Skip to content

Participation and planningtech

More from December’s planningtech session - many thanks to Dawn Miller of Princeton and RPA for recording this discussion.

Issue: Public Participation in Planning and Its Representativeness of the Entire Community

We discussed the ways people currently participate or are recruited to participate in the planning process. Certain methods we currently use to get citizen or stakeholder participants do not necessarily get a representative group of citizens. Also, for those already motivated to participate, some of the existing means or participation lack transparency or ease of participation.

The hope is that technology could be used to cast a broader net of people to participate in planning processes, perhaps opening the door to participants who do not have the time/schedules to attend many meetings but who could participate remotely or not in “real time” via technological innovations.

Many low-tech methods work well at getting participants on a smaller geographic scale (e.g., door-to-door knocking, flyers). However, there is potential to use technology to “scale up” outreach efforts for larger geographic areas in which low-tech outreach would be too labor intensive.

How Do We Currently Get Participants in the Planning Process?

Committees (such as community boards, neighborhood associations, advisory committees)

  • Often one hears about these through word-of-mouth
  • Self-selected group
    • Requires significant time and resource commitment
  • Get onto committees through networking or “getting in with the right people”
  • Need to expand participation beyond ULURP process

“Hand-picked” Stakeholder Committees

  • Often not representative of overall population

Public Hearings

  • Often special interests rather than average citizens participate in these
  • Sometimes hearings are closed, not well-advertised, or announced on very short notice

Advertising

  • Community newspapers
  • Flyers
  • Earned media
  • Web sites (although sometimes these could use more detail on how precisely to participate)

Public Opinion Surveys

  • Phone surveys
  • Pedestrian intercepts

“Listening to the City”-type events

  • Many participants, guaranteed representativeness on certain dimensions through recruitment methods
  • Perhaps harder to do with less-“hot” issues than WTC
  • Follow through with large events difficult

Citizens or Advocates Initiate a Campaign for X

  • Need for more information on how to get a process to change X started

Problems Identified About Current Process

  • Timeliness of meeting notification
  • Those participating unlikely represent entire community
  • Striking appropriate balance between tech and non-tech outreach
  • Respect by those running meetings for people who are not experts
  • Planning fatigue
  • Presentation quality (understood by all)
  • Attitudes toward value of public participation by those in power
  • Participants leaving process feeling that they were listened to, but that this did not change anything

Some Ideas for Improving the Process

Requiring reporting on who participated in a planning process (statistics on things like education levels, ages, race, language, geographic distribution, etc), which could be compared to similar statistics for the planning area as a whole. This could give incentives for improved outreach. It could also give credit where credit is due (that is, processes where outreach was broad & effective), or highlight possible problems in quality of outreach process.

Commissioning some kind of outside group whose job is to monitor the fairness and atmosphere in public participation processes. Representatives of such a group could show up randomly at points of public input, and could report on whether intimidation, lack of respect, high quality participation (or whatever) was taking place.

Toolkits: non-profits, government, or other parties could put together toolkits or step-by-step guides on how citizens who wanted to get X to happen could go about making it happen.

Web outreach ideas:

  • Community list-serves
  • A way to link one’s blog to the nearest subway stop (so one could find bloggers in one’s neighborhood)
  • Maps on the web showing what projects are going on or proposed
  • Database searchable by zip code to find out what projects are going on or proposed
  • Centralized web site with calendar containing public meetings and participation opportunities

We would like to figure out ways to improve ease of participation and representativeness of those participating, using technological or other changes in the process.

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools. Tagged with , , , , , , , .

By fkh
March 4, 2010

No comments

Building an open planning toolbox

Planners need new tools - beyond using existing tools for communication and participation, some planning-specific projects might support more open planning efforts. What follows is a (lengthy) sketch for an open planning tool.


Introducing Good Plans

Good Plans is a casebook of planning excellence and innovation. Created by a collaboration of planning and advocacy organizations, it contains several hundred case studies and recommendations from projects carried out by the organization, its partners and other companies, with new additions and comments every week. Social media and collaborative software tools make it easy to contribute new projects and add more information to existing studies. The scope is national, encompassing all examples of physical planning from street diets to regional planning initiatives.

Who’s the audience?

  • Planners
  • Elected officials
  • Researchers, academics and students
  • Community activists and concerned citizens
  • The development and real estate community

Continued…

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools. Tagged with , , .

By fkh
February 12, 2010

No comments

From California, to the New York Island

Back in December, some planning tech enthusiasts got together to sketch out some common planning processes, and ways that technology might improve those processes. One of the goals of the evening was to translate the sketched diagrams into useful data for future use, ideally in online diagrammed forms.

My group focused on land use data, this is a belated summary of our enjoyable and productive discussion. As the photos of the diagrams show, they weren’t particularly linear, flow-chart like or mind mappable, so rather than try to squeeze them into these formats I’ve written some detailed notes below, also available on Google Docs.

Next steps? Definitely need to define the problems of the petri dish model more clearly - and like transit data, there’s a big opportunity for a positive message around greater sharing of use data. OSM shows the way, how far away can a comprehensive, crowd sourced land use layer be?

The petri-dish model of land use data (a.k.a. the problem)

What is land use data?

  • description of uses on the ground, what specifically happens on this piece of land

Data is out there…

  • small fragments of data
  • lots of gaps
  • proprietary information that most people can’t access
  • each user only sees a small part of the overall picture

People need data to

  • make accurate assessments of the situation for better planning
  • base goals in reality (e.g. models of carbon emissions, vmt)
  • plan for suitable development
  • explain the big picture
  • informal uses

But the map data have lots of problems

  • neighborhood maps
    • names all wrong
  • data availability
    • can’t get it
  • up to date?
    • no, often out of data
  • created for a specific need
    • not re-shared for other uses
    • leads to repeat work
  • data quality
    • not useful for what other people want to do
  • no incentive to share
    • why should anyone share data, no benefits
  • licenses
    • even if you get data, can’t work with it
    • can’t share with others
    • problems with creating derivative products

The ecosystem model of land use data (a.k.a. the solution)

The ecosystem model of land use

Rather than depending on the closed systems and limited access of the petri dish model, the land use ecosystem thrives on easy exchanges of information.

Land use data moves easily between different participants - local governments, planners, private sector, non-profits, individuals. Money is saved by removing the barriers to access, and the open sourcing of data collection reduces the burden of updating data on any individual organization.

Data are unencumbered by restrictive licenses, and exchange is governed by open protocols: standard for the data formats themselves, but more importantly for the types of information shared and how updates are passed and incorporated. Individual parcels can be updated in a wiki-esque, flickr-esque format, where changes can be added and are inspected and endorsed by other participants in the ecosystem.

Where once was discord and bad data, the ecosystem brings sharing and better data. Rather than each data user seeing a small piece of the overall data puzzle, the ecosystem model requires and lives on openness and collaboration.

p.s.

A great high wall there, it tried to stop me

A great big sign there, said ‘private property’

But on the other side, it didn’t say nothing

That side was made for you and me.

– Woody Guthrie, This Land Is Your Land.

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools, Role of the Planner. Tagged with , , , , .

By fkh
January 27, 2010

No comments

Autopsy of planning autopsies

A couple more thoughts about last week’s diagramming session, thinking about the event format.

The agenda was broadly defined, which presumably kept it attractive to a wide range of participants. Discussions were good and the diagrams produced were interesting. But two of the original ideas didn’t emerge - not a problem, but interesting to note.

  • Wasn’t really about processes - with the exception of the group who looked at the placement of bike racks, the diagrams were not about process. Talking through the specifics of a process helps to pin down the opportunities to change it, especially asking the “why is that?” questions. Mostly, we stopped at the higher level - focusing on topics and associated ideas, so the diagrams were more conceptual.
  • Wasn’t really an autopsy - same issue here: the idea of doing an autopsy for a previous planning process didn’t come through, though the MTA funding group got the closest. As with the process diagrams, trying to explain the steps that led to a particular outcome would show where we don’t have all the answers - potentially useful to know more about where the unknowns are.

Again, the workshop was still thought-provoking and useful. And the processes/autopsy idea was not gospel, only an idea. You can’t ask people to show up and carry out extremely constrained tasks - a lot of the fun would get squeezed out. It’s not all about process.

But maybe there’s potential to explore a slightly more structured event, something to consider if setting up a repeat session (Cambridge, looking at you).

  • Up front, give some thought to why the autopsy is useful: creates use cases for future projects, highlights places where technology can play a role, makes sure we understand the scope, pinpoint ‘failure’ tipping point etc.
  • Decide if there’s a specific focus: transportation funding; physical design; etc. Maybe convene a smaller group around one topic only.
  • Start out with an example of a process diagram: perhaps a skeleton that the group can flesh out.
  • Ask participants to draw out and explain the process.
  • As a group, give feedback on the explanation: why did that happen; what is the step between X and Z?
  • Fill in the gaps and reach some conclusions.
  • Add the what-ifs: review the process and try out some alternative scenarios. Maybe each team passes their diagram to the next group, for some creative experimentation.

Could also borrow approaches from other fields - usability testing, interface design, disaster preparedness, forensic accounting, etc… Lots of thought has gone into looking at how and why decisions are made. Let’s re-purpose those methods.

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools. Tagged with , , .

By fkh
December 8, 2009

No comments

Processing the planning process workshop

Wednesday night last week was a follow-up session to TOPP’s tech for participatory planning workshop. 25 planners and tech enthusiasts came to the RPA office in Union Square and drew diagrams of planning processes.

Planning participation diagrams

Rob Lane got us started with an overview of visioning and urban design participation. Then we split into five smaller groups to focus on a particular topic, before reporting back - tackling participation and inclusiveness; ‘micro-planning’ for bike racks; the 2009 MTA funding crisis; land use data; and participation in urban design. Notes from the report back are on the Google group, and someone from each group is responsible for getting the diagrams online soon.

Here’s a few brief thoughts on follow up projects - these are all ripe for longer discussions here and on the mailing list.

Continued…

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools, Role of the Planner. Tagged with , , , , .

By fkh
December 7, 2009

No comments

More no more black boxes

Some more thoughts from the New Technology for Participatory Planning workshop (check out the notes from each session and the wrap-up).

The ‘no more black boxes’ session really dug into some of the harder-to-reach planning/tech ideas*. Cracking black boxes is enticing because it connects so many different areas at once:

  • power of engaged participants to tackle complex problems head-on, with the right technology (see OpenStreetMap, etc)
  • ability of engaged participants to digest and deal in the legalese of mega-processes (see every election, and how much you already know about the decision making processes used by your reps from the federal level downwards)
  • ability of new technology to collect data from sensors more widely and distribute faster  (see Smarter Cities, etc)
  • role of planning in creating fairer and greener places, and specifically, role of where we live and how we travel as essential in reaching a lower carbon future

For what actually happened in Friday’s discussion, check the notes.

Here are some ideas for potential next steps:

  • map the model process. Not to be repetitive, but we really need to understand where the black boxes are used, impact of the model projections, etc. I’m clumsily grouping a lot of tools and models together, but they all have different functions.
  • catalog the availability of publicly-held data. Applies to much more than land use, traffic models and population models - but there’s already a wealth of data that we don’t have access to. Documenting what is not yet free is the first step to opening it up.
  • crowd source land use data collection. For land use and urban growth models, it’s important to know how land is currently used. Depending on the location, the most interesting zone of land use change may be the urban fringes, where growth is pushing out into open land. A simple web interface could be enough for locals or people driving through to document changes. In many counties, parcel borders are available, so the task is simply indicating what use is on that parcel.
  • crowd source sidewalk data. For walking to school and aging boomers, sidewalks are important. Yet vehicle-focused engineering tended to ignore them for decades -  either not building any, or not mapping them. Can’t on the ground knowledge (maybe some Google Street View too) create a sidewalk map faster than waiting for individual towns to do it?
  • develop open traffic models. Not trivial, but it has been done. Wouldn’t we all be better served by traffic software that was freely available? Wouldn’t we get models that reflect balanced street philosophies, rather than auto-centric models with transit awkwardly stuck on later? Wouldn’t traffic engineers be happier with better models?
  • broaden the interest group around traffic models. Hand in hand with developing open models, we need to bring some new people into the discussion: the engineers, traffic modelers, highway folk. Just as the case for open data in transit agencies is built on open data being better for everyone including the agency, so we need to make the case for open traffic models. Open modeling tools will be better because they will create more transparent models, easier to use, well documented, robust, flexible - many attributes that the commercial tools lack (speaking from experience). Broadening the group means connecting with people who teach models and write papers using models, presenting at TRB, holding events for engineering grads, the whole evangelizing effort that open source is so good at.
  • build dynamic tools to explore the land use-trans connection. Tools to encourage explorations of different development options. All else staying the same, what happens if vacant land in my town is converted to residential uses? Click, see result. Click, see 3D massing of possible development patterns. Click, see traffic flows. Of course, it’s only a model, but remember when this took days to calculate?
  • build tools that make zoning tangible. And especially re-zoning. What are the consequences of this proposed zoning change for the neighborhood in every aspect: affordability, ownership, local businesses, for the skyline, the built form of streets, shadows, parking, carbon impacts…

Definitely not a prioritized, comprehensive or mutually exclusive list.  Each deserves a full discussion.

* (or at least, I think it did based on the notes and a chat with @philipashlock - was very sorry not to be part of it, especially having put it onto the agenda…)

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools. Tagged with , , , .

By fkh
November 18, 2009

No comments

Mapping the state of collaborative planning

Another follow-up from Friday’s New Technology for Participatory Planning workshop. Summary: let’s make some big charts that help us understand the processes we discussed, and identify good places for technology. Longer version follows…

A thread that ran through several conversations afterwards and maybe some sessions and lightning talks too: we need to get a better handle on the planning process, in order to see where technology can help. The follow-up list is packed with exciting projects and big new ideas. So, where and how and who…? Maybe it’s time for some big flow charts?

Friday brought a great diversity of viewpoints. Everyone is familiar with a different stage of planning, or has a different perspective. Combining these views through collaborative charts will help identify the great technology opportunities, the friction points, and show us where we don’t yet understand the process well enough to change it.

If that sounds too abstract, imagine describing the process of a public urban design workshop, with the stages drawn out. Someone who works on these sorts of projects can describe the sequence: Team chooses date. Visits site. Takes photos. Makes maps showing site. Prepares briefing booklet for workshop participants. Etc. Maybe the mapped-out version of this sequence makes it easier to see where technology can help, and where we’re dealing more with process, people or institutional issues.

Mapping out our collective understanding also shows where we need new voices - perhaps the process of designing parking only makes sense once a traffic engineer talks it through. Experts are needed make the mapping process accurate and useful, but charts with a lot of “??” are ok.  Maybe we start with some questions - can someone explain how municipal data are collected? Who decides where houses can be built? What does a planner do? Or maybe just see who is around the table and chart what we know.

And to consider this from a programming perspective: these flow charts are like overgrown use case models. Knowing that citizen X goes through these specific steps to do Y is a ready-made guide for a tool that smooths the process. These charts might not be linear - the needs of the still-unrealized land use change tool perhaps require some complex self-intersection looping formation.

Does a wikified online flow chart tool exist? Nothing I’ve found so far. But even with a wizzy flow chart maker, we still need to noodle in a group. Even just to find our feet and work out which charts are needed, perhaps we need to work with sticky notes and butcher paper and markers.  From there, the results should go online in a format that permits annotation and amendment - a great resource documenting the current state of collaborative planning. And a neat technology demo too.

What could be more participatory than making a big flow chart together?

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools, Role of the Planner. Tagged with , , , .

By fkh
November 17, 2009

4 comments

Tech planner speed dating?

My a-ha moment at the New Technology for Participatory Planning workshop occurred afterwards - over a beer, Shin-pei from TA spoke about the need to bring planners and open tech/source/data people face to face in conversations.

So many possibilities… perhaps -

  • Planners and open tech speed dating: fill a room with planners and have open source tech geeks circulating. Two minutes discussion for each, and then a regular happy hour after. The planners come with questions or problems and the tech people think of solutions - or perhaps the tech people pitch ideas and the planners noodle on possible applications. And like real speed dating, you keep track of the pairings that you want to investigate further.
  • Open planning surgery: the doctor is in! Convene on the first Wednesday of the month, and bring your planning problems to the rotating panel of tech people and get a diagnosis. Each week is a different panel and different questions (the planning-tech version of Gardeners’ Question Time).
  • Buddy/mentoring: less public than a workshop, and longer term. Planners and agency staff pair up with technology implementers to get a deeper understanding of needs. For example, at a planning or urban design firm, open tools advocates present at a couple of  lunchtime meetings, attend project meetings and join after-work drinks.
  • Traveling roadshow: A rolling tour of planning studios, town halls and village supervisors’ offices, taking open planning ideas to the planners on the ground who make decisions and spend (your) money. All openness and participation makes the job of elected and government staff easier - better services and engagement for less expense and hassle, so all chances to hear about these tools are valuable. Could even get AICP credit?

Obviously, this is not a ying-yang situation. Planners and technology people are not distinct and mutually exclusive.

But pushing the dialog beyond the already-converted/on-the-cusp-ers could create some solid opportunities for both sides. With all problems, discussing specifics always helps. For technology people, hearing needs can only help with developing more useful tools. Planners are always on the lookout for case studies and new ideas, and always have challenges to share.

Sign me up for speed dating.

(The workshop was great - TOPP delivered their usual high standards of convening, program, and hosting. The crowd was engaged and there’s plenty of potential for follow-up. Lots more to talk about).

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools. Tagged with , , , .

By fkh
November 14, 2009

1 comment

Lists, crowds and searches - ways to build up a planning toolbox

Do open planners need toolboxes? Ian Bicking has an interesting post over on the Civic Hacking blog, arguing that all attempts to make curated lists of organizations will fail:

One of the ideas that comes up frequently when talking about activism, civic involvement, non-profits, etc., is the idea of some new index. Who are the environmental activists in my area? What are the organizations dedicated to bicycle advocacy? What are the government organizations around me? Each of these generally involves finding a whole bunch of organizations and categorizing and indexing them.

…

There’s a lot of investment in creating a new index. You might take the work on yourself and try to fill the index, or you might crowdsource it – let everyone add themselves, spreading the cost around to everyone else.

But does it work? Can you convince people to invest time in it? Can you convince people to use it? Experience would indicate no. Not a definitive no, but a kind of lingering lack of success, where the only death is a slow realization of obscurity.

Are things different for lists of tools? Maybe. I read Ian’s article right after throwing together RPA’s new contribution to the heap of failed indexing attempts, an Exhibit-google spreadsheet* planning tools catalog (mega-beta, fails in IE).  Have been pondering the impending slow realization of obscurity ever since.

Watching various half-maintained lists fading away all over the web reinforces Ian’s point - e.g. seems that GIS people were really keen on them about five years ago. And you have to agree with his conclusion: ultimately it’s all about search.

But -

  • the list itself has value. Being able to point to five examples of plain language planning guides is more useful than telling someone to google for it. In a discussion about different approaches to planning, it’s very helpful to have a raft of examples. Queries about technology in planning education are often questions: does anyone know an example of X? The act of listing is a deliberate one - the list is more than the individual items on it.
  • listing gives adjacency. It’s easy to search for pedestrian walkability toolkits, and transit direction apps. Search engines will find good examples of both. Having these items co-mingled in a single list (with beautiful faceted searching) helps to show the range and diversity around a topic, something that a search enginge is working to avoid.
  • lists can be slices. Making a list is a good way to understand the state of the art. Making the list in plain sight with contributions from the crowd helps build a better understanding for that snapshot.

And being aware of that slow slide without maintenance is important. Obscurity doesn’t just apply to making lists. Humble listing is ok. Setting out to singlehandedly create the Master List of planning tools is bound to fail, but gently collecting a few good examples might succeed.

* list-making dork note: Perhaps Delicious is a better approach (if you can pick the right tag), since it is genuinely crowd-sourced. But scraping delicious and faceting the content is not yet as easy as setting up a quick Exhibit. Exhibit is really terrific.

Posted in Enabling Technology & Tools. Tagged with , , , , .

By fkh
November 10, 2009

2 comments

More data only good for smoother service delivery?

[updated 10/12, to correct some Wordpress mangling of the final paras]


Lawrence Lessig argues against government transparency in the cover story of The New Republic -

How could anyone be against transparency? Its virtues and its utilities seem so crushingly obvious. But I have increasingly come to worry that there is an error at the core of this unquestioned goodness. We are not thinking critically enough about where and when transparency works, and where and when it may lead to confusion, or to worse. And I fear that the inevitable success of this movement–if pursued alone, without any sensitivity to the full complexity of the idea of perfect openness–will inspire not reform, but disgust. The “naked transparency movement,” as I will call it here, is not going to inspire change. It will simply push any faith in our political system over the cliff.

One of the points he raises is the sheer volume of information generated by transparency is at odds with our attention spans - our ability to get a complete and well-reasoned picture is not helped by having all data about all aspects of everything. He’s thinking about trust in our elected reps and gov in general, but does the same risk apply for a more data-rich approach to city planning? Or do we have a different problem, where this new wealth of data gets us better service delivery, but not better long term planning?

Continued…

Posted in Role of the Planner. Tagged with , , , , , , .

By fkh
October 10, 2009

1 comment