During the recent International Geography Congress, we organized a session on “The Digital Turn in Planning Practices and Policy Making”, organized by Juliette Davret, Carla Maria Kayanan, Oliver Dawkins and Rob Kitchin. This session brought together researchers and practitioners to explore how digitalization is transforming the planning and policymaking landscape. This session sought to examine the opportunities, challenges, and innovative approaches that emerge as planning becomes increasingly data-driven and dependent on digital tools. 

Source: IGU Commission on Local and Regional Development 

Historically, planning has relied on digital technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and decision-support systems. However, much of the field remained paper-based until a more concerted effort to digitise planning processes. This shift aims to move all aspects of planning, from strategic development to enforcement, onto integrated digital systems. As a result, planners are facing new ways of working, where data flows, engagement with external stakeholders and the public’s access to information have all been transformed. Yet, this digital transition also raises critical questions about inclusivity, public proficiency and engagement. How well equipped are citizens and professionals to navigate this new digital planning environment? And how do data infrastructures intersect across different sectors and scales of government, creating both opportunities and complexities? 

The first part of the session, chaired by Professor Zorica Nedovic-Budic, focused on evidence-based policies and processes.   

One of the key discussions centered around the challenges faced by national and local governments is adapting to this digital shift. For example, in Ireland, Carla Maria Kayanan presented a paper explaining how the planning system’s efforts to embrace digitalisation have been hindered by two significant factors: entrenched centralisation of governance and the impact of austerity. The lack of local autonomy, coupled with reduced resources and staffing since the Global Financial Crisis, has led to an atmosphere of uncertainty, and in many cases, reluctance to fully engage with digital tools. These challenges are further compounded by a lack of proper training and support, resulting in feelings of weariness and complacency among planning professionals who are expected to adapt to new systems without adequate assistance. 

With a focus on Greater Sydney, Australia, a critical evaluation of the data analytics ecosystem surrounding planning practices was presented by Claire Daniel. The findings revealed that while data-driven planning holds promise, its implementation is far from seamless. Publicly available data plays an essential role in shaping policies, but investment disparities in data collection across different sectors leads to imbalances in how environmental and commercial land-use concerns are addressed. Furthermore, while government agencies and large consulting firms dominate the conversation, community submissions are often underrepresented in formal planning documents, raising concerns about equity and the role of public input in shaping urban development. 

The session also highlighted efforts in the UK to reform the complex system of developer contributions, which currently relies on a blend of fixed and negotiated agreements as explained by Michael Crilly. The move towards a more standardised, digitally driven model for calculating developer contributions was discussed. This emerging model, developed in collaboration between academia and industry, breaks down the viability of planning applications into key cost components and uses digital tools to enhance transparency and precision in the planning process. By automating parts of the decision-making process and ensuring greater clarity around developer contributions, this approach aims to streamline planning practices and offer a more reproducible model for statutory planning. 

The second part of the session, chaired by Oliver Dawkins, focused mainly on the development, application, and assessment of advanced digital technologies for planning. 

Source: IGU Commission on Local and Regional Development 

From the 2010s onward, smart city control rooms and urban dashboards have drawn considerable critical attention due to the closed nature of their development, the exclusive nature of access, their reliance on quantitative metrics, their requirement for large amounts of data encouraging ever more fine-grained and surveillant forms of data collection, and their tendency to collapse the distinction between strategic, long-term planning and more reactive forms of urban operations dependent on the supply of real-time data. The discussion in this session sought to take stock of these developments and looked beyond current trends to consider future challenges and potentials. 

Davide Ceccato began the second part with a critical examination of Venice’s efforts to mitigate the daily impact of intensive tourism on the city through their own smart control room. The city increasingly relies on mobile positioning data, people counting sensors, surveillance cameras and traffic sensors to monitor tourist flows. However, while the system provides a detailed picture of urban activity, it remains unclear whether the promise of data-driven management has been realised. For this reason, Ceccato argued that it is essential to critically evaluate the quality, privacy, and accessibility of data and the wider political and market interests informing such projects. 

Continuing this examination, Louis Jolivalt compared the development of urban dashboards and digital twins for environmental planning in the French cities of Dijon and Angers. In both cases, the technological development was motivated by a desire to optimise the management of urban infrastructure and public space, and to support crisis response for environmental issues such as the impacts of urban heat islands or flooding. Both cities faced significant challenges in the development and implementation of long-term strategies for these technologies and struggled to achieve the centralisation of data required to meet their aims. Complex technical implementations in both cases also required the negotiation of competing political interests and necessitated a broader appreciation for the socio-technical entwinement of technology and the social. 

Focusing on digital twins, Mani Dhingra and Jack Lehane discussed Smart Dublin’s exploration of the technology to improve stakeholder communication and community participation. The project aims to develop an AI-driven simulation of urban systems for city management, but the authors caution that there are challenges in adopting 3D spatial media and digital methods within public sector planning. In alignment with the European Commission’s proposals for ‘local digital twins’, they outlined Smart Dublin’s plans for the ethical development and deployment of digital twin solutions that are more responsive to the needs and desires of local inhabitants. Underpinned by a range of case studies, the presentation offered vivid examples of more socially oriented uses of digital twins. This also posed challenges regarding the nature and suitability of such technologies, which have typically been discussed in purely technical terms to date. 

Looking to the forefront of technological development, the session ended with a presentation by Michal Rzeszewski examining the socio-technical imaginaries or aspirations motivating the intersection of discourses on urban planning and the metaverse. The Metaverse concept offers an encompassing vision for digital planning, combining emerging technologies like digital twins and augmented reality with the latest developments in gaming and gamification to deliver a new form of planning that crosses the boundary between physical, digital and hybrid spaces. Behind the hype, we often find familiar use cases and existing technologies already in need of critical reflection. This examination of the nascent metaverse sought to demonstrate how the identification of today’s imaginaries might steer more desirable developments in digitally informed planning and policy going forward.

Overall, this session underscored the transformative potential of digital technologies in planning, but also highlighted the complex challenges that come with it. The digital turn offers new tools for efficiency, transparency and inclusivity, but navigating this transition requires careful consideration of governance structures, public engagement and the ability of professionals and citizens alike to adapt to a rapidly changing planning landscape.  

Papers presented:

Part 1

Kayanan C. M., Mutter S., Davret J. & Kitchin R. Data-driven planning: a review of IT systems and the challenges to Ireland’s digital turn. 

Daniel C. & Pettit C. A critical evaluation of the data analytics and governance ecosystem surrounding planning for Greater Sydney. 

Crilly M. Digital betterment: modelling planning viability & developer contributions. 

Part 2  

Ceccato D. Smart Control Room, Venice: A tool for management and control of tourism mobility. 

Jolivalt L. Smart city tools for environmental planning: opportunities and challenges in two French case studies: Dijon and Angers. 

Dhingra M., Aphra Kerr A. & Lehane J. R. Rethinking digital ‘visual’ twins and building alternatives for smart city planning: a case of Smart Dublin. 

Rzeszewski M., Evans L. & Maciej Główczyński M. Reimagining Urban Planning in the Metaverse: A Critical Examination of Socio-Technological Imaginaries and Realities. 

Research creation, a method of researching and developing theory with and through arts-based methods, has been practiced within the arts and humanities since at least the 1990s (Loveless 2019, Truman 2021). However, within Geography this practice remains less known (see McCormack 2008). In this session we aim to explore the theoretical implications of research creation with a particular focus on critical data studies. 

This call is underpinned by the European Research Council (ERC) funded project, Data Stories, led by Rob Kitchin, which employs research creation to investigate the planning and property data ecosystem. By partnering researchers and artists in a series of case studies, Data Stories aims to co-produce knowledge about data use and data practices through artist-led workshops with planning and policy stakeholders in the public, private and civil sectors. The collaboration seeks to avoid tokenism (i.e. only employing artists to disseminate findings and/or using artists as consultants to lead the workshops) to instead leverage the unique capacities of artists in knowledge production throughout the entire duration of each case study. However, throughout the process, the case studies have also highlighted challenges, such as differing work practices, timelines and outputs between researchers, artists and the engaged stakeholders. See this blog post for our reflections on the above, as well as Kitchin (2023) for a discussion on arts-based methods to research digital life. 

We have three dominant objectives for this session: 

1. To theorise what constitutes co-production of knowledge in the context of critical data studies.
2. To develop theoretical insights on the co-production of academic knowledge with artists and stakeholders who possess different epistemologies and practices.
3. To examine the potential of research creation as a method to elucidate data’s use in the shaping of the built environment, policy and planning. 

We invite submissions from scholars, artists and scholar-artists engaged in similar projects who are interested in theorising the effectiveness of research creation. We seek papers that emphasise epistemological inquiry rather than those that primarily showcase the outputs of using arts-based methods. Papers that critically consider arts-based methods in the social sciences, engage with data, and focus on housing, planning, and property will be prioritised.  

Submission Guidelines: Please submit an abstract of up to 250 words to Carla.Kayanan@mu.ie and Juliette.Davret@mu.ie by Friday, October 11th. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by Friday, October 18th with the recognition that the AAG’s abstract submission deadline is October 31st. 

We look forward to your contributions to this theoretical exploration of research creation in critical data studies. 

Organisers: Dr. Carla Maria Kayanan (Assistant Lecturer, Maynooth University) and Dr. Juliette Davret (Postdoctoral Researcher, Maynooth University)  

Conference Details: 2025 AAG Annual Meeting, March 24-28, Detroit (Michigan, USA)  

For further information, please contact Carla.Kayanan@mu,ie and Juliette.Davret@mu.ie. 

References 

Kitchin, R., 2023. Arts-based methods for researching digital life. Available at: https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/16870/1/DS%20WP1%20Arts%20based%20methods.pdf

Loveless, N., 2019. How to make art at the end of the world: A manifesto for research-creation. Duke University Press.

McCormack, D.P., 2008. Thinking-spaces for research-creation. Inflexions, 1(1), pp.1-16.

Truman, S.E., 2021. Feminist speculations and the practice of research-creation: Writing pedagogies and intertextual affects. Routledge. 

As part of Juliette Davret’s visiting fellowship at the University of Copenhagen (see previous blog post), the Data Stories project is involved in the co-organization of the DATA Life Conference. Please join us!

Conference Theme: Exploring the multiple dimensions of data life through critical data studies

The DATA LIFE Conference invites scholars, researchers, and practitioners to submit papers that delve into the complexities and implications of data in our world. As data becomes an increasingly integral part of our lives, it is vital to critically examine the power dynamics, ethical issues, and social impacts associated with its production, management, and use. The conference will be opened and closed by two keynote speakers: Rob Kitchin (Maynooth University) and Stefania Milan (Amsterdam University). DATA LIFE is a one-day conference co-organised by INTERSECT research group, DATA LOSS and DATA STORIES ERC-projects, the Center for Culture and Technology (SDU) and the Aesthetics of Bio-Machines project.  

We welcome contributions that explore, but are not limited to, the following themes:  

1. Data Power: examining power structures in the collection, processing and use of data;
2. Data Justice: analysing inequalities and biases in data systems and algorithms;
3. Histories and Cultures of Data: historical and cultural perspectives on the evolution of data management practices;
4. Data Policies and Regulations: challenges and opportunities in local and global data governance.

Submission Guidelines

Papers presented at the conference should critically explore the data ecosystem, politics, practices, and power dynamics inherent in the life of data. We encourage interdisciplinary research and welcome a diverse range of methodologies, including but not limited to:  

5. Artistic practice-based methodologies
6. Data-driven Geographic Information Systems (GIS) method
7. Methodological innovations
8. Empirical case studies

Submissions should contribute to a deeper understanding of the ways in which data shapes and is shaped by various forces in society.

Submission Instructions  

9. Title and abstract (300-500 words) should be submitted by September 27, 2024.
10. Please submit your abstract to Louis Ravn lora@hum.ku.dk  

We look forward to your contributions to the DATA LIFE Conference and to exploring the many dimensions of data with you.

Conference Details

Date: 5 November 2024
Location: University of Copenhagen (in person only)
Registration: https://artsandculturalstudies.ku.dk/research/daloss/events/2024/data-life-conference/
Contact Information: Louis Ravn lora@hum.ku.dk

Authors: Carla Maria Kayanan and Juliette Davret

On the 26th of June at the Nordic Geographers Meeting in Copenhagen, Carla Maria Kayanan presented a paper titled Exploring the synergy between artistic practices and academia in shaping the built environment. This paper opened up the session “Creative practice – (trans)forming space, place and environment, which was chaired by Cecile Sachs Olsen and David Pinder. The Data Stories team were drawn to the call for papers due to their thematic focus on the use of arts-based methods to shape the built environment. Some of the themes and/or places featured in the two back-to-back sessions include: creative practice in London housing estates, the public toilet, bricks and racialised landscapes, aquatic geo-power and hydro-commons and using sketching as an ethical, non-invasive method of inquiry. These papers provided useful examples of scholars, artists and scholar-artists embracing art as a method to provoke social interactions, represent meaning, communicate desires and explore the impact of humans on the environment.

The paper we presented is a collaboration between Carla and Data Stories team member Juliette Davret. Instead of focusing on the outcomes of using arts-based methods in a research project, the paper takes a step back and builds on Carla and Juliette’s ongoing inquiry into the effectiveness of research creation as method. Since Carla and Juliette have been working closely with respective artists and stakeholders, this was an opportunity to reflect on the process of research creation and lessons learnt.

At the time of the presentation, the team had taken on four case studies:

1. Housing policy stakeholders
   • Multi-stakeholders (government, private, public)
   • Multimodal artist
2. Data aggregator company
   • Private organisation
   • Creative writer
3. Civic group advocating for planning participation
   • Volunteer organisation
   • Multimodal artist
4. Civic group campaigning for housing justice
   • Activist organisation
   • Visual artist

According to Loveless (2019), the term research creation was already in use by the 1990s, and at this time universities in the UK and Canada were offering the first fine arts doctoral programs. By 2016, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council in Canada formalised the definition of research creation as “an approach to research that combines creative and academic research practices and supports the development of knowledge and innovation through artistic expressions.” What is clear from this definition, and from subsequent literature on the topic (McCormack 2008, Truman 2021), is that research creation is a means for artists to claim space within the academy and to demonstrate how arts-based methods can generate new forms of knowledge. Particularly for Loveless, but also Truman, both who dedicate full sections of their books to discuss how research creation can push against neoliberal university structures, research creation is an attempt to acknowledge the intersection of arts practice, theory and research (Truman, 2021). It entails making art while constantly and consistently thinking with theory throughout the duration of the process.

What differs from the definition above and our work on Data Stories, is that researchers on the project are not artists. Rather, artists are contracted at the start of the process to help shape decisions around case study selection and workshop design. This means that the researcher, with a pre-defined research agenda, and an artist, with a pre-defined practice, collaborate. The following schema demonstrates variations on the relationships:

One approach to research creation is Foley’s (2016) ‘inreach’ research design. In this situation, a ‘foil’ oversees a research creation process, and a ‘catalyst’ is the stakeholder interested in exploring something (see also Kitchin [2023] summary of this process). Collectively, the foil and the catalyst work together to develop a ‘seed’ for a workshop, the seed being an issue to be explored. In the case studies we are conducting, the artist + researcher pair bring in the stakeholder later in the process. Meaning, the artist + research pair provide a frame for the stakeholders to explore a pre-designated seed.  A more impactful research creation model where stakeholders are inculcated in the process and contribute their voice to selecting a research question and determining the artistic medium to explore the question would look like this:

Of course, the artist, the researcher and the stakeholder each have different modes of working, timelines, rhythms and pressures that structure their ways of thinking and being. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that a simplified schema would exhibit variations in collaboration styles:

One way to think through these complications is to embrace Loveless’ (2019) concept of research creation being less about the identity (who is doing what), or the act (what is being produced and how) and more about the output of the research (research + creation + experiment). When considering output as focus, the schema looks like this, where research creation (RC) is at the heart of the process:

Having now gone through variations on the process of research creation, we are also encountering the benefit of process over outcomes. It is within this space where novel thinking has emerged. Perhaps the perceived benefits of process over outcome reflect the stage we find ourselves at this point in time in Data Stories. The researchers and artists are in the process of wrapping up the first set of case studies and are thus in the space of thinking through what occurred. Outcomes of our efforts are yet to be determined, and some, such as changing ways of thinking, may manifest much further down the line in ways that might not display direct links to Data Stories, but where Data Stories may have been catalytic.

Acknowledging the above, Carla wrapped up the presentation by specifying the exploratory nature of the presentation but highlighting how the topic is ripe for theory. Gordon (2008) comments on the importance of research creation for expanding ways of seeing that are “less mechanical, more willing to be surprised and to link imagination with critique” and McCormack (2008) discusses the importance of research creation in creating thinking-spaces that allow one to learn to become affected. In this way, research creation can invite stakeholders (as well as the artists and researchers) to reflect on their data practices and to allow space for speculative thinking and flexing the imaginary to consider what kinds of places they want to build and how to get there.

The Data Stories team aims to contribute to the development of new theories and methodologies around research creation. However, we’re still in the early stages of our work in this area and this blog post is an open-ended reflection. Please contact us if you would like to discuss this topic further and have insights to share. We are interested in hearing from scholars and artists engaged in research creation so to develop an organised session around this theme at the AAG or a similar conference of international standing.

Contact: Carla.Kayanan@mu.ie and Juliette.Davret@mu.ie

Works referenced:

Foley, J. (2016). inreach: A Choreographic process of transversality. Unpublished PhD, Trinity College Dublin. 

Gordon, A. F. (2008). Ghostly matters: Haunting and the sociological imagination. U of Minnesota Press.

Kitchin, R. (2023). Arts-based methods for researching digital life. Available at: https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/16870/1/DS%20WP1%20Arts%20based%20methods.pdf

Loveless, N. (2019). How to make art at the end of the world: A manifesto for research-creation. Duke University Press.

McCormack, D. P. (2008). Thinking-spaces for research-creation. Inflexions, 1(1), 1-16.

Truman, S. E. (2021). Feminist speculations and the practice of research-creation: Writing pedagogies and intertextual affects. Routledge. 

The second Data Stories working paper has been published authored by Rob Kitchin and Anne Murphy. The paper reports the findings of a workshop co-organised by the Data Stories project and the Housing Agency which examined the archiving of housing and planning literature – reports, policy documents, departmental circulars, legislation, academic papers, books – related to Ireland. At present, published material is scattered across many sites, can be difficult to locate and source, and many documents are vulnerable to being lost as they lack permanent links. The report details existing library resources and their scope and remit, examines the need for a centralised housing and planning publications hub that will collate, catalogue and provide public access to archived material, and considers how such a hub might be produced and maintained.

The working paper is available through MURAL, the university’s open access repository.

Kitchin, R. and Murphy, A. (2024) Library Services for Housing and Planning Publications in Ireland. Data Stories Working Paper 2, Maynooth University Social Sciences Institute.

Juliette Davret has recently been awarded the INTERSECT Visiting Research Fellowship at the University of Copenhagen  

INTERSECT is an academic community led by Kristin Veel and Henriette Steiner for interdisciplinary collaboration at the intersection of the arts, humanities, social sciences, and design. This knowledge hub combines research on cities, landscapes and communities with questions of inequality and justice. The space offers the possibility of developing new ways of identifying and discussing slippery problems that are difficult to measure, inviting a wide range of methodologies ranging from artistic practice-based approaches to data-driven GIS methods.  

Juliette spent three weeks in April 2024 at the Department of Arts and Cultural Studies of the University of Copenhagen, under the supervision of Kristin Veel. She took the opportunity to present her work during a CIRCLE seminar. Her presentation focused on the research-creation aspect of the Data Stories project. Juliette discussed how the use of research-creation encourages exploration, experimentation, play and improvisation. It creates a sense of estrangement and de-familiarisation to generate critical reflection and enables surfacing knowledge that is not easily expressed with words. Indeed, through phase 2 of the Data Stories project, Juliette is collaborating with two artists in residence, working with research-creation methods on two different case studies. She described the work she has done involving research-creation, in particular how, in collaboration with the artist Mel Galley, she has been using speculative fiction to encourage stakeholders to reflect on their use of data , and how, in collaboration with the artist Joan Somers Donnelly as part of a second case study, she has employed creative mapping exercises to reflect on the relationships that link and build the data ecosystem. She has been able to share her reflections with an audience that uses and facilitates research-creation. The discussion focused on the challenges faced by research projects in using research-creation methods.

Juliette made the most of the fellowship by establishing strong links with the Digital Culture Cluster community and discovering research overlaps with the DATALOSS project held by Nanna Bonde Thylstrup. She also benefited from the visit of other researchers in the same group, attending the keynote lecture given by Prof. Orit Halpern (Technische Universität Dresden) about ‘Financializing Intelligence’ – this research traces the relationship between neoliberal thought and neural networks. She took part in the workshop on ‘Digital Humanitarianism’ held by Prof. Fleur Johns (Sydney Law School). Finally, she participated in the ‘Critical Data & AI Lecture Series #4’ given by Amir Anwar (University of Edinburgh) about ‘Reimagining networks and geographies of AI and Machine Learning’.   

This first stay was very interesting and beneficial for the development of research-creation thinking and demonstrates the interest in developing new collaborations at the intersection of the arts, humanities and digital technologies to strengthen the involvement of stakeholders and citizens in planning practices and advocate for more liveable cities. Juliette is looking forward to returning to the Department of Arts and Cultural Studies at the University of Copenhagen in autumn 2024.   

Grant:

Davret, J. (2024) INTERSECT Visiting research fellowship. University of Copenhagen. 10,000 DK.

Juliette Davret, postdoctoral researcher within Data Stories project, took part in the AMS Scientific Conference from 23 to 25 April 2024. In the second edition of “Reinventing the City”, the overarching theme was “Blueprints for messy cities? Navigating the interplay of order and messiness”. In three captivating days, they explored ‘The good, the bad, and the ugly’, ‘Amazing discoveries’ and ‘We are the city’.

DAY 1: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY  

The first day of the AMS Scientific Conference primarily focused on messiness: the various aspects of urban development and innovation. “The good” refers to success stories and positive developments in cities. “The bad” relates to challenges and issues that cities face, and “the ugly” pertains to less attractive aspects of urban development. This theme explored how cities, both in terms of space and users, are evolving in positive and negative ways.  

On this first day, Juliette presented a paper entitled “Counting matters, but how we count matters too: considering the spatial and data politics of homelessness”. Building upon the insightful work of Cobham (2020), which underscores the significance of what we count, this paper argues that the methods employed in counting are just as crucial. As demonstrated by Cobham (2020), policies and decisions are underpinned by evidential data; thus, being excluded from these datasets equates to being overlooked. This paper delves into the analysis of homelessness counts and considerations in Ireland, aiming to illustrate how counting methodologies lead to significant underestimations of the homeless population. Utilizing a critical data approached combined with interviews of state and NGO stakeholders, this paper seeks to document and reconsider the political, social and spatial implications of homelessness data flows and their implications for homelessness and housing policies. In the context of digitization, it highlights the data politics of administering homeless services, inaccessibility of census services, the lack of coordination among data-collection organizations and financial and resource constraints that contribute to fragmented efforts and the underrepresentation of the most marginalized populations. The paper contends that achieving a more comprehensive understanding of homelessness is essential for informing effective policies and interventions to address this humanitarian crisis. By exploring the intricacies of counting methodologies and their impact, it aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the importance of robust data collection in shaping policies that truly reflect the realities of homelessness.

This paper was presented during a session on ‘Data for Inclusivity’ in which participants discussed the lack of certain datasets to support city governance. 

DAY 2: AMAZING DISCOVERIES  

The second day of the conference concentrated on pioneering research and innovations, both technical and social in the field of urban renewal and sustainability. Participants presented and discussed news and exciting discoveries that have a positive impact on urban areas. The focus was on areas such as mobility, food, circularity, energy, climate resilience, and smart city.

DAY 3: WE ARE THE CITY 

This theme emphasised that the people living and working in cities play an essential role in urban renewal and development. This can involve community engagement, citizen participation, public-private partnerships, and the importance of involving all stakeholders in the city.  

On the final day, Juliette presented a paper entitled “The role of citizens in the urban planning process: power and inequality through the analysis of data flows”. This presentation discussed how the digitalization of the planning process can potentially improve stakeholders’ involvement. Indeed, digital tools potentially improve interaction between planners and citizens, reduce barriers to participation, encouraging creativity and expression. However, this can only be an improvement if citizens are able to participate effectively. As Rosener (2008) has shown, it is not enough to evaluate the success of participation based on more citizens taking part, but rather its impact, to achieve better public policy. This study examines the challenges faced by citizens in actively participating in the planning process in the digital age through an ethnographic approach of a citizens’ association in Dublin. Specifically, this paper investigates how citizens strive to gather and mobilize data and integrate themselves into the planning system to voice their opinions, particularly during the planning appeals stage. In the context of the increasing digitization of the planning process, this paper scrutinizes the data flow within the system and its implications for citizen interaction within the planning and building control process. Additionally, this research examines how citizens leverage data to pursue collective or personal goals, probing the extent of their influence on the planning process. By demonstrating the significance of citizen engagement, this makes it possible to assess its impact on transparency and accountability, shedding light on biases in participation. The paper discusses power inequalities within the planning process, underscoring that only a minority of citizens familiar with the process are actively involved. This analysis encourages reflection on open data and transparency on the generation, flow, and analysis of planning data, and how citizen participation can be enhanced and equitably distributed in the age of digitized urban planning.

This paper was presented during a session on ‘Digital Tools for Cities (Digitalization)’ in which participants presented different tools to improve the digitalization of urban planning or to reflect on the challenges of digitalization.

Conference website: https://reinventingthecity24.dryfta.com/ 

References:

Cobham, A., 2020. The uncounted. Polity press, Cambridge Medford, Mass. 

Rosener, J. B. (2008). Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Its Effectiveness? In The Age of Direct Citizen Participation. Routledge. 

This is the third of three calls for papers from the Data Stories team for the next International Geographical Congress (IGC) in 2024. 

IGC 2024 is an international conference bringing together geographers from all fields, from the social sciences to physical geography and beyond. The theme for 2024 is “Celebrating a world of difference”, for which 44 different commissions are proposing sessions. The IGC 2024 will be held in Dublin from August 24 to 30: https://igc2024dublin.org/ 

CFP Critical perspectives on planning and housing data  

Dr. Carla Maria Kayanan (chair), Dr. Juliette Davret, Prof. Rob Kitchin, Dr. Sophia Maalsen, Dr. Samuel Mutter and Dr. Maedhbh Nic Lochlainn are organising a session on critical perspectives on planning and housing data.  

Session abstract: Planning and property data are the key evidence base for how cities are understood, planned and developed (e.g., Kitchin, 2021; Loukissas, 2019; Marquarts, 2026; Meng and DiSalvo, 2018). The increased use of data in urban planning, housing management and development financialisation has led to profound shifts in how we understand, design, and manage our built environments. However, this transition towards a more data-driven approach raises a series of critical questions concerning who controls the data infrastructures, the generation, analysis, and interpretation of data, and data-driven decision-making, as well as issues of spatial justice, privacy, representativeness and data ethics. 

This session aims to examine the most crucial and contentious aspects of data politics and power in urban planning and housing management. We seek contributions that explore critical perspectives on planning and housing data, including but not limited to the following topics: 

• Data infrastructures of planning and housing; 
• Data utilization in addressing housing crises;  
• Data capitalism and housing financialisation 
• Biases and inequalities in housing and urban data; 
• Activist uses of planning and housing data 
• The impact of automation and artificial intelligence on urban planning; 
• Ethical and privacy issues in planning and housing data practices; 
• Visual narrative and other representations of data in urban planning; 
• Historical perspectives on data in urban planning and housing; 
• Challenges of public participation in a data-centric context; 
• New methodologies for critically analysing data in urban planning. 

The deadline for abstract submission is on 12th January 2024. Abstract submissions must be made via the conference website. Details on submitting can be found here: https://igc2024dublin.org/call-for-abstracts/ 

The Congress Commission for this abstract is C.42 Urban Commission. Ensure you make clear you are submitting for this session when submitting your abstract. 

Please direct questions to session chair: Carla.Kayanan@mu.ie  

See our two other blog posts for calls for papers for the pre-event and the IGC conference. 

Links: 

• Call For Papers (1/3) – Reimagining local governance: Just, sustainable and diverse. 
• Call For Papers (2/3) – The digital turn in planning practices and policy making. 
• Call For Papers (3/3) – Critical perspectives on planning and housing data. 

This is the second of three calls for papers from the Data Stories team for the next International Geographical Congress (IGC) in 2024. 

IGC 2024 is an international conference bringing together geographers from all fields, from the social sciences to physical geography and beyond. The theme for 2024 is “Celebrating a world of difference”, for which 44 different commissions are proposing sessions. The IGC 2024 will be held in Dublin from August 24 to 30: https://igc2024dublin.org/ 

CFP The digital turn in planning practices and policy making  

Dr. Juliette Davret (chair), Oliver Dawkins, Dr. Carla Maria Kayanan and Prof. Rob Kitchin are organising a session on the use of the digital in planning and policymaking.  

Session abstract: Planning has long used digital tools such as GIS and decision-support systems. Yet, much of the practice of planning has remained paper-based. In recent years, a concerted effort to digitalise planning has occurred, shifting all aspects of planning (from strategic, to development, to enforcement) onto an amalgam of data infrastructures and systems. This digital turn is altering the day-to-day work of planners, shifting external body engagement, enabling wider access to information, raising questions about the public’s proficiency and ability to engage, and enabling new data flows (Daniel & Pettit, 2021; Willow & Tewdwr-Jones, 2020). The change management introduced by the adoption of digitally-mediated planning is not straightforward and is complicated by the multiplicity of sectors, stakeholders, data systems and flows intersecting through different stages of planning processes. 

This session explores the impact of digitalisation on the field of planning (Potts, 2020; Datta, 2023). We seek papers that shed light on innovative approaches, challenges and opportunities presented by the digitalisation of planning whilst also implementing a critical lens (e.g., critical data studies, critical geography, critical planning studies, STS, etc.).  

Topics include (but are not limited to): 

• Digital change management of planning systems and practices; 
• Planning’s data infrastructures and data ecosystem; 
• Smart cities and urban planning;
• Data-driven decision making; 
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in planning; 
• Emerging technologies in planning development; 
• Sustainable and resilient infrastructure planning; 
• Community engagement in the digital age; 
• Policy implications and ethical considerations of digital planning; 
• Data policy in digital planning. 

Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit abstracts. 

The deadline for submitting an abstract is on 12th January 2024. Abstract submissions must be made via the conference website. Details on submitting can be found here: https://igc2024dublin.org/call-for-abstracts/ 

The Congress Commission for this abstract is C.31 Local and Regional Development. Ensure you make clear you are submitting for this session when submitting your abstract. 

Please direct questions to session chair: Juliette.Davret@mu.ie 

See our two other blog posts for calls for papers for the pre-event and the IGC conference. 

Links: 

• Call For Papers (1/3) – Reimagining local governance: Just, sustainable and diverse. 
• Call For Papers (2/3) – The digital turn in planning practices and policy making. 
• Call For Papers (3/3) – Critical perspectives on planning and housing data.