Digital Technology Use and Future Expectations

AbstractProblem, research strategy, and findings The implications of digital technologies for planning practice are receiving renewed interest in the wake of ever-improving capabilities in Big Data and artificial intelligence, as well as the rapid uptake of new technologies that allowed planners to work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this interest, there has been little cross-country comparative research regarding the adoption of technology within the planning profession and even less that addresses planners’ expectations and desires for future digital tools. We undertook a multinational online survey of planners in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand to gain a comprehensive understanding of current and expected future use of data and software in planning practice. Although the current use of data-intensive digital tools was limited, we found widespread expectations of change across the planning profession. Remarkable similarities were observed across the countries surveyed. The biggest differences in tech use were among planners undertaking strategic, specialist, and regulatory roles.Takeaway for practice Planning organizations around the world should prepare for a new wave of digital change as many technical obstacles that previously hindered the rapid exchange and analysis of vast amounts of data have now been overcome. Continued development of digital skills among planners is important but should be paired with career pathways for digital specialists within the profession. Planners should not complacently assume that adopting digital technologies will automatically lead to more effective and equitable planning outcomes. They should use digital processes to actively address biases in the underlying planning system.Keywords: digital planningePlanningPlanning 3.0PlanTechurban analytics Supplemental MaterialSupplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2023.2253295.Notes1 It is interesting to note that there have been other much vaunted technological improvements that failed to capture the imagination of the planning profession. The most notable of these in recent years is the concept of smart cities, about which urban planners have been notably silent (Karvonen et al., Citation2020; Meenar & Afzalan, Citation2023; Townsend, Citation2014).2 Stratified sampling was also deemed unlikely to accurately account for inherent differences between planning systems and cultures in different countries that may influence the demographic and professional makeup of institutes and associations.3 The MSc in Smart Cities and Urban Analytics (now MSc Urban Spatial Science) at University College London in the United Kingdom and the MS in Urban Informatics at Northwestern University in Evanston (IL) are among the earliest examples of such degree programs across the surveyed countries, established in 2014 and 2015, respectively.Additional informationNotes on contributorsClaire DanielCLAIRE DANIEL (claire.daniel@student.unsw.edu.au) is a Scientia PhD Scholar in the City Futures Research Center at the University of New South Wales.Elizabeth WentzELIZABETH WENTZ (wentz@asu.edu) is vice provost and dean at Arizona State University.Petra HurtadoPETRA HURTADO (phurtado@planning.org) is the director of research and foresight at the American Planning Association.Wei YangWEI YANG (wyang@weiyangandpartners.co.uk) is Chair at Wei Yang and Partners.Christopher PettitCHRISTOPHER PETTIT (c.pettit@unsw.edu.au) is the director of the City Futures Research Center at the University of New South Wales.