index (i.e., a representation of the
communitys wealth).
19
While these results are not unexpected, they do
demonstrate features of demand-driven adaptation and growth on the part of the
planning staffs.


Availability of Interactive Tools by Type of Communication, New South Wales, AU
20


So what were the obstacles preventing planning departments from increasing the
volume and interactivity of their online presences? Using a written survey
completed by 217 planning directors of cities with populations exceeding 50,000
Jed Poster [14]
people, Evans-Cowley and Conroy identified four primary categories of barriers
to interactivity: administrative, technical, public education, and accessibility.
Administrative barriers largely reflected a lack of commitment from local
politicians and city managers to invest the necessary resources for building out a
robust online presence. One survey response indicated, Because of the rapid
rate at which technology changes, the city council and city manager are reluctant
to spend substantial sums of money on new hardware and software. They are
not convinced that the return on investment is sufficient. Their fear is that the
equipment quickly becomes out of data and must be replaced.
21
Another related
that maintaining a web site can be very time consuming, and because it is a low
priority, there is little time for staff to devote to the web; often work is done on
staffs own time.
22
In 2013, one would think that maintaining a web presence has
climbed the ladder since 2006, but without dedicated technical staff, it is easy to
imagine how this might remain as a barrier to modern planning departments.
That constraint was often cited in the 2006 survey, with planning directors
lamenting the lack of knowledgeable staff in the domain of creating and
maintaining web-based tools. While todays planning school graduates are likely
to have a better understanding than their predecessors, it is easy to imagine that
older staff members are more likely to devote their energy to identifying public
funding sources for replacing decaying infrastructure than to understanding web
infrastructure. The third challenge cited was that of educating the public about the
resources available on the municipalitys website. Many departments adopted the
if you build it, they will come approach, but found that it is not enough to simply
post the interactive opportunities. Planners need to spend time educating the
public about the interaction opportunities.
23


How does social media augment planners communication strategies?

As alluded to earlier, the rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter
has afforded planners the opportunity to reach citizens in a more familiar way
Jed Poster [15]
or, one could say, more on the citizens own terms. Because so many people are
already engaged in their use for connecting with friends and keeping abreast of
trending stories on the web, these networks have the potential to allow planning
information to be disseminated to a citys residents in a way that resembles that
of news or other mass media. Research into the area of online citizen
participation [via social networks] highlights the promise of the collection of
information and technology tools to enhance the public participation process.
24

In addition, it has been theorized, the use of virtual communities levels the
playing field by stripping out the inherently unequal power dynamic at play in a
traditional in-person planning forum, during which the trained professionals
assume a professorial role in presenting their ideas to the masses. Further, the
use of such platforms can be seen as the establishment of an asynchronous
system for communication in which interaction can take place outside the rigid
boundaries of space and time inherent to a town meeting, which of course takes
place at a fixed time in a particular place.
25
By decentralizing the engagement
process, the resulting product is then theoretically more robust and more
reflective of the true desire of a citys residents. But is that really the case?

In order to test this hypothesis, Evans-Cowley and Hollander in 2010 investigated
how planning departments across the United States have made use of these
platforms and the true levels of success those planners have realized. Because
online social networking[allows] information to spread quickly, it is possible to
grow groups to thousands instead of holding a planning meeting for a few dozen
peopleBut it useful to acknowledge that the movement of planning processes
online may not add anything [to] that [which] the in-person meeting for a few
dozen people accomplished.
26
Following an extensive Internet search, the
researchers identified 42 social networking groups related to planning and
community engagement, some originated by governments and others by
members of the public. Interestingly, 86% of the sites found were citizen-initiated,
while only six originated from planning bodies. The public-initiated groups were
Jed Poster [16]
typically focused on a neighborhood-level or site-level planning issue and tended
to be opposed to the project, while the government-initiated groups tended to
focus at a neighborhood, community, or regional scale around a particular
planning process, such as creating a comprehensive plan.
27
From these 42
groups, the study presents case studies for one of each type: a government-
initiated network in Aspen, Colorado, and a citizen-initiated site in Austin, Texas.

The Aspen case took place in October 2008 at the outset of that citys process of
producing the Aspen Area Community Plan update. According to the study, the
City decided to use Facebook for the first time to try to get the word about its
community plan update out to a younger demographic, including high school
students and young professionals.
28
The ambitions of this outreach endeavor
were fairly limited in scope, as the planners set a goal of reaching 50 Facebook
friends; by contrast, the in-person public meetings held on the topic sought to
attract 1,000 attendees. The city did reach its online goalthe group added 52
members, including city staffbut primarily used the forum only to post
notifications about upcoming in-person meetings. This makes sense, considering
that the average age of Aspens citizens is north of 50.
iv
Nevertheless, the city
reported that online participants are largely new, rather than the same people
who regularly participate in onsite events, and that online tools have allowed
them to reach individuals who might otherwise not participate.
29
Further, given
the scope of the planners goals in using social medianamely, to supplement
the traditional in-person engagement processthe primary success identified by
Aspen officials was not the input received from citizens through the online
platform, but rather the ability to convince virtual participants to attend the town
hall meetings to present their input in that forum. This reflects a commonly-held
view of social networking within the public sector as a means to incorporate a

iv
While the increased adoption of social media platforms by older internet users was detailed
earlier in this paper, much of those gains have occurred in the last two or three years. The Aspen
effort took place in 2008.
Jed Poster [17]
wider diversity of citizens into the only medium that truly matters: Citizens can
participate in social networking to voice their opinions, but the public hearing is
the legal instrument of decision-making. If citizens do not provide letters in writing
or appear at a public hearing, their opinion may not be heard.
30


As mentioned earlier, Evans-Cowley and Hollander also investigated the
phenomenon of citizen-initiated online platforms for engaging in the planning
process. Their study uncovered two revealing findings with respect to this form of
virtual engagement: citizen-initiated groups far exceeded government-originated
in groups in number, and the preponderance of these forums (80%) coalesced
around a negative citizen response to a planned development project or
proposed planning intervention. These groups are often able to attract hundreds
of friends to join their cause in opposing a project. For example, more than 400
people [in Canfield, Ohio] joined a Facebook group called No F*cking Walmart in
Canfield.
31
Many of these large online groups advocating opposition found
limited success, despite the often-large number of followers they mobilized. The
Walmart in Canfield (home to 14,000 people), for example, proceeded unfettered
despite the opposition expressed by 3% of the towns population; in fact,
Canfields Zoning Inspector reported that the township staff were not aware that
the Facebook group existed and reported that they had no more participation
than usualThis situation was entirely typical, showing that online organizers
were not effective in participating in formal planning processes.
32
Another
proposed Wal-Mart in Austin, Texas generated similar public opposition via the
creation of Facebook groups to mobilize concerned citizens: three such groups
were created, attracting 406 local residents. Like in Canfield, the city
administration was unaware of the Facebook groups, but the community utilized
other channels to express their disagreement to local policymakers. Through an
affiliation with an organization called Responsible Growth for Norcrossthe mall
whose demolition was to pave the way for the new Wal-Martthe citizens were
able to pressure the project developer into altering the proposed site plan,
Jed Poster [18]
shrinking the development from a three-story big box store with attached parking
to a single-story structure with no additional parking structure.

The result of this citizen mobilization through social media in Austin underscores
the conclusion of the studys authors: while online networking can be a valuable
tool for including citizens in the planning and land development process, it can
only be seen as one component of successful civic engagement. This research
has found that there is limited use of these new technologies to engage in
planningThe potential is still there, but planners need to act to embrace these
technologies and learn to be effective in using them.
33
In other words, while
social media platforms have the capability of serving as a true mutual dialogue
communication tool between citizens and planners, simply establishing an online
forum (or engaging with a citizen-initiated group) does not ensure that a
collaborative process will emerge. As Hanzl observes, a condition of efficiency of
these forms of communication is continuous activity of responders and thus
reliability of presented information. According to the Metcalfs law, which states
that the more people who use something, the more valuable it becomes, the
potential of [internet-based sites] is related to its popularity.
34
In this view, the
relevance of social media platforms for increasing transparency and fostering
public input to the engagement process hinges on the ability of planners to corral
a sizable segment of the population. Beyond that, planners must also be wary of
the often-superficial nature of certain kinds of online engagement. Retailers,
movie studios, record labels, and other prominent brands often try to measure
(and increase) consumer awareness by strategically managing the visibility of a
product through social media channels. This is often achieved by incentivizing
consumer engagementfor example, by rewarding a web surfer for liking their
brands Facebook page or following it on Twitter. This becomes problematic
when corporate managers interpret a high number of likes or followers as true
interest in the product in question, when in reality, the consumer has simply
clicked a mouse button in order to receive whatever is being offered. This
Jed Poster [19]
misstep can befall planners and policymakers as well. Bohj, et al. observe that
an immense challenge [in connecting with citizens] also lies in bridging the gap
between superficial and profound participation.
35
Evans-Cowley and Hollanders
survey uncovered evidence through reports from planning officials who
experienced the same difficulty. Sometimes people mistake joining a Facebook
group as actual action for a causeOn the phone, many people ere excited that
they had joined the group, but were hesitant about making a further commitment
to attending the [City Council] meetingFacebook was effective at introducing
people to a cause, but was less effective at producing actual support for the
cause.
36





Jed Poster [20]
How can ICT platforms help to engage the community with respect to
design and the built environment?

The changes in real urban environment are preceded by creation of
the coherent vision of what is planned. Therefore, the city
representation in the citizens minds plays an essential role in
reshaping real space.
37

(Hanzl, 2007)



The publics image of a city is valuable to city planners and urban
designers and [the] most important measure of city form is the
evaluation by those people who live in it, work in it, and experience
it on a daily basis.
38

(Al-Kodmany, 2000)


Thus far, we have established the responsibility incumbent upon planners to
engage citizens in the planning process and outlined the various tools that have
been used to solicit virtual participation from the public. For some, however,
these engagement strategies have only scratched the surface of the potential
ICTs hold for becoming a transformative force in the collaborative relationship
between professionals and citizens in building better cities for the future. A
significant branch of inquiry on this topic within the literature concerns the use of
various virtual reality technologies that can augment the traditional process of
introducing changes to the built environment. Without integrating ICT, the usual
process goes something like the following: design practitioners formulate goals
and principles for what is best, create designs that fit into that rubric, present their
plans to (at least a segment) of the public, and, to varying degrees, incorporate
feedback into the final design. What is often lacking in this approach is a
concentrated effort to understand what the public likes or how they want their
spaces to appear and function. Unfortunately, as Al-Kodmany observes, public
preferences about urban form are often quite different from what professional
Jed Poster [21]
planners and designers believe. Research has shown that design professionals
(outsiders) and local residents (insiders) differ in their evaluation of the same
area.
39
Designers may often fall prey to the perception that because members of
the public lack formal training, they lack the foresight or technical expertise to
understand exactly what is best for them and their environment. Or, perhaps
more troublingly, they may believe that the public couldnt possibly come to a
consensus about the type of urban form they envision for their community, and
that heeding the recommendations of the vocal few might undermine the vision of
the silent majority.

Al-Kodmany summarizes the emerging perspective among researchers that
design may not be, in fact, a nebulous subject for which empirical evaluation is
inappropriate. Research shows strong consistencies in what people like and
dislike in an urban environment. These findings suggest that beauty in the
environment is less qualitative and subjective than many people think it is.
Studies of the evaluative image and the meanings that people attach to an urban
environment can provide useful information for the planning, design, and
management of desirable surroundings.
40
On its own, this observation would
appear to be an indictment of the design community and its commitment to
pursuing its own interests, rather than those of the people whom their products
serve. But what if it simply suggests that the old model of presenting ideas about
the built form to the public is outmoded? What if the technology to create a truly
collaborative process is only beginning to emerge?

Implementing Mutual Discourse Tools in the Design Process

Howard and Gaborit observe that a public consultation is usually presented as a
hearing, where people have access to information using different media, such a
two-dimensional (2D) images, video presentations, or physical small scale
models. The information is exposed in public buildings, such as City Hall, and
Jed Poster [22]
people can visit the exposition and leave feedbackusually [by] writing
comments in a notebook.
41
This sounds a lot like McMillans one-way
monologue or feedback forms of communication described earlier. Fortunately,
there are several examples in the literature of research into the potential for
integrating more mutually discursive ICT platforms into the design process.

In 2000, Al-Kodmany published an investigation into one of the earliest examples
of planners attempting to engage the public in order to better understand
citizens evaluative image
v
of their own neighborhood. Planners from the
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) were invited to contribute their expertise to
a participatory community planning process in Pilsena largely Mexican-
American and Mexican immigrant community of nearly 50,000 people located
just south of the Universitys campus.
42
The community had long been viewed as
a starting-off point for newcomers to the United Statesin other words, a place
that people sought to escape as soon as the opportunity arose. Community
leaders in Pilsen wanted to unify the community by conducting a collaborative
planning process to chart future development in Pilsen and agreed to share
leadership in the process with the UIC planners.
43
At the turn of the 21
st
century,
the field was beginning to experiment with ways of using rapidly-expanding
Internet technology to augment their efforts; the UIC planners, realizing they
needed to form a better understanding of how the neighborhoods residents
viewed their own community, decided to build a GIS-to-WWW module that would
enable them to communicate with citizens. They built a site that allowed residents
to navigate the neighborhood using 360-degree panoramic images of the
streetscapes, an animated tour of one major thoroughfare, and highlighted
points-of-interest representing major landmarks in the neighborhood. Within the
virtual environment, users were asked to click on any area they wished and
indicate whether they liked or disliked the design of that place. The feedback was

v
A concept formulated by Jack Nasar.
Jed Poster [23]
then ported into GIS to create maps projecting the subjective likability and
dislikability reported by users. The experiment proved to be successful: The two
evaluative GIS maps revealed a high degree of consensus on likability and
dislikability and suggested ways to improve the appearance of PilsenThey
were extremely useful in supplying specific directions for improvement and will be
incorporated into the next stages of the Pilsen community process.
44


Though it was conducted at the forefront of the Web 2.0 revolution, this project
may be considered a pioneering attempt to use Web-based technology to
support participatory planning and design.
45
Despite its limited scope, the study
established that web-based participation was a viable strategy towards including
citizens in the process of evaluating the design merits of new development
proposal. In the years since, new tools investigated by researchers generally
follow the aims set out by the UIC researchers: to solicit design input from the
public; collaboratively formulate appropriate design for updating the built form of
communities; and more accurately demonstrate how new projects will look and
feel in their neighborhoods. Howard and Gaborit outline the three common
drawbacks of the traditional design process that ICT platforms seek to address: a
lack of interactivity, a lack of immersion, and a lack of precision in the type of
feedback that citizens can offer.
46
In other words, traditional design presentations
do not afford the public and opportunity to interact with the new built form
planners and designers seek to create. There is no way for people to navigate
freely inside the environment, to pick their own perspective, and there is no way
to modify the environment. Because people generally interact with the public
realm on their own termsand because traditional presentations lack the sense
of scale to which an urban dweller is accustomedit is logically difficult for
untrained observers to gauge their own feelings towards a place until it is actually
built, which limits the quality of the feedback they can provide. In practice, this
can result in new projects that immediately draw the ire of neighborhood
residents, even those who have attempted to engage with the design review
Jed Poster [24]
process before construction took place. By that point, animosity and scorn
towards the design professionals are difficult to mitigate, even if a project that
was unpopular at its inception eventually proves to be well-received by those who
interact with it.

The Role of Vision and City Models in Perception Process (Hanzl, 2007)

Just as we evaluated the different types of communication planners can use in
engaging the public, it is helpful to examine a rough framework for understanding
the evolution of the types of ICT platform planners have used to engage citizens
in the design process. Hanzl provides a helpful overview of the different forms in
which ICTs have been packaged, many of which build on one another to expand
their utility. The first type is fairly straightforward: city models. The aim in building
city models is to understand and to represent the processes which take place in
the city and to support discussion3D models, which are easy to read, assist
non-professional addressees in understanding complex planning issues.
47
In
addition to helping citizens visualize the aesthetic character of proposed
Jed Poster [25]
interventions, models can also elucidate the interconnected nature of the
systems upon which all urban form is built. Three-dimensional models
demonstrate how a proposed structure will appear from a variety of perspectives
and in a variety of contextsday vs. night, crowded vs. sparse, etc. These
models are described by Howard and Gaborit as standalone virtual
environments (VEs) because they are not connected to external databases.
Research in this direction includes the Virtual Edinburgh City 3D modelwhich
has been used to show the visual impact of planning proposals.
48
These models
provide a realistic depiction of a future cityscape, but do not have the capability to
capture feedback from users.

The next layer of sophistication in presenting a city model involves allowing
citizens to manipulate the environment they are observing. Hanzl describes the
progression of the back-end infrastructure that allows planners to turn vector
inputs and two-dimensional renderings into such a representation. For example,
GIS shapefiles can be manipulated using VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling
Language) and XML (eXtensible Markup Language) to create virtual
environments that are accessible through an ordinary web browser. The addition
of Flash or Shockwave modules can enable citizens to modify virtual universes
by [changing] future development position or alterations of location of building
facades.
49
Howard and Gaborit describe the application of this type of model by
the City of London, which developed a VRML-based 3D plugin to share an
existing ESRI ArcView model via the Internet.
50


Another example of this type of platform that has been used by municipalities to
solicit collaborative design input from their communities is CommunityViz. This
tool, which functions as an add-on to ArcGIS, was designed by Placeways LLC, a
firm that specializes in designing 3D tools for scenario planning and community
engagement. CommunityViz has been used by planning departments to provide
hands-on models to interested citizens during various engagement opportunities,
Jed Poster [26]
particularly the design review process. Like ArcGIS, the tool allows the planner to
display information in layers that can be activated or deactivated by the viewer in
order to examine specific elements of a proposed development or see how they
interact with existing features in the built environment. In a design review, [a
planner] should place extra emphasis on explaining [to citizens] how you can
change the scene to illustrate specific points. For example, [one] can turn certain
features such as awnings and planters on and off; change the field of view,
lighting, and other environmental effects; change the maturity of trees; show the
project with and without landscaping or accessory elements; and make
foreground objects partially transparent.
51
In this context, CommunityViz is often
used by planners to create a recognizable 3D representation of the neighborhood
in which a new development is proposed so that citizens can ask more specific,
better-informed questions to planning staff. In turn, the planners can provide
more illustrative answers by manipulating the virtual environment projection.
Howard and Gaborit created and tested a prototype simulation environment
similar to CommunityViz in order to determine if citizens would respond favorably
to this type of engagement tool. The results were promising: after demonstrating
the simulation to a fair representation of the adult class of working age, they
found that the overwhelming majority of those studied reported positive feedback
to the exercise.
52

Jed Poster [27]

Feedback from Participants in Virtual Simulation Exercise (Howard and Gaborit, 2007)

Howard and Gaborit provide a theoretical progression for how mutually discursive
ICT platforms can be integrated throughout the planning process. First, a planner
can make use of a virtual environment to identify an area that merits
consideration for redevelopment or redesign. Linking the VE to external
databases containing relevant information for that particular place, the planner
can further evaluate the sites potential and initiate the political process by
presenting evidence to policymakers. Once approval has been secured to begin
exploring possible alternatives, the planner can provide the model he or she has
created to an urban designer, who can integrate the planners findings into his or
her proposals and even bolt new designs onto the existing streetscape. Once
design alternatives have been established, the model can then be presented to
the public. People visit the environment to observe the proposals, leave
feedback on the environment, and may propose other alternatives by modifying
the 3D model.
53
The planner can then observe precisely how citizens observed
and manipulated the model, and gather the feedback they provided in order to
inform future revisions of the proposal.


Jed Poster [28]
Dynamic city models can also be integrated with collaborative groupware
software that allows groups of remote users to contribute feedback to different
elements of the presentation. This type of collaboration among citizens, even
without the input of professional planners or designers, can result in a
compendium of user feedback that is more useful than that which is provided by
individuals in isolation. According to research on collective intelligencegroup
work is not a sum of effects of work of single participants but provides new
values, which appears as an effect of collective work.
54
While an advantage of
this type of ICT platform is that citizens who may otherwise be perfect strangers
can collaborate remotely, there is also a lot of potential for systems that require
citizens to participate in an interactive workshop or site visit. Augmented reality
systemsreality combined with some virtual elementsallow participants to
view a proposed intervention superimposed onto the existing streetscape in
person using specially-designed glasses.
55
This technology can even allow the
viewer to virtually manipulate the proposed design using his or her hands, with
their movements captured by high-speed motion-detecting cameras.

Groups of remote users can also be corralled towards contributing citizen input
through the increasingly popular trend of gamification, in which cities adopt
tools that are built upon popular online virtual reality games known as Massively
Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs). Evans-Cowley and Hollander describe the
City of Bostons 2007 adaptation of Second Life, a leading MMOG, for use by
planners in engaging the community. In collaboration with students and faculty at
Emerson College, the city launched Hub2, which was intended to support
technological innovation in governance...Specifically, [Boston] sought to use
Second Life to enable local neighborhoods to participate more meaningfully in
the design and development of their own public spaces.
56
The game was
structured in four phasesImagine, Design, Engage, Activate (IDEA)that were
designed to lead users through a progression of unpacking the complex forces
acting upon certain neighborhoods within the city and subsequently contribute
Jed Poster [29]
their ideas for how to improve them. The success of this (albeit limited)
experiment led Emerson and Hub2 to create Community Planit, a game that
makes planning playful, and gives everyone the power to shape the future of their
community.
57
Community Planit was recently used by the City of Philadelphia as
part of the civic engagement process of drafting the citys new comprehensive
plan, Phila2035. Because the use of gamification tools is so new, there has been
little research into their efficacy and relevance for planning endeavors. While
much can be learned from such an endeavor, since it lacked any actual planning
objectives its success is hard to assess. Rather, we argue that the Hub2
experiment illustrates the potential invent new forms of public interaction with
urban design and planning. In many ways, the Hub2 team created new rules in
their IDEA framework simply because the traditional rules for public participation
in planning have little relevance when asynchronous interaction in 3D computer-
generated spaces is possible in real time.
58



Jed Poster [30]
How can big data and crowdsourcing be used to inform planners work?

While much of what this paper has explored thus far concerns how ICT platforms
can augment or change the way planners engage the citizens they serve in
carrying out the functions of the discrete planning process, the final line of inquiry
has more to do with how planners can learn more about their communities
without actually interacting with the public. The rapid adoption of power personal
commuting technology described earlier, especially the rise of internet-enabled
mobile devices, has fundamentally altered the way urban citizens go about their
daily lives. It has also, however, had a dramatic effect on the toolkit planners can
use to collect quantitative information about how people actually use their cities.

The technology companies at the cutting edge of the information revolution
increasingly crow about the inherent value of the massive amounts of data they
collect about their users. This is perhaps the only way to explain how startups
who have never turned a penny in profit can achieve billion-dollar valuations
see Twitter, Snapchat, et al. By developing sophisticated, dynamic algorithms in
order to monetize their user bases, these companies have begun to figure out
how to generate incredible insight into how consumers carrying GPS-enabled
smartphones (which are in turn connected to social networks of thousands of
users) tend to behaveand how those insights can be used to answer a plethora
of seemingly unrelated questions. The 21
st
Century version of theres no such
thing as a free lunch goes something like, if the product is free, its not really the
product; the user is the product. While this maxim underscores the financial
value each new user accrues to a companys platform, it can also be used to
understand the value this type of data has for actors not motivated by the profit
imperative.

In many ways, the professional planner can be seen as a data scientist: he or
she is constantly searching not just for any data about their community, but for
Jed Poster [31]
the right data. Because planners recommendations can lead to interventions that
cost governments tremendous amounts of moneyand because the responsible
planner seeks to implement strategies that will truly improve peoples quality of
lifethe practitioner must exercise extreme caution in selecting the right datasets
from which he or she seeks to extract insight about citizen behavior. Moreover,
the use of the right data is essential in developing accurate, well-informed
analysis of the existing conditions in a city. If commuters are persistently
complaining about overcrowding on a particular transit line, how are planners
supposed to identify the cause of and ideal solution for that problem? Does that
particular line merit additional investment to increase service capacity? Or would
it be wiser to expand service to adjacent neighborhoods in order to alleviate
demand on that particular line? The insights generated by big data can help to
answer some of these questions.

Understanding the spatial component of urban dwellers daily routines has long
been a challenge for planners. Many of us have firsthand experience of places
where we work, live, or shop that exhibit predictable patterns of
useResearchers have traditionally studied the movement of urban populations
through travel surveys or individual tracking exercises.
59
The problem with these
subjective data collection endeavors is that they are fraught with methodological
shortcomings. By relying on subjects to report their own behavior, studies can be
exposed to the risk of recall bias or outright distortion; further, selecting a truly
representative sample population for this type of study can be extremely
challenging. Sevtsuk and Ratti explain why researchers have begun to explore
how mobile phone locational data can be used to more accurately track peoples
daily travel behavior, and hopefully glean insight into the way that citizens are
actually using their cities. Exploring mobility patterns from an aggregate city-
wide perspective could allow researchers to better understand the complex
population dynamics that underlie contemporary cities. It could also help them
Jed Poster [32]
make more informed decisions in their planning by evaluating the usage loads
that transportation infrastructure and the built fabric face in daily life.
60


Sevtsuk and Ratti secured novel mobile data from TIM, the Italian mobile phone
operator with the largest market share in the city of Rome, in hopes of generating
insight into how that data illustrates the regularity of urban travel patterns. They
utilized an innovative approach to dissecting the data: rather than trying to follow
individual users as they traversed the city, they focused exclusively on the
aggregate volume of calls made in particular locations at all hours of the day.
For example, does the cell around the Pantheon contain a predictable amount of
activity at 10am, 11am, 12am? Does the population distribution in Rome as a
whole follow routine hourly, daily, and weekly patterns? Is the average Monday
distinguishable from other weekdays, and one weeks pattern distinguishable
from anothers?
61



One projection of Sevtsuk and Rattis dataset (2010)


Jed Poster [33]
The researchers were able to generate results that confirmed the validity and
relevance of their approach. They found that it was possible to isolate activity
distribution patterns on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis; that different times of
day affect different neighborhoods differently, wherein a decrease in activity in
certain sectors will be accompanied by an increase in others; and that 53% of the
explainable variation in call volumes within cells was the result of hourly, daily,
and weekly time differences. In other words, slightly over half of the observed
variation in activity patterns of cells can be attributed to routine.
62


Becker, et al, performed a similar examination into mobile phone data from
Morristown, New Jersey, a suburban town of 20,000 located in the New York
MSA.
63
They too were able to extract revealing insights from their analysis of the
dataset. First, they used the data to identify the residential areas in and around
the town were contributing daytime workers to the central business districtor, to
use their term, the laborshed. Second, they were able to determine which
residential areas contributed late-night visitors to the town, which they called the
partyshed. Finally, the group of researchers developed a novel unsupervised
clustering algorithm that allowed them to group residents and visitors alike into
groups, thus revealing interesting aspects of city dynamics that could of great
value to urban planners.
64



Becker, et al: Clusters of residents and visitors identified via mobile phone data
Jed Poster [34]
The final type of big data that planners can leverage towards generating
actionable information about their communities is that which is contributed by the
public through platforms like SeeClickFix. Founded in 2008, SeeClickFix is a
private technology company that maintains a web tool that allows citizens to
anonymously report non-emergency conditions in their neighborhoods, like graffiti
or a broken streetlight. Using a free mobile app downloaded onto their
smartphones, citizens can contribute pictures of these areas of concern.
SeeClickFix establishes partnerships with municipalities wherein the city
essentially purchases the data to complement (or replace) their own outreach
efforts through channels like 311 (or 311 Mobile). Similar companies have
increasingly been entering the market, raising a new set of questions. Can
planners trust the datasets gathered by private companies whose interests may
not be aligned with those of the city or its residents? Does relying on an app,
rather than a city-operated platform, undermine the credibility of a city
government? Does it give off the impression of waving a white flag representing a
citys surrender to the notion that they lack the technical sophistication to foster
meaningful online interaction with residents? These technologies have not yet
been extensively studied by researchers, so the answers to these questions
remain unclear; however, future lines of inquiry should delve into these issues, as
well as the ethical questions that arise from observing behavior without users
explicit consent.




Jed Poster [35]
Conclusion

A review of the literature that examines the role of ICT platforms in city planning
reveals that while there is no shortage of opinion on how cities can make better
use of emerging technologies to improve the product of their work, there is also
little consensus about how planners ought to proceed in such an endeavor. The
diversity of product types, use cases, and implementation strategies presented
thus far illustrates a key factor that renders the question somewhat opaque:
namely, that evidence for the viability of this type of evolution in the planning
process is diffuse and does not lend itself to a workable consensus among
planning professionals, researchers, and private actors.

Much of this can be explained by the different perspectives represented by the
thinkers who have explored the question. On the one hand, technology
researchers often ground their work in the proposition that new ICT platforms
present seemingly limitless possibilities to change and improve the way citizens
interact with their surrounding environment. They may consider how emerging
communication and virtual reality software can generate radically new ways of
approaching the consultative planning process by creating true mutually
discursive relationships between those in power and those whom they serve.
They may also be in awe of the sheer volume of spatial-behavioral data that has
been collected about urban dwellersand consequently develop visions for how
these datasets can be used to generate radically different understandings of how
people use cities and spaces. In other words, they have produced a fair amount
of wide-eyed (though perhaps accurate) speculation for how technology can
reshape urban life, but have given little thought to exactly who should be
responsible for implementing new ideas and how these platforms will be
financed.

Jed Poster [36]
Predictably, planners have given more thought to that aspect of the question:
how do we justify the expense (in dollars and time spent) of unproven
technology? To some extent, this leads to a circular line of logic. If we dont put
new ICT platforms into practice, how will we know if they work? And if we dont
know if they will work, how can we make the case to policymakers that these
possibilities deserve the allocation of increasingly scarce funding? Planners are
understandably cautious about making bold pronouncements about how their
universe is changingin part because they may wonder about their own
relevance in the brave new worldwithout having a clearer idea of exactly how
to proceed.

Some governments and planning departments have sought to be at the cutting-
edge of the information age; others have preferred to lurk, waiting to see
evidence of how the cities more comfortable with risk have fared. While the
emerging class of tech entrepreneurs see a world filled with barriers and existing
paradigms that must be shattered, planners view their cities with a much longer
time horizon. A tech startup with a small amount of seed funding can afford to
failin fact, the way that venture capital funds and angel investors disperse their
money among tens (or hundreds) of different unproven ideas explicitly
demonstrates that most startups are expected to fail. Planners are not, cannot,
and should not be comfortable with that type of risk when it comes to making
decisions that can affect the outcomes for so many citizensafter all, planners
are responsible for ensuring that cities do not fail! So while it is clear that
planning is not immune to the new era of information technology, the evidence
presented by the literature demonstrates the importance of taking a prudent,
cautious approach towards integrating ICT platforms into the theory and practice
of city planning.


Jed Poster [37]


References


Background

1
Zickuhr and Smith, Home Broadband 2013.
2
Smith, Smartphone Ownership2013 Update, 2.
3
Duggan and Smith, Cell Internet Use 2013, 4.
4
Fox, 51% of U.S. Adults Bank Online, 4.
5
Jansen, Online Product Research, 3.
6
Rainie et al., Where People Get Information about Restaurants and Other
Local Businesses, 1
7
Brenner and Smith, 72% of Online Adults Are Social Networking Site Users, 2.
8
Ibid., 3.
9
Ibid., 4.
10
Duggan, Photo and Video Sharing Grow Online, 3.
11
Ibid., 9.
12
Zickuhr, Location-Based Services, 2.



Summary of Perspectives

1
Hanzl, Information Technology as a Tool for Public Participation in Urban
Planning, 1.


ICT in Community Engagement

1
Al-Kodmany, Using Web-Based Technologies and Geographic Information
Systems in Community Planning, 24.
2
Davidoff, ADVOCACY AND PLURALISM IN PLANNING, 332.
3
The Small Town Planning Handbook, 8.
4
Williamson and Parolin, Review of Web-Based Communications for Town
Planning in Local Government, 44.
5
Ibid, 397.
6
Mcmillan, A Four-Part Model of Cyber-Interactivity.
7
Ibid., 276.
8
Evans-Cowley and Manta Conroy, The Growth of E-Government in Municipal
Planning, 2006, 83.
9
Ibid., 84.
10
Ibid, 84.
Jed Poster [38]

11
Evans-Cowley and Manta Conroy, The Growth of E-Government in Municipal
Planning, 2006, 81.
12
Ibid., 83.
13
Ibid., 87.
14
Ibid., 98.
15
Williamson Web 2.0 and Planning.pdf, 552.
16
Williamson and Parolin, Review of Web-Based Communications for Town
Planning in Local Government, 553.
17
Williamson and Parolin, Web 2.0 and Social Media Growth in Planning
Practice, 553.
18
Ibid.
19
Williamson and Parolin, Review of Web-Based Communications for Town
Planning in Local Government, 58.
20
Williamson and Parolin, Web 2.0 and Social Media Growth in Planning
Practice, 553.
21
Evans-Cowley and Manta Conroy, The Growth of E-Government in Municipal
Planning, 2006.
22
Ibid., 93.
23
Ibid., 94.
24
Evans-Cowley and Hollander, The New Generation of Public Participation,
400.
25
Ibid., 397.
26
Ibid., 398.
27
Ibid., 400.
28
Ibid., 401.
29
Ibid, 401.
30
Ibid., 399.
31
Ibid., 400.
32
Ibid., 402.
33
Ibid., 406.
34
Hanzl, Information Technology as a Tool for Public Participation in Urban
Planning, 298.
35
Bohj et al., Public Deliberation in Municipal Planning, 96.
36
Evans-Cowley and Hollander, The New Generation of Public Participation,
405.
37
Hanzl, Information Technology as a Tool for Public Participation in Urban
Planning, 1.
38
Al-Kodmany, Using Web-Based Technologies and Geographic Information
Systems in Community Planning, 1.
39
Ibid., 2.
40
Ibid., 3.
41
Howard and Gaborit, Using Virtual Environment Technology to Improve Public
Participation in Urban Planning Process, 233.
Jed Poster [39]

42
Al-Kodmany, Using Web-Based Technologies and Geographic Information
Systems in Community Planning, 7.
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid., 17.
45
Ibid., 23.
46
Howard and Gaborit, Using Virtual Environment Technology to Improve Public
Participation in Urban Planning Process, 233.
47
Hanzl, Information Technology as a Tool for Public Participation in Urban
Planning, 290.
48
Howard and Gaborit, Using Virtual Environment Technology to Improve Public
Participation in Urban Planning Process, 234.
49
Hanzl, Information Technology as a Tool for Public Participation in Urban
Planning, 292.
50
Howard and Gaborit, Using Virtual Environment Technology to Improve Public
Participation in Urban Planning Process, 234.
51
Walker, The Planners Guide to CommunityViz, 155.
52
Howard and Gaborit, Using Virtual Environment Technology to Improve Public
Participation in Urban Planning Process, 239240.
53
Ibid., 235.
54
Hanzl, Information Technology as a Tool for Public Participation in Urban
Planning, 298.
55
Ibid., 300.
56
Evans-Cowley and Hollander, The New Generation of Public Participation,
403.
57
https://communityplanit.org/
58
Evans-Cowley and Hollander, The New Generation of Public Participation,
404.

Big Data

59
Sevtsuk and Ratti, Does Urban Mobility Have a Daily Routine?, 41.
60
Ibid., 42.
61
Ibid., 45.
62
Ibid., 57.
63
Becker et al., A Tale of One City, 1.
64
Ibid., 2.