Automatic for the people? Problematising the potential of digital planning

Cities, and the planning thereof, have increasingly adopted digital technologies over the last thirty years. Over this time, digital technologies have developed, rapidly evolving from being large, static, and simplistic, to smaller, mobile, interactive, and connected hardware and software. The ever-improving availability of data and enhanced software capabilities have driven a greater interest in how to use such advancements to improve the quality of planning decisions and the capacity of planners. Whilst the great hope of advocates for digital planning is that it will speed up the decision-making process, open-up processes and replace those mythological recalcitrant planners, our research finds grounds to believe precisely the opposite may prevail.

Our paper titled ‘Automatic for the people?  Problematising the potential of digital planning’ explores digital planning, explicitly questioning some of the optimistic claims made on its behalf. To do so, it presents a conceptual framework that builds on the work of McCampbell et al (2021) to reflect upon the promises and potential pitfalls of greater use of digital technology within and beyond planning practice. Our framework examines the risks associated with adopting technology into the planning system at three different scales with a focus on individuals, software design and usage choices, and the planning system.

Digital inclusion and exclusion in relation to planning is perhaps most tangible at the individual scale, as we consider who has access to digital technologies and planning processes, and the factors influencing individual citizens’ engagement with digital planning systems. It is well established that digital technologies are not uniformly used or accessible, but it is important to remember that this goes beyond the (evidence driven) assumption that older people are less likely to engage digitally and recognise that younger people are increasingly disengaged from some digital platforms.

At the next scale “up”, that of choices around technologies to use and the design of those technologies, there are tensions here related to data and how that data represents the world. Over recent years, discussions around artificial intelligence (AI) have gone from the realms of science fiction to being part of day-to-day life. Risks related to AI are manifold, but in our paper we focus specifically on how the “black box” nature of how the algorithms and data collection methods which inform AI, and related “PropTech”, systems are developed. Communities affected by decisions driven by such systems are rarely consulted upon these matters, so the inherent biases within them are not subjected to challenge.

The implications of the preceding two scales for planning systems and practices are significant. One is that as complexity increases, so do anxieties about reliability of data, and the need for greater levels of regulation and governance structures to address such concerns. A second is the danger that the nascent infusion of digital technologies into planning could result in traditional power asymmetries being amplified, particularly that between well-resourced and well-organised commercial entities and a diffuse, under-resourced ‘public interest’.

There is little doubt that technology can be used to make planning more democratic, to open up engagement, to build public trust in planning institutions, and to strengthen the legitimacy of planning decisions. The inverse, however, is true - every choice made in relation to the digitisation of planning, as with the profession more widely, is a trade-off, with unequal distribution of costs and benefits. It is vital that planning scholars and practitioners recognise this and take steps to address it in their research and practice.

Read the full open access article on Urban Studies OnlineFirst here.