Abstract
Professional urban planners have an ethical obligation to work in the public interest. Public input and critique gathered at public meetings and other channels are used to inform planning recommendations to elected officials. Pre-pandemic, the planning profession worked with digital tools, but in-person meetings were the dominant form of public participation. The pandemic imposed a shift to digital channels and tools, with the result that planners’ use of technology risks unitizing public participation. As the use of new platforms for public participation expands, we argue it has the potential to fundamentally change participation, a process we call platformization. We frame this as a subset of the broader emergence of platform urbanism. This chapter evaluates six public participation platforms, identifying how the tools they provide map onto key participation frameworks from Arnstein (1969), Fung (2006), and IAP2 (2018). Through this analysis, we examine how the platformization of public participation poses ethical and scholarly challenges to the work of professional planners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Institute of Certified Planners (2021) AICP code of ethics and professional practice. https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode/.
Amoore L (2016) Cloud geographies: Computing, data, sovereignty. Prog Hum Geogr 42(1):4–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516662147
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plan 35(4):216–224
Aguilera T, Artioli F, Colomb C (2019) Explaining the diversity of policy responses to platform-mediated short-term rentals in European cities: a comparison of Barcelona. Paris and Milan. Environ Plan 53(7):1689–1712. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19862
Barandiaran X, Calleja-López A, Monterde A (2018) Decidim: political and technopolitical networks for participatory democracy. Decidim’s project white paper.
Barns S (2014) Platform urbanism: The emerging politics of open data for urban management. American Association of Geographers Annual Conference, Tampa
Barns S (2015) Platform cities: The politics and practices of data-driven urbanism.
Barns S (2020) Platform urbanism: Negotiating platform ecosystems in connected cities. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Benjamin, R. (2019) Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Amsterdam University Press
Brossard M (2018) Artificial unintelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge
Buolamwini J, Gebru T (2018) Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In: Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, January 2018. PMLR, p 77–91
Calzada I (2018) (Smart) citizens from data providers to decision-makers? The Case Study of Barcelona. Sustainability 10(9):3252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093252
Canadian Institute of Planners (2016) Code of professional conduct. https://www.cip-icu.ca/Careers-in-Planning/Codes-of-Professional-Conduct
Cardullo P, Kitchin R (2019) Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: Up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal 84(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9845-8
CitizenLab (2023). “Your all in one platform for community engagement”. https://www.citizenlab.co/platform-online-engagement-toolbox. Accessed 16 Jan 2023
Corbett E, Le Dantec CA (2019) “Removing barriers” and “creating distance”: Exploring the logics of efficiency and trust in civic technology. Media Commun (lisboa) 7(3):104–113. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i3.2154
D’Ignazio C, Klein L (2020) Data feminism. MIT Press, Cambridge
Dickinson J, Diaz M, Le Dantec CA, Erete S (2019) “The cavalry ain't coming in to save us”: Supporting capacities and relationships through civic tech. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact 3(CSCW). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359225
Einstein KL, Glick D, Godinez Puig L, Palmer M (2022) Still muted: The limited participatory democracy of Zoom public meetings. Urban Aff Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874211070494
Ellul J (1964) The technological society. Vintage Books
Eubanks V (2018) Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Evans-Cowley JS (2010) (2010) Planning in the age of Facebook: the role of social networking in planning processes. GeoJournal 75:407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9388-0
Fields D, Bissell D, Macrorie R (2020) Platform methods: Studying platform urbanism outside the black box. Urban Geogr 41(3):462–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1730642
Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66(SI): 66–75.
Gagliardi D, Schina L, Sarcinella ML, Mangialardi G, Niglia F, Corallo A (2017) Information and communication technologies and public participation: Interactive maps and value added for citizens. Gov Inf Q 34(1):153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.002
Gessa A, Sancha P (2020) Environmental open data in urban platforms: An approach to the big data life cycle. J Urban Technol 27(1):27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2019.1656934
Goetz EG, Williams RA, Damiano A (2020) Whiteness and urban planning. J Am Plan Assoc 86(2):142–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1693907
Goldsmith S, Kleiman N (2017) A new city O/S: The power of open, collaborative, and distributed governance. Brookings Institution Press, Washington. http://www.jstor.org/stable/https://doi.org/10.7864/j.ctt1vjqnwd
Gorwa R (2019) What is platform governance? Inf Commun Soc 22(6):854–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914
Government of Canada (2020) Public engagement tools and resources. Privacy Council Services. https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/public-engagement-resources/content-analysis-consultations.html
Green B (2020) The smart enough city: Putting technology in its place to reclaim our urban future. MIT Press.
Gurran N, Phibbs P (2017) When Tourists Move In: How Should Urban Planners Respond to Airbnb? J Am Plan Assoc 83(1):80–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1249011
Höchtl J, Parycek P, Schöllhammer R (2016) Big data in the policy cycle: Policy decision making in the digital era. J Organ Comput Electron Commer 26(1–2):147–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1125187
Horgan D, Dimitrijević B (2019) Frameworks for citizens participation in planning: From conversational to smart tools. Sustain Cities Soc 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101550
IAP2 (2018) IAP2 Spectrum of public participation. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf
Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
Johnson PA, Scassa T (2023) Who owns the map? Data sovereignty and government spatial data collection, use, and dissemination. Trans GIS. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.13024
Johnson PA, Robinson P, Philpot S (2020). Type, tweet, tap, and pass: How smart city technology is creating a transactional citizen. Gov Inf Q 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101414
Karner A, Brower Brown K, Marcantonio R, Alcorn LG (2019) The view from the top of Arnstein’s ladder. J Am Plan Assoc 85(3):236–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1617767
Kemper J, Kolkman D (2018;2019) Transparent to whom? No algorithmic accountability without a critical audience. Inf Commun Soc 22(14):2081–2096. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1477967
Kennedy, J (2015) How Digital Disruption Changed 8 Industries Forever. Silicon Republic, November 25, 2015.
Khan ZT, Johnson PA (2020) Citizen and government co-production of data: Analyzing the challenges to government adoption of VGI. Can Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12619
Kitchin R, Dodge M (2019) The (in)security of smart cities: Vulnerabilities, risks, mitigation, and prevention. J Urban Technol 26(2):47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1408002
Kleinhans R, Van Ham M, Evans-Cowley J (2015) Using social media and mobile technologies to foster engagement and self-organization in participatory urban planning and neighbourhood governance. Plan Prac Res 30(3):237–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1051320
Knee J (2021) The Platform Delusion: Who Wins and Who Loses in the Age of Tech Titans. Portfolio/Penguin, New York
Lee A, Mackenzie A, Smith GJD, Box P (2020) Mapping platform urbanism: Charting the nuance of the platform pivot. Urban Plan 5(1):116. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i1.2545
Legacy C (2017) Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Plan Theory 16(4):425–442. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26408371
Leszczynski A (2020) Glitchy vignettes of platform urbanism. Environ Plan D 38(2):189–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775819878721
Mansell R (2015) Platforms of power. Intermedia 43(1):20–24. ISSN 0309–118X
Marvin S, Luque-Ayala A (2017) Urban operating systems: Diagramming the city. Int J Urban Reg Res 41:84–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12479
Matheus R, Janssen M, Maheshwari D (2018) Data science empowering the public: Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart cities. Gov Inf Q 37(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.006
McIlwain CD (2020) Black software: The internet and racial justice, from the AffroNet to Black Lives Matter. Oxford University Press, New York
Nextdoor (2022) What is the Nextdoor public agencies program? https://help.nextdoor.com/s/article/what-is-the-nextdoor-for-public-agencies-program?language=en_US
O’Neil C (2016) Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishers, New York
Paper presented at the Urban Studies Foundation Forum, University of Glasgow, 30 April 2015. https://www.slideshare.net/sarahbarns/platform-urbanism-the-politics-and-practices-of-datadriven-cities
Pasquale F (2015) The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. https://doc.lagout.org/science/0_Computer Science/2_Algorithms/The Black Box Society_The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information %5BPasquale 2015-01-05%5D.pdf
Pina V, Torres L, Royo S (2017) Comparing online with offline citizen engagement for climate change: findings from Austria Germany and Spain. Gov Info Q 34(1):26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.009
Robinson P (2022) Automation in municipal public consultation processes. In: Brandusescu, A, Reia, J (eds), Artificial intelligence in the city: Building civic engagement and public trust. Centre for Interdisciplinary Research on Montreal, McGill University, pp 19–20. https://doi.org/10.18130/9kar-xn17
Robinson P, Johnson PA (2021) Pandemic-driven technology adoption: public decision makers need to tread cautiously. Int J E-Plan Res 10(2):59–65. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.20210401.oa5
Robinson P, Biggar J (2021) Seeing the city as a platform: Is Canada’s smart cities challenge a step in that direction? In: Zwick A, Spicer, Z (eds) From the platform economy to the smart city: Technology and the transformation of urban policy and governance. McGill-Queen’s University Press
Robinson P, DeRuyter M (2016) I “like” you, you make my heart twitter, but…” Reflections for urban planners from an early assessment of social media deployment by Canadian local governments. In: Thomas, R (ed) Planning Canada: a case study approach. Oxford University Press, Don Mills, pp 260–268
Rosenblat A (2018) Uberland: how algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. University of California Press
Schweitzer LA, Afzalan N (2017) 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: four reasons Why AICP needs an open data ethic. J Am Plann Assoc 83(2):161–167
Sieber RE, Robinson P, Johnson PA, Corbett JM (2016) Doing public participation on the geospatial web. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 106(5):1030–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1191325
Silva P, Tavares AF, Silva T, Lameiras M (2019) The good, the bad and the ugly: three faces of social media usage by local governments. Gov Inf Q. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.006
Streich B (2018) Subversive urban planning: Alternative forms of urban action in the knowledge society. ISBN 978-1986756617
Wiig A (2016) The empty rhetoric of the smart city: from digital inclusion to economic promotion in philadelphia. Urban Geogr 37(4):535–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1065686
van der Graaf S, Ballon P (2019) Navigating platform urbanism. Technol Forecast Soc Change 142:364–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.027
Van Doorn N (2019) A new institution on the block: On platform urbanism and Airbnb citizenship. New Media Soc 22(10). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819884377
Acknowledgements
This book chapter draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Robinson, P., Johnson, P. (2023). The Platformization of Public Participation: Considerations for Urban Planners Navigating New Engagement Tools. In: Goodspeed, R., Sengupta, R., Kyttä, M., Pettit, C. (eds) Intelligence for Future Cities. CUPUM 2023. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31746-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31746-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-31745-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-31746-0
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)