Background
Technology alone is not the most important part of the concepts contained within this document, rather how this technology can be used to deliver better planning and development outcomes. It helps to start with a basic introduction to the relevant technical concepts involved in digital infrastructure (see a background glossary here).
PlanTech is a term that has been in to refer to the latest wave of digital technology in its specific application to urban planning tasks, linking to adjacent movements currently underway in PropTech, FinTech, GovTech, PlaceTech, RegTech and so on. Although it is synonymous with ePlanning, the term serves as a refresher, inviting people to consider the new capabilities offered by technology since the first successful ePlanning initiatives began over a decade ago.
There are many potential software applications and digital tools that can be used to assist planning work, however before considering these, it is important address the underlying enable infrastructure (known as a ‘platform’). Currently, there are many missing pieces of this digital infrastructure and, where they do exist, they are not in place across all areas of government. This platform is in many ways a prerequisite to further innovation and needs to be provided as open digital public infrastructure in order to achieve the full potential benefits of a digital planning system. With a complete open platform in place, the opportunities are endless for the development of new application by anyone inside or outside government.
1. Planners must be prepared for wide reaching change to their day-to-day work
The is that technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), is likely to augment rather than wholesale replace professional work. In planning, there is , such as development application assessment, feasibility studies and population modelling. Automation of these tasks is expected to free planners to concentrate on more complicated tasks and problems.
However, to augment their work planners will need to develop new skills to understand and work with this technology. In the future, those planners that use this type of technology to augment their work will out compete those who do not, and more planners will need to develop these skills to ensure their continued engagement with the profession.
As this transition occurs, planners who develop and prioritise digital skills must be afforded opportunities to remain connected to their professional community through PIA and other channels. Similarly, where automation of work occurs, it should not be seen as a replacement for planners working in entry-level jobs or erode the pipeline of skilled professionals.
2. Planners must be central to the design of digital planning infrastructure
Planning rules are already being incorporated into software systems (eg. ‘rules as code’, ‘legislation as code’), including private sector applications. It is therefore increasingly important that planners are involved to ensure that the coded rules match the intended planning outcomes and comply with relevant legislation. In addition, as the end users of many potential applications, it is important that planners are involved in the design process in order to ensure that the new software applications are fit for purpose and allowed planners to do their best work.
CASE STUDY: During a pilot project, the approach to rules as code was taken by Wellington City Council. This approached involved planners working alongside software developers as the plan is written, ensuring that coded outcomes matched the intent of the human readable text. This process showed that the iterative testing approach resulted in a clearer and more robust plan overall. Following this successful pilot, this approach will now be taken for the development of the new Wellington City District Plan.
3. Digital planning infrastructure should be public infrastructure built with open technology
Through applications like Facebook, Uber and Airbnb, society has become accustomed to large platforms for digital service delivery as the domain of the private sector. Planning however is work in the public interest, involving the allocation of land use rights and public infrastructure development across society and it is therefore important that a different approach is taken. It is important that the to be provided as public infrastructure, governed in the public interest and using open technology, including:
- Machine readable digital content: Ensure that content published and procured in public planning processes is easily processed by computers (machine readable), including the data and methods contained within them. Ideally, content is provided in accessible formats (ie. XML and HTML) which are provided in addition to or instead of PDF files.
- Standardisation: Standards should be developed for common language, processes and data in order to enable collaboration across jurisdictions.
- Open data: All non-sensitive data produced within public planning processes should be made available as open data, including development approvals data and 3D and 4D modelling publicly procured for digital twin development. Processes for the handling of sensitive data must be maintained.
- Open rules: Computer code representing planning rules used in automated or assisted public decision-making processes should be made publicly available.
- Open source code: Where public funding is used in the development of new digital tools, these should be provided as open source to enable reuse across different agencies and authorities. Grants should be provided, and collaboration encouraged between different authorities so that no one agency disproportionately bears the cost of software development.
The use of open technology ensures the transparency required for trust in the planning system and an even playing ground for the development of digital planning tools, significantly reducing the risk of vendor lock in and monopolisation in the provision of digital public services. It also facilitates ease of use for researchers and by planning and built environment educators and students in their work.
4. Ambitious programs can be implemented to improve social and environmental outcomes
As more administrative work is automated, planners need to ensure their role develops to tackle the cultural and sustainability challenges that are arguably the very purpose of the planning profession. This transition is unlikely to happen automatically and will therefore require planners to take an active role in reshaping their professional systems.
A component of this transition will be identifying efficiencies that have occurred due to automation and other systems and advocating for the redirection of these resources back into planning, for instance to deliver more strategic planning work and secure better social and environmental outcomes.
5. Outcomes for communities and places must be considered alongside efficiency of approval processes in the development of digital planning systems
For the full potential of digital planning to be realised, design considerations need to extend beyond the architecture and construction industries. Human outcomes in areas of health, safety, community, culture and heritage and outcomes for the natural environment need to be central considerations in digital planning. This principle is especially important as technology continues to improve abilities to measure more features in greater detail.
Traditionally, indicators in planning have focused primarily on development assessment timeframes and this will need to change if actual planning outcomes for sustainable places are to be realised. This will also require the development of a clear line of sight between global sustainability programs, such as the Sustainable Development Goals.
As digital twin technology enables us to create digital models of entire cities and regions, planners also need to be aware of what information is represented in these models – particularly whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge of place is included.
CASE STUDY: The Greater Sydney Commission’s Pulse of Greater Sydney set out to measure and monitor human outcomes in Sydney. The report measures outcomes under four key indicators – jobs, education and housing, a 30 minute city, walkable places and addressing urban heat. These measurements also aligned with the directions of the broader strategic and district plans that the Greater Sydney Commission prepares and implements.
6. Ethics, accountability and transparency must be built into digital decision systems
The technology that exists today makes it possible to automate many assessments of development assessment, especially for low risk or simple applications. The question seems to be when rather than if this will happen. Technologists predict rapid and widescale disruption, while regulators estimate a much longer timeframe – the reality may lie somewhere in between.
At a strategic level, improvements to computing and data availability from varied sources (such as the Internet of Things), offer new plan monitoring and evaluation capabilities that can be used to judge and improve the effectiveness of planning policy. Nevertheless, quantitative measurements and indicators are necessarily selective and therefore can only ever reflect a limited reality. It is therefore important these measures and indicators are developed and applied in an open and transparent fashion.
These systems should be easily understood by practitioners and the public and ethical use of systems must be ensured. Plain language principles for the design of automated planning approval, monitoring and evaluation systems are required to ensure ethical and legal principles are upheld. Source code should also be made public where it is used to assist or automate decision-making, monitoring and evaluation systems. Automated approvals systems should be monitored once implemented to ensure human accountability and the provision of channels for recourse.
CASE STUDY: Before this technology is implemented, it is important that automated decisions are subject to human accountability and appeal. The recent ‘Robodebt’ issue that arose from the roll out of automated decision making by Centrelink provides an example of what can occur when these considerations are not built into design of systems.
7. Digital planning applications should be developed in a human-centric way
It is common in the design of digital systems within government to consider the needs of the system administrator before the needs of end users. In planning, this has traditionally manifested in complex information requirements and forms. Instead, human-centred approaches ensure that the needs of the end user, whether they are a member of the community or another branch of government, are central to the new digital systems. The design of digital planning applications by public organisations should meet a high usability and accessibility standards to minimise unnecessary complexity.
8. Communication of planning content and processes to non-planners should be reimagined
The capabilities offered by modern technology gives planners an exciting opportunity to reimagine how to communicate and collaborate with the community outside the confirms of paper plans and their PDF replicas. Utilising a computer to reduce (or hide) the complexity that is inherent in a modern planning system has the potential to radically improve the ability for nonplanners to understand and interact with planning processes. If implemented correctly collaborative design platforms can empower citizens within the planning process to drive the development of plans for their communities. Implementation should consider principles of web accessibility, to ensure all citizens are afforded the opportunity to engage with these platforms.
9. Collaboration should be prioritised in the development of underlying digital planning infrastructure
There is work being done across Australia in the ePlanning space and digitisation of government services more generally. There are also many local governments with their own initiatives. Nevertheless, progress is patchy and incremental. More needs to be done to recognise the value of this work and to share and encourage collaboration between local government, local and state agencies and between the public, private and academic sectors, in the development of digital tools and standards for planning. State government is best placed to provide the vision and road map on the future of digital planning infrastructure. The development of this vision and resulting standards will allow innovation in PlanTech to flourish.
10. A culture of innovation and sharing should be promoted
Change management and culture are generally the greatest challenge to the adoption of digital innovation. In a consultation with the PIA NSW PlanTech Working Group, Code for Australia identified opportunities for change within government, including overcoming the current ‘project-based’ culture where previous work is discarded at the end of a funded project and adopting a culture of sharing, reusing, adapting and reiterating previous project learnings, progress and components.