IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v8y2023i2p17-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Phygitally Smarter? A Critically Pragmatic Agenda for Smarter Engagement in British Planning and Beyond

Author

Listed:
  • James Charlton

    (Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, UK)

  • Ian Babelon

    (Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, UK)

  • Richard Watson

    (Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, UK)

  • Caitlin Hafferty

    (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK)

Abstract

In Britain as elsewhere, planning systems are entering a “digital turn.” However, the emerging conversations around PlanTech in policy, industry, and research yield contrasting views about the promises of digital technology and “data-driven” decisions to enhance and embed public participation in the planning system. With faster, data-driven processes capable of engaging more people in more diverse ways, PlanTech offers to revolutionise planning systems. However, empirical evidence demonstrates low citizen trust in government and web-based technologies, democratic and participatory deficits, the complexity of the planning system and its opaque technocratic terminology, multi-layered digital divides, and other socio-technical factors that hinder effective and inclusive public consultations in planning. This article provides a preliminary, high-level research agenda for public consultations across Britain’s three nations that centres around a critical pragmatic design, deployment, and evaluation of blended/“phygital” (simultaneously physical and digital) information-rich ecologies of smart engagement. A review of selected national policy in Britain provides initial insight into the emphasis (or lack of) put on the adoption of digital tools within the planning process of each British nation. In doing so, the research sets out a conceptual model that complements existing models for participatory planning by adopting Beyon-Davies’ unified conception of information, systems, and technology. The conceptual model presented sets out seven Is of information-rich phygital ecologies and three interdependent “pillars” for smart engagement that enable one to gaze both deeply and broadly into opportunities for smart engagement through and beyond PlanTech.

Suggested Citation

  • James Charlton & Ian Babelon & Richard Watson & Caitlin Hafferty, 2023. "Phygitally Smarter? A Critically Pragmatic Agenda for Smarter Engagement in British Planning and Beyond," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 17-31.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:8:y:2023:i:2:p:17-31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/6399
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gavin Parker & Emma Street & Matthew Wargent, 2018. "The Rise of the Private Sector in Fragmentary Planning in England," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 734-750, October.
    2. John Forester, 2020. "Kindness, Planners’ Response to Vulnerability, and an Ethics of Care in the Time of Covid-19," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 185-188, June.
    3. Mattias Hjerpe & Erik Glaas & Sofie Storbjörk, 2018. "Scrutinizing Virtual Citizen Involvement in Planning: Ten Applications of an Online Participatory Tool," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 159-169.
    4. Pilvi Nummi, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Local Knowledge with PPGIS and Social Media for Urban Planning to Reveal Intangible Cultural Heritage," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 100-115.
    5. Nader Afzalan & Brian Muller, 2018. "Online Participatory Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Enriching Participatory Planning," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 84(2), pages 162-177, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dickinson, Daniella & Shahab, Sina, 2021. "Post planning-decision process: Ensuring the delivery of high-quality developments in Cardiff," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Claire Daniel & Christopher Pettit, 2022. "Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: Results of a citation network analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(7), pages 1875-1892, September.
    3. Griffin, Greg Phillip & Jiao, Junfeng, 2019. "The Geography and Equity of Crowdsourced Public Participation for Active Transportation Planning," SocArXiv 9ghrn, Center for Open Science.
    4. Alattar, Mohammad Anwar & Cottrill, Caitlin & Beecroft, Mark, 2021. "Public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) as a method for active travel data acquisition," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Johannes Herburger & Nicola Hilti & Eva Lingg, 2022. "Negotiating Vertical Urbanization at the Public–Private Nexus: On the Institutional Embeddedness of Planning Committees," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 253-266.
    6. Ramon Marrades & Philippa Collin & Michelle Catanzaro & Eveline Mussi, 2021. "Planning from Failure: Transforming a Waterfront through Experimentation in a Placemaking Living Lab," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 221-234.
    7. Bernardino Romano & Francesco Zullo & Lorena Fiorini & Cristina Montaldi, 2022. "Micromunicipality (MM) and Inner Areas in Italy: A Challenge for National Land Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    8. Dragana S. Nikolić & Marijana D. Pantić & Vesna T. Jokić, 2021. "Urban and Spatial Planning: Pragmatic Considerations for Plan Implementation Improvements (A Case Study of the City of Bor)," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440219, February.
    9. Nathan Fox & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & Mark Lindquist & Derek Van Berkel & Ramiro Serrano-Vergel, 2022. "Gamifying Decision Support Systems to Promote Inclusive and Engaged Urban Resilience Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 239-252.
    10. Andrea Ballatore & Teun Johannes Verhagen & Zhije Li & Stefano Cucurachi, 2022. "This city is not a bin: Crowdmapping the distribution of urban litter," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(1), pages 197-212, February.
    11. Katherine Iles & Sya Buryn Kedzior, 2023. "Operationalizing participation: experiences and perspectives of participatory GIS program coordinators," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 539-565, October.
    12. Jason Slade & Malcolm Tait & Andy Inch, 2022. "‘We need to put what we do in my dad’s language, in pounds, shillings and pence’: Commercialisation and the reshaping of public-sector planning in England," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 59(2), pages 397-413, February.
    13. Raco, Mike & Ward, Callum & Brill, Frances & Sanderson, Danielle & Freire-Trigo, Sonia & Ferm, Jess & Hamiduddin, Iqbal & Livingstone, Nicola, 2022. "Towards a virtual statecraft: housing targets and the governance of urban housing markets," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114315, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Jordi Honey-Rosés & Mitzy Canessa & Sarah Daitch & Bruno Gomes & Javier Muñoz-Blanco García & André Xavier & Oscar Zapata, 2020. "Comparing Structured and Unstructured Facilitation Approaches in Consultation Workshops: A Field Experiment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 949-967, October.
    15. Miroslav Kopáček, 2021. "Land-Use Planning and the Public: Is There an Optimal Degree of Civic Participation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. David Horan, 2019. "A New Approach to Partnerships for SDG Transformations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Yongcheng Wang & Yiik Diew Wong & Kelvin Goh, 2021. "Perceived importance of inclusive street dimensions: a public questionnaire survey from a vision(ing) perspective," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 699-721, April.
    18. Daphna Levine & Shai Sussman & Meirav Aharon-Gutman, 2022. "Spatial-temporal patterns of self-organization: A dynamic 4D model for redeveloping the post-zoning city," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(3), pages 1005-1023, March.
    19. Surajit Chakravarty & Mohammed S Bin Mansoor & Bibek Kumar & Priya Seetharaman, 2023. "Challenges of consultant-led planning in India’s smart cities mission," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(5), pages 1375-1393, June.
    20. Griffin, Greg Phillip & Jiao, Junfeng, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Bike Share Station Locations: Evaluating participation and placement," SocArXiv mtnza, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v:8:y:2023:i:2:p:17-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.