EMERGING TOOLS AND PRACTICES OF E-PLANNING

As planners and decision-makers experiment with information and communication technologies (ICTs), it’s important to explore and analyze these attempts in different planning systems and contexts. The aim of the article is to compare the use of and aspirations attached to e-planning in Helsinki, Finland and Sydney, Australia. This comparison will highlight the interrelationship between planning context and its amenability to an e-planning approach and shows there are shared themes in both cases: firstly, the complexity involved in reconciling the aims of the e-planning experiments and their connection to the planning process itself (roles, objectives, implementation of tools and processes). Secondly, the way that e-planning opens up cracks in the façade of administration, and thirdly, the ways in which e-planning provides possibilities to reshape existing planning procedures. The authors argue that the different planning and governance contexts affect the adoption of e-planning and this adoption is necessarily a selective process. DOI: 10.4018/ijepr.2012070102 18 International Journal of E-Planning Research, 1(3), 17-39, July-September 2012 Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. technologies. These technologies enable citizens to create and share data and information about local issues and the urban environment (Saad-Sulonen, 2012). We refer to e-planning in this article, as the sociocultural, ethical, and political practice in which people take part online and offline in the overlapping phases of the urban planning and decision-making cycle (Horelli & Wallin, 2010, p. 3). We also take into consideration the extended range of digital tools – official, unofficial, expert, and mundane and address their use in the context of citizen participation in urban planning. Whereas advocates of technology argue that the application of ICTs might complement or even change participation in planning (Yeh & Webster, 2004; Anttiroiko, 2011), it is important to remember the role of the socio-political context in which the technology is applied. For example, resources are spread unevenly in different sectors of government, some areas of bureaucracy may be better suited to an e-planning approach than others or a particular technology may become associated with an enthusiastic individual or champion. E-planning includes consideration on how to use ICTs for enhancing the participation processes (Silva, 2010). However, the ways and modes of participation are changing, as well as the administration and decision-making processes too. The emphasis tends to be on new tools and structures, as well as on the timing for participation. In addition, the overall complexity of e-planning seems to change the linear process and stable power relations of planning (Wallin & Horelli, 2012). Public participation comprises multiple activities in which planners can have some discretion to choose among a number of modes of communication. Therefore, one can expect to identify a variety of uses and aspirations of e-planning in different contexts. It is important to comprehend, why some technologies are considered to be successful and others not. ‘Success’ in planning is highly contingent on place and history among many other factors (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984). Understanding these contingencies can help practitioners comprehend, how the latest wave of ICTadoption is shaping practice. E-planning is still a relatively new field. We have not encountered any studies (in e.g., Silva, 2010a; Budthimedhee et al., 2002) that would have compared e-planning practices as we define them in this article, in different planning and governance contexts. Yet, such comparisons can help contribute to the theory of why an e-planning tool may succeed in one context and not another. In this article we aim to explore the use and aspirations of e-planning, by focusing on the context in which they are situated, namely the urban planning and governance system. We examine the similarities and differences in the way two ICT-savvy cities from diverse cultures use e-planning, through an international comparison. Furthermore, we wish to highlight the interrelationship between a given planning context and its amenability to an e-planning approach. Finally, we will also discuss the lessons learnt in terms of eplanning theory. Our study focuses on the adoption of e-planning in Helsinki, Finland and Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Helsinki, with the population of almost 600 000, is the capital of a Nordic welfare state. Sydney, with a population of 4.5 million (ABS, 2010), is the capital of New South Wales. It is governed by the NSW State Government, which, like all Australian states has been particularly amenable to neoliberal reform since the mid 1980s (Beer et al., 2007). The comparison shows that there are shared themes in both. However, as we argue below, important differences exist between the two jurisdictions’ approaches to e-planning which requires exploration. In particular, we show how the different planning contexts affect the adoption of e-planning and how this adoption is necessarily a selective process. We will first explain the changing relationship between ICTs, participation, and urban planning and the evolving context in which this takes place. We will then describe and compare the two cases, and finally discuss the findings. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 1(3), 17-39, July-September 2012 19 Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. THE CHANGING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ICTS, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, AND URBAN PLANNING The relationship between urban planning and technology has gone through different phases since the 1960’s (Foth et al., 2009). The main focus of this relationship has been on the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology for overlay mapping. GIS started as an expert technology targeted to be used by planning professionals. Later GIS technology use was opened up for the general public. The development of Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) made it possible to use GIS technology to enhance citizen participation. The development of WebGIS also meant that the technology became accessible online. Parallel to the technologies that have evolved from the world of professional urban planning, it is also important to note the technologies that have been developed or adapted for citizen participation in general. Often referred to as e-participation tools, they comprise web portals, online questionnaires, polls, petition tools and discussion forums (e.g., DEMO-net). E-participation tools are used to support processes of information, consultation and active citizen participation, which can be integrated into the processes of urban planning (Kubicek, 2010). The recent emergence of mobile and locative technologies, Web 2.0, and social media, has enabled a greater variety of platforms and applications to be available for use and adaptation by the broader public. These technologies, which are becoming increasingly mundane (Dourish et al., 2010), have a great impact on the everyday lives of urban dwellers or communities as they enable the collection, storage and retrieval of information in and about the city1 (Townsend, 2009, p. xxiii; Foth, 2009). Moreover, ICTs have supported the collaborative work of urban and rural communities who undertake local development (Gurstein, 2010). Despite the potential promised by Web 2.0 and social media to provoke a paradigm shift in e-planning towards a more participatory and creative form of planning, realities on the ground are still limited due to existing professional and technocratic planning practices