Urban Analytics and City Science 2017 Volume 44 Number 1 January ISSN 2399-8083 Environment and Planning B im) journals.sagepub.com/home/epb yArticle Enwironment and Panning : Urban "Anaics and Ciy Science 2017, Yo 44(1) 100-119, © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions sagepub.coukjouralsPermisions.nav Dok 10.117710265613515610337 Journal sagepub.comihomelepb @SAGE How is mobile technology changing city planning? Developing a taxonomy for the future William Riggs and Kayla Gordon California Polytechnic State Univers, San Luis Obispo, USA Abstract The emergence of web technology creates tremendous opportunity to advance good government, through increased information, interaction with the public, and cost-effective, efficient means of conducting public transactions. Some have proposed that e-government tools have two major roles: (I) receptive and (2) interactive. We argue that there is a third role for planning and e-government technology ~ the transactive. To evaluate this, we survey public sector planning offcials on their professional use of mobile technology. Results confirm the recent trends in increased smartphone use, but indicated that only a limited amount of this increased use is for work purposes. We find that there are still planners who not only do not rely on web technologies at all, within even desktop computer access. Furthermore, our results suggest that the current use of mobile technology appears to be less transactive than the literature suggests. This finding provides room for growth in these transactive and more dynamic exchanges, especially with the increasing prevalence of mobile devices. To assist in this, we provide a taxonomy to help define how mobile technology can change planning and local governance. Such a tool can provide a roadmap for increasing transactive exchanges between local government and citizens in the future. Keywords Planning, local government, mobile, technology, transactive Introduction Advances in mobile technologies have begun to fundamentally change the way city planning professionals understand and interact with their local communities. These technologies have the potential to alter the way planners develop and sustain their local communities in a more efficient and productive manner. But mobile technology advances quickly, and many planners do not have the resources or time to adopt many of the available technologies. This paper: (1) explores how mobile technology is currently influencing planning practices, Corresponding author: Wiliam Riggs, Department of City and Regional Planing, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obisp, | Grand ‘Aves San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, USA, mall: wriggt@alpoly.edu Riggs and Gordon lol (2) defines a taxonomy for mobile applications, and (3) hypothesizes how these technologies will influence the future of the planning profession, most notably as interaction become more transactive in nature. Background Citizens have historically interacted offline with local government agencies. Due to technological advances over the past years, many interactions between citizens and local government rely on computers. In addition, the cost of those technologies has significantly decreased, enabling planning agencies to incorporate various forms of technology into their practices, both increasing understanding of the built environment and engagement with the public. This incorporation is necessary in order to effectively and efficiently disseminate information across a larger distance or population. Yet, in many areas of rapid growth, governmental technological adoption cither happens slowly or is not a priority (Alshuwaikhat and Nkwenti, 2003), Pitkin (2001) explains that some of this relates to the historical rush to pursue technological fixes. In the late 19th century, many individuals were ‘persuaded people to put their faith in technology, rather than in people’ (36). The use of computers by planning agencies has perpetuated this technocratic ideology, through things like computer modelling and simulation (Haris, 1996). Again, Pitkin (2001) argues that planning and policy makers may have originally looked to technological innovations to solve urban problems without considering limitations or unintended consequences, contributing to reluctance to embrace early adoption. Despite this lag, the technological tools have been an essential tool for urban decision- making and professional planning practice. Plans and policy are drafted and simulated on computers and electronic networks (Kaiser and Godschalk, 1995). Simulations and GIS maps help planners better articulate urban futures (Hanzi, 2007) and the complex systems, spatial structures, and environmental outcomes of urban policy (Decker, 1993). Simpson (2001) examines the extensive literature on how these technologies may make complex alternative scenarios more clear and accessible, allowing for increased citizen and a more satisfactory planning process ~ for at least some populations who have access and can use these tools. Technologies such as discussion forums, social networking sites, document collaboration, and online polls/crowdsourcing help planners engage with citizens and support existing processes and decision-making frameworks (Evans-Cowley and Kitchen, 2011; Slotterback, 2011). These technologies not only help to inform citizens with up-to-date information about planning processes, but ensure open dialogue and integration into processes. For example, Gordon and Koo (2008) describe a pilot programme in Boston, Massachusetts called Hub2, which utilized the online, web-based, virtual world, Second Life, to engage citizens in participatory activities. Likewise geographic information systems (GIS) technology is increasingly being used by who engage with spatial information in a way that extends beyond the traditional desktop technology tool to share knowledge and engage in civic reporting and activism (Dunn, 2007; Foth et al., 2009; Goodchild and Sui, 2011; Hanzl, 2007; Lindholm and Sarjakoski, 1992). According to a report entitled by the American Planning Association (APA), many of these planning and policy functions are now tied to online or internet based tools that provide for (1) information sharing - such as websites, mapping, and scenario planning, and (2) interaction (Evans-Cowley and Kitchen, 2011). They can be classified in three domains: receptive, interactive, and transactive.102 Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) (1) Receptive interactions involve a one-way transaction of information from the government agency to the citizen, or vice versa. Questions typically asked by citizens include the following: What are the applicable zoning ordinances for my property? What is the plan for growth in my community? When are public hearings scheduled? How do I file for a permit/variance? On the other hand, planning agencies typically want to understand basic demographic characteristics of a certain Census tract or understand dimensional characteristics of parcels. These information-seeking activities have frequently been translated to online platforms, where one can simply look up the information online. (2) Interactive tools rely on interaction between the planning agency and the public. ‘Offline’ interactive exchanges involve a two-way transaction of information between the local agency and the public, as citizens often want to share their thoughts regarding the community and future plans. Prior to web technology the citizen had limited choices: they could attend a public hearing/meeting, they could visit the planning office in person, they could call the planning office/city manager or write a letter. The web has provided additional options that make interactivity more accessible: Citizens can download permit application forms; online, they can review and comment on plan proposals. In some cases, online forums and chat rooms are open to residents who wish to discuss issues before the community. The new 24 h availability of these functions makes government accessible to more people and offers additional communication channels that strive to improve information availability and decision-making. (3) Finally, transactive tools involve an exchange between agencies and citizens; a form of structured interactions, Many of the activities that previously required a citizen to visit the local government offices are now conducted online. Some examples from planning are the purchase of copies of the comprehensive plan or zoning codes, the filing of permits, variances and appeals, and the paying of associated fees for permits and other applications. The introduction of e-Business adds a ‘transactive’ quality to planning web sites, which allows for an efficient and cost-effective transaction by automating the payment and order process. Transition to mobile in cities In this content a growing number of young individuals access and shape urban information using mobile devices and in recent years their proliferation has been dramatic (Calabrese et al., 2013; Skelton and Gough, 2013). According to the Pew Research Center 64% of U.S. citizens own a smartphone (Smith, 2015). Mobile devices influence the way people move throughout their communities and interact with one another. They have been noted as a symbol of individualism (Harkin, 2003), and some argue that not only do they have the potential to isolate individuals into their own personal ‘bubble’ (Bassett, 2005; Gergen, 2000), but also people tend to develop personal relationships with these devices (Katz, 1996, 1998). Some theorists believe mobile technology has positive effects and can strengthen formerly weak social connections (Hampton, 2003). Put most simply, mobile technology is changing cities in ways we are only beginning to understand. For example, internet-enabled mobile devices incorporating GPS allow for location-based, social networking content, which can increase awareness of user activity, movements, and behaviours in real-time conditions and specific contexts (Kwak et al., 2010). These real-time conditions create a more legible urban landscape for the citizen, thus creating more efficient and sustainable mobility patterns throughout an urban environment. Riggs and Gordon 103 Ling (2004) found that mobile technology facilitates micro-coordination of social activities, which allows for users to redirect trips that have already started or coordinate transportation in real time. Another experiment evaluated how feedback on one’s travel history affects a person’s awareness of environmental impact. ‘For some segments of the population, this feedback altered intentions for actual behaviour change’ (Carrel et al., 2012: 18). Researchers performing this experiment defined this experience as the ‘Quantified Self’, whereby a participant records their behaviour, processes collected data, and feeds it back to themselves, leading to a better understanding of activity patterns. This enables the users to adapt their behaviours more intelligently than they would have without this information. The transition to mobile in planning practice In professional planning practice, the transition to mobile also appears to be significant and this includes a wide range of possibilities (Ratti et al., 2006). These possibilities include instant messaging, social networking sites, crowdsourcing, and mobile applications (Evans-Cowley and Kitchen, 2011). For example, Goggin and Clark (2009) explore how citizens have utilized mobile phones as tools for self-expression and power in various community development efforts. Their research highlights cases where mobile phones have strengthened the economic basis of community, in social networking and civil society, in health, and in empowering previously marginalized actors in communities, assuming that the fundamentals of community organization are already in place for mobile technology to enhance community development and planning efforts (Slotterback, 2011), Ray (2011) explores how social networking systems have allowed planners to refine and extend engagement and data gathering, through traditional participatory processes, by leveraging user-contributed and spatially referenced content that is available online. As previously mentioned, GIS technology is included in this large-scale citizen-initiated data collection, becoming available to a larger number of ‘non-experts’ (Lindolm and Sarjakoski, 1992). Goodchild and Sui (2011) discuss how social media is becoming more like GIS (equipped with mapping and location-based features), and, conversely, how spatial analysis is becoming more like social media, as contributors of online mapping sites form communities for exchanging information (not always confined to the internet). Changes to work in planning practice Furthermore, this spatial information paired with various social network platforms on mobile devices, this has led to abundant data that are specific and available for planners and policy makers (Carrel et al., 2012). For example, mobile technology can work as an environmental sensing platform that supports planning activities and can facilitate collaborative efforts between planners and the public (Evans-Cowley, 2010). These collaborative efforts can create large-scale, publicly initiated data collections, which can lead to a radical rethinking of current planning assumptions ~ where citizens can feed data to centralized data repositories and inform government decisions with rich datasets built through citizen sensing (Cuff et al., 2008; Evans-Cowley, 2010) For example, in the ‘WikiCity’ project, data from cell phones, buses, and taxis in Rome ~ for the 2006 Biennale of Architecture ~ were aggregated to produce the Real Time Rome project. This project utilized sensors and real-time mapping of city dynamics, which functioned as a representation of activities and as a social instrument to help citizens change their actions and decisions in an informed manner, leading to increased efficiency and sustainability in use of the city environment. Mobile sensors helped researcherslos Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) understand various transportation, communication, and social patterns in a real-time control system making operations more efficient and providing more reliable information to citizens (Calabrese et al., 2009). Changes to citizen interaction in planning practice This more legible urban landscape and constant access to real-time conditions for public transit, traffic, and social gatherings has drastically changed the way citizens interact with their surrounding environments. Townsend (2000) argues that time management capabilities of mobile phones are quickening the pace of urban life, increasing the metabolism of urban systems (linked to the formation of decentralized information networks). Mobile devices have had an enormous effect on the daily routines of urban citizens. Consequently, planners must adapt, using these technologies to predict and plan. A ‘re-examination of technologically constructed nature of space and time should be considered’ when planners attempt to understand and plan for their local communities. An understanding of how mobile technologies alter human behaviours helps planners speculate ways in which changes aggregate to transform neighbourhoods, cities, and regions (Townsend, 2000). With this societal shift some suggest that our embodied interaction with computers is changing from one that is more static to one that is more active, conceivably better representing the embedded complexity of urban issues (Baecker and Buxton, 2014; Dourish, 2004). This movement away from traditional workflows and interactive processes provides an interesting dialogue for planners and policy makers who have traditionally worked 9-5 in a more stationary and less interactive environments. It suggests that in a more mobile world, a more mobile work environment might be needed for planners ~ potentially with more flexible work arrangements that match both employee and customer demands — having more tools to be collaborative in decision-making and work outside the office (Zurita and Baloian, 2012). In that context, we explore if and how planners are using mobile technology. Based on this, we develop a taxonomy for planning and policy work processes. Methodology The research was conducted as a part of a study including: (1) a survey issued to planning professionals about their use of web technologies and mobile applications; (2) the collection and categorization of planning-specific mobile applications in a database. Findings were used to develop a taxonomy to guide use in city planning and governance. This methodology builds on research conducted by Evans-Cowley (2010), which provides valuable background regarding the use of mobile phones and the implications for urban planning, Our survey was adapted from an online survey conducted by Evans-Cowley and Kubinski on mobile applications for planners. For purposes of our survey, mobile technology was defined in the survey as ‘any single purpose application software designed to run on smartphones, tablet computers and other mobile devices’. The word ‘Agency’ was defined in this survey as ‘the workplace (business or organization) that provides some type of city andJor regional planning-related service’ The survey asked 34 questions arranged in three broad categories: (1) technology use in general, (2) mobile technology use, and (3) general demographics and ageney/workplace characteristics. Since the purpose of the survey was to represent characteristics of the planning profession in general, we solicited participants from the most recent publicly available data from the Riggs and Gordon 105 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research's (OPR) Directory of California Planning Agencies. From this directory, we created a database of 481 public sector planners across California. We also posted advertisements and links to the survey in the newsletters for each division of the APA in California. Since the OPR-derived database and APA lists represented only public sector planners in California, we posted a link to the survey on the city planning news website, Planetizen.com designed to capture private sector planners in addition." The survey was issued between 4 March and 30 April of 2014. Overall, we received 133 respondents from public and private sector planners, 91% from the public sector and the remainder from the private sector or other organizations. To validate the representativeness of responses, we compared the demographic and employment characteristics of the participants with the characteristics from a nationwide survey conducted by the APA as data for planner specific to California were not available for comparison. While this is a recognized limitation, we assume that California provides a highly representative sample of US data, with locations that are very complex and have a culture of technology adoption (e.g. the Silicon Valley) to locations that have a predominantly agricultural economy (such as the Central Valley). The majority of our respondents were male (65%), of White/ Caucasian ethnicity (81%), with an average age of 41. Most respondents stated that they had earned a master's degree (58%), followed by a four-year college degree (37%). This is consistent with the APA data, which found that the majority of current planning professionals were male (61%), of White/Caucasian ethnicity (86%), an average age of 44, and most had a master’s degree (67%) or a bachelor’s degree (26%). Analysis Findings from the survey were summarized using crosstabs and bivariate analysis in order to (1) identify trends in web and mobile application usage by planning practitioners, (2) understand how professional efficiency and interactions with community members could be improved with mobile technology, and (3) understand the barriers which currently prevent planning professionals from utilizing various mobile technologies and adapting to more transactive uses. Survey analysis was also used to draw comparisons between agencies in various sized jurisdictions and create an overall summary of characteristics for planning professionals. Information collected from the survey responses were then compared and evaluated based on a selection of taxonometric criteria used to classify mobile tools. The idea of this taxonomy was to complement and provide specificity to other reports such as the APA's E-government report and provide a roadmap or menu that helps planners to better ‘use mobile applications for practice. For this taxonomic classification process, a comprehensive database of approximately 130 mobile and tablet applications was compiled using the established categories from Evans- Cowley and Kitchen (2011). This was done using keyword meta-searches on the Apple iTunes Store and the Google Play store. Keywords included: planning, urban planning, city planning, local government, community engagement, public input, and mobile applications. These keywords were derived using the results of our prel Information collected for each application included the following variables: (1) the application name, (2) primary category (defined above), (3) secondary category, (4) platform(s) it is offered on, (5) a brief description, (6) a web link for its purchase and/or description, (7) cost, and (8) developer. Additionally, applications were categorized in the areas of ‘productivity’ (and area that had not fully developed for mobile tools at the time of Cowley and Evans's work) along with virtual reality and wayfinding tools. We single these106 Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) tools out since they can many times step beyond the role of traditional tools that provide informational or transactive exchanges; for example, the ability for users to build virtual cities in SimCity: Built It and the ability for wayfinding software like Maps to serve a distinctly separate role that extends beyond informational in terms of information dissemination. The primary and secondary category for each application was established at a later time from the taxonomy system developed as a part of this study. The complete database of applications and corresponding information can be found in Appendix 1. Results Web technology Of the professionals surveyed, as shown in Figure 1, 47% stated that the agencies for which they worked, were either very dependent on Internet technology or could not operate without it (39%). In fact, only two respondents stated that their agencies were not dependent or could easily function without the Internet. Although the majority (91%) of respondents stated that every staff member had access to either a desktop computer or laptop in their agency, it is worthwhile to note that 9% of respondents reported that their agencies still do not provide access to either a laptop or desktop computer for each of their staff members. Three percent of respondents reported that their agency or division did not have a website. The main reasons cited were a lack of staff expertise to maintain the site or no perceived need for a separate departmental website. When asked if they felt pressure to increase web technology in the workplace, and if so, where that pressure came from, as shown in Figure 2, most respondents felt the pressure stemmed from ‘citizens’ (73%). Following that they cited clected officials (52%), community groups (36%), and other private firms or government agencies (30 and 28%, respectively). Based on open-ended responses, many also mentioned that they felt pressure to increase web technology, from younger, internal staff. could easily function vathautit 079% > nat very dependent 079 —— somewhat dependent 11.79 ‘auld nc aerate without it 28.4% very dependent 47.5% Figure 1. Dependence on internet technology. Source: The sources for Figure one is (Authors). Riggs and Gordon man Figure 2. Pressure to increase web technology.Environment and Planning 8: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) Figure 3. Interactions performed via web technology. Riggs and Gordon 109 Respondents were also asked about the interactions they performed through web technology as shown in Figure 3. The types of technology they used daily with the most common being email (82%), web search engines (73%), online forms (76%), job applications (65%), online audio/video streaming/live broadcasts (64%), and GIS/mapping (56%). The least common interactions were transactive uses, something the literature highlighted as a Wor precessing a | Web browsers ox Instant Messaging 33.7% Me Graphical Design 1.4% Architectural Design 0.0% Spreadsheet 11.2% i Presentation 19.1% @ Gis 20.2% Be Media Players 5.7% I Database 10.1% Statistical 2.3% | Email a aT Photo editing 5.6% I Web-Design & animation 11% | Other 14.6% E Total Figure 4. Mobile software used professionally.i) Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) primary area. These included permitting activities such as filing for a variance (5%) and purchasing copies of comprehensive plans (6%), along with virtual interaction (7%) and chat roomsjdiscussion forums (8%). The other category represented a broad range of responses; however, the most common were filling out online forms, dealing with copies of minutes, and addressing job applications. The most commonly used types of software Bee Chat rooms/ Discussion Forums 6 = Bulletin boards mapping Suest registration (sign-in to site) 64 Sign-up for maiing lists (email or hard copy 6 Filing for variance Ordering maps 7 f comprehensive plan Figure 5. Interactions completed via mobile technology. Riggs and Gordon uw applications used by planners included: word processing program (used by 99% of respondents), email (99%), web browsers (95%), spread sheet applications (90%), presentation applications (82%), and GIS (73%) which was the primary response in the ‘Other’ category. The least commonly used software included architectural design programmes (5%), instant messaging (14%), statistical (18%), and web design (16%). ‘Mobile technology. By comparison to desktop technology, with regard to mobile in the professional setting, 93% of planners stated that they currently owned a smartphone or tablet device; only 74% stated that they use their smartphone or tablet for work purposes. Focusing on this population of mobile users that use mobile devices, we find that agencies are less dependent on mobile technology than on web technologies. Of the professionals surveyed, only 31% stated that the agencies for which they worked were very dependent on mobile technology, 29% were somewhat dependent, and 22% not very dependent; however, many felt pressure to increase their use of mobile technology in a professional setting ~ mostly from citizens and elected officials. The most common mobile software applications used by respondents differed slightly from web-based applications. As shown in Figure 4, most respondents stated that they used mobile email (94%), web browsers (66%), and instant messaging (34%). The least commonly used mobile applications included architectural design (0%), web design and animation (1%), graphical design (1%), and statistical applications (2%). A variety of mapping and mobility service applications were cited in open-ended responses. Overall, planners appear to use technology for informative or interactive, rather than transactive, activities, Respondents who currently owned a smartphone were also asked about the type of interactions they complete via mobile devices or tablets. Similarly to general web technologies, Figure 5 shows that respondents most often used mobile email (60%), followed by search engines (50%), online audio/video streaming (24%), and GIS/mapping (27%). Social media apps (such as Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook) were the most commonly used applications. Note-taking mobile apps (such as Notes and Evernote) were used a few times per week by 17% of respondents, and file-sharing apps (such as Dropbox and Box) were used by 15% of respondents a few times per month. The majority of respondents (80%) stated that they never used apps specific to planning. Of the 20% who are currently using planning-specific applications to support their work, many mentioned Google Earth, Evernote, Notes, Dropbox, Safari, Excel, MapQuest, and other social media applications. Some of the more uncommon apps cited included: © iLegislate: iLegislate is a mobile agenda application created for the iPad, which enables governments to review meeting agendas, supporting documents, and archived videos, ¢ Tableau: Tableau is an application made specifically for the iPad and Android tablet that allows users to drag and drop to analyse and visualize socio-economic data, © GoRequest: GoRequest is an application that allows citizens to directly report issues in their neighbourhood to their local governments. Respondents were also asked what types of applications they would like to see developed in the future and if their agencies intended to develop mobile applications. ight-five per cent of respondents stated that their organizations have not developed any applications, but 25% of respondents said that their agencies had discussed creating apps in the future. Among the agencies that had already developed transactive applications with their constituencies, they were primarily for GIS tasks and mapping, permit tracking, and planning service requests.2 Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) For those interested in developing applications, the responses fall under four main categories: transportation, municipal reporting, utility, and outreach, Transportation was the most prominent with respondents saying they would like to have an ‘all-in-one’ transportation system application or real-time travel data. While some respondents referenced parking, others discussed the ability to do travelling modelling and forecasting based on data they could capture from mobile-based accelerometers. While said they would like to do this modelling via mobile, most felt that this would help better inform and calibrate available data on bicycle and pedestrian traffic and improve multi-modal models of service ~ especially if it could be done in real time. Likewise they felt there could be economic efficiency with ability to better price on and off-street parking. While it was that there are many applications currently available that could meet these needs (e.g. parking or bus arrival apps) such as those found in Appendix 1, in most cases there was a desire to have an application that was both brandable and customizable to the municipality, a factor that translated over the other areas of interest. Municipal reporting was mentioned next followed by planning utilities. In the area of reporting, there were desires to see mobile tools (or at least responsive web frameworks) that ‘would give users access to full departmental and city databases, and enable users to check the status of land use and planning applications. This included the ability to conduct more online permitting and to monitor that permitting process. Likewise in the utility area, respondents mentioned things like ways to calculate a floor-area-ratio or visualize proposed building mass. Respondents desired apps to assist in report field observations, including the upload photos for report completion. Many felt this could be an important asset for code enforcement officers in documenting land use and zoning violations. Finally, many mentioned the desire to have more applications available for mobile outreach. While some mentioned social media, which has received significant attention in recent years, the desire for ad hoc polling and crowdsourcing tools was more prominent. Planners articulated that improved communication tools that could provide immediate and dynamic feedback, for example during a public meeting for all to see, would be very useful and increase the transparency and legitimacy of planning processes. Discussion Given the summary survey results, there are clear opportunities for growth and expansion of mobile technology, especially as the number of individuals using mobiles increases. While many have access to mobile phones, there may be a lack of intensive uses that matches the increasing public use of these tools ~ especially in transactive and interactive areas (Riggs et al., 2015). These opportunities also present opportunities and barriers worth exploration and discussion; however, as our survey indicates there may be barriers among planners such as a perceived lack of need, but also concerns about budgetary matters or lack of expertise. In our open-ended responses, frequently mentioned themes were cost, time, money, and ‘budget indicating a perception that there would be increased expenses with wider mobile adoption in planning practice. That said, our results indicated that many planners understand the potential of mobile apps, but may lack the full knowledge to apply them to planning problems. While resources such as the APA’s E-government study provide a starting point in providing basic information, they may not provide the exact recipe or menu of sorts for how these apps can be applied. In this context, we make the case that a more refined roadmap might be useful for the wider adoption of mobile tools by local planning agencies — what we call as taxonomy. Riggs and Gordon TE} Put most simply, taxonomies provide ways of making information useful. The simplest analogy is a menu at a restaurant. It classifies information in a way that organizes the information based on categories; for example, appetizers, mains, and beverages, In our case, we argue that a taxonomy offers a way for practitioners to think about how they might use mobile tools and an illustration for how they might categorize or group them. Developing a taxonomy Consistent with the research by Nickerson et al. (2009), which proposes taxonometric rules, we propose a framework for organizing thinking about applications that is concise, inclusive, comprehensive, and extendable. Building on the inventory we conducted as a part of the development of our database of available mobile applications (included as a supplement in Appendix 1), we first consider a ‘meta-characteristic’ that will serve as a basis for the classification, arguing that this should be related to the specific use of mobile applications, rather than hardware or software characteristics. And since our reason for developing a taxonomy is to determine the capability of each application to support professional planning activities, it is important to distinguish between applications based on how planners interact with each. Therefore, the meta-characteristic for developing our taxonomy is the interaction between the planner and the mobile application. We use an inductive approach to determine the use characteristics of the various applications, coding each app in the database according to. According to Nickerson et al. (2009), a taxonomy consists of seven dimensions of user interaction: temporal, communication, transaction, public, multiplicity, location, and identity. For our taxonomy, we identify five different types of interactions planners might have with mobile applications, based on the publicly available application descriptions as indicated in Table 1. We then code each app in the database according to these five domains. To distinguish between ‘informational’ and ‘transactional’ applications, one must understand the directional flow of information, For applications categorized as ‘informational’, information solely flows from the application to the user (in this case, the planner). Applications categorized as ‘transactional/interactive’ allow for a multi-directional flow of information. For our purposes, the ‘transactional/interactive’ category includes applications with which planners might not directly interact. Rather, information collected from a larger body of citizens, who interact with the application, is released to the planner to support their professional activities. Applications categorized as ‘utility/productivity’ offer some type of tool or project management platform to support planning workflow efficiency. For example, virtual reality and gaming applications may not directly support professional activities, but could help planners better understand the image of the city since understanding space is connected to the perception of how various planning alternatives may alter it (Hanzl, 2007). Thus, virtual reality and gaming systems can help planners to better understand citizens’ images of the city and make complex scenarios more clear and accessible (Simpson, 2001), ‘Wayfinding’ was added as a fifth category to include directional applications that do not serve a particular ‘planning’ purpose, but change the way citizens interact with and move about their environments. These applications have an indirect influence on planning activities, since data collected can help planners understand modes of transportation, specific routes and pathways, and route time data.us Riggs and Gordon ic and Project Management / Collaborative Presentation / Anotation Augmented Asynchronous ing Virtual Reality Informational Wayfinding itial five dimensions were established, we utilized an inductive approach to After the establish subcategories, which helps to further define the specific role the applications play in planning activities. For example, under the ‘informational’ category, we distinguished between three types of informational applications: static, dynamic, and alert. St Figure 6. Taxonomy of mobile apps in planning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) 4 S091A105 8s0lp Jo ssouBAnDaye ip enoudu ‘01 Jopio ut sown eanou pue ‘uopeaiodsuesn 4J0 spow ‘Bupsoruour sinos “suorsio9p sano ‘uoneuetio Suipnyout ‘siqey uore8.Aeu Heads SPEULSPAD, $7 —_su@zHI> Uo exep aDaIIO> YDIYM suORENddy —_JoUUE|d uonedydde—uezID Bupuysenn 4v9pp a10u! soLreUoDs xeidwo> ayeu djoy rep awouuOMALS 40 a8uu ue Jo uonejnus paresoues sous} 4s syodeBopy ArDus L seanduiod © eAoAU! Y>IYNA suoRE dey voneoydde—souuelg Bune Aayeos yemasia iveigiese]y areysiBoy duraseg ‘Aouapye moypyom Suruueyd suoddns 02 wopeyd awoweBeuew 199foud L£ 40 joor Jo ad4a awios Joyo rep suoneayddy voneaydde—souuryg Aamponposdidayn cong Dyes, REDIEL >L9>"D=0S 40229110 Beq swpeloud pur sepianse Bujuueyd Jo AroueA TYS3 ayBLGpMOID 1821 uo andut stoup axeys pur oxedionsed ‘apo eBay a © suazpi9 404 mojre zeip suoneDyddy —JouUe|d — aan>eveauyjeuonoesuesy syeuorssojord Sujuueyd 01 ajqueae Aapine asefeus sa vdv 8 SHOW UoneUOWUy seu BIA SuoREDyddy sauuejd<—uoneayddy euomrewioyy) sedueg ayauapt uondiiosoq) Moy woREUO;U| —_AOBoTeD s]wOUOXEL sddy # “Buuejd 40} sdde aygow Jo sad4a yo suondussp pue AuoUuoxe) “| OqEL16 Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) dynamic are related to the locational dimension of the applications. Some applications provide customized information or functionality based on the user's location, whereas other applications do not depend on where the user is located (Nickerson et al., 2009). For our purposes, we have labelled ‘location-based’ applications as ‘dynamic’, and non- location-based applications as ‘static’, since they do not use the location to modify user interaction. The ‘alert’ subcategory is related to the temporal dimension of the application and consists of informational applications that interact with the user in real time. These types of applications often involve emergency-related information, which is extremely time sensitive, The two subcategories for ‘transactional/interactive’ applications include crowdsourcing/ input and reporting, Crowdsourcing/input applications allow solicited user input from a larger community, which contributes to a larger body of information. Reporting applications are mobile civic engagement tools that encourage residents to report a variety of issues throughout their communities. Input from these applications is not assembled into a large body of publicly available information (as crowdsourcing applications are), but are reported directly to the city government or the planning staff connected with the application. The three types of defined ‘utility/productivity’ applications include: data collection and analysis tools, project management and collaborative platforms, and presentation/ annotation tools. As for ‘Wayfinding’ applications - which do not directly influence planning activities, but provide information relevant to planning (especially transit) decision-making — we distinguish between the synchronous and asynchronous. In synchronous applications, the user and application interact in real time (similarly to ‘Alert’ apps), which means that the application services the users request almost immediately. For asynchronous applications, the user and application interact in non-real time. Thus, asynchronous wayfinding applications only include static data for maps and route information, and synchronous wayfinding applications involve ‘real-time’ updates to transit, traffic, and route times. We identify two subcategories for ‘virtual reality/gaming” dimension virtual reality (as is the case of programs like Sim City: Build It) and augmented reality such as Second Life. The final taxonomy developed for the database of applications is presented in Figure 6. Conclusions Many planning organizations and agencies are beginning to understand ways in which web and mobile technologies improve workplace efficiency, increase access to information, streamline repetitive processes, and improve communication processes internally and with the general public, Local governments and planning agencies are beginning to realize that mobile technology can be a tool to engage with — and learn from — the public. Findings from this study show that, although planning organizations have been slow in adopting web and mobile technologies, they are beginning to feel pressure, from citizens and elected officials, to increase their use of those applications. Although 93% of survey participants stated they currently own a smartphone or tablet, only a third of participants stated they are ‘very dependent’ on mobile technology to support their work and two-thirds of respondents citied ‘no perceived need’, to integrate mobile technologies into professional work. Yet, while this may be a valid opinion of many in the planning practice who want to see the personal relationship-based communicative process of planning remains intact, it does not match the growing number of end users who access planning and local government policy information only via mobile device. Riggs and Gordon 7 Few respondents stated they depend upon mobile technologies for their professional work, but many expressed interest in the development of applications. In response to these interests, we compiled a comprehensive list of current mobile applications (provided as supplemental Appendix 1) which could benefit professional planning activities, and developed a taxonomy of applications to categorize the ways those applications are supporting such activities: © Informational: Applications which make information more widely available to planning professionals. © Transactional/interactive: Applications that allow for citizens to participate and share their input on a variety of planning activities and projects. © Utility/productivity: Applications that offer some type of tool or project management platform to support planning workflow efficiency. © Virtual reality and gaming: Applications involving a computer-generated simulation of an image or environment, which help make complex scenarios more clear. © Wayfinding: Applications that collect data on citizens’ navigation habits, including orientation, route decisions, route monitoring, mode of transportation, and route times, which improve the effectiveness of those services. That said, despite these rules for thinking about how to use mobile applications, our results show that most planners are using basic ‘productivity’ type software on mobile and web applications, including word processing programs, instant messaging, email, web browsers, presentation applications, and GIS. In fact, the most cited applications in the survey include email, Google Earth, Dropbox, and note-taking apps, and not more complicated applications built for virtual interaction, collaborative design, and community engagement. These applications, which would be considered ‘planning- specific’, according to our taxonomy, have the unique ability to support many planning activities, but have not been widely adopted in mobile form. We argue that this underscores the importance of our taxonomy in increasing the understanding of available tools. Sceptics may continue to ask the question: Do we really need planning and policy-related applications? Our results show that there is role for them; and they are in fact changing the technical literacy in planning practice, and that by overcoming a lack of knowledge about mobile technology in the planning profession, and the perceptions of increased costs and staffing, wider adoption in the planning profession may be achievable. Mobile technology can be one additional tool to help breach the divide between government and the general public. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their support in the preparation of this manuscript: Chris Steins, Urban Insight; Zachary Peterson, Department of Computer Science, CalPoly, San Luis Obispo; Michael Boswell, Department of City Planning, CalPoly, San Luis Obispo; the editor and referees at Environment and Planning B. Their feedback and insights made this paper stronger. iterests Declaration of conflicting The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.lis Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 44(1) Funding, ‘The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article Note 1, Planetizen is located in the Los Angeles and has a broadly dispersed, English-speaking US audience. Readership is highest in California, followed by New York. More on this can be found at: http:// www.planetizen.com/files/doc/pinz-media-kit pdf References Alshuwaikhat HM and Nkwenti DI (2003) Collaborative planning and management frameworks: Approaches to effective urban governance by adoption of emerging technologies. Jnternational Journal of Management 20(3): 294-305. Baecker RM and Buxton WA (2014) Readings in Human-Computer Interaction. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Bassett C (2005) How many movements? Mobile telephones and transformations in urban space. Open 9: 38-47 Calabrese F, Diao M, Di Lorenzo G, et al, (2013) Understanding individual mobility patterns from urban sensing data: A mobile phone trace example. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 26: 301-313, Calabrese F, Kloeckl K and Ratti C (2009) WikiCity: Real-time location-sensitive tools for the city. In; Foth M (ed.) Handbook on Research on Urban Informatics: The Practice and Promise of the Real- Time City. London: IGI Global, pp. 390-413. Carrel A, Ekambaram V, Gaker D, Sengupta R and Walker JL (2012) The Quantified Traveler: Changing transport behavior with personalized travel data feedback. Available at: http://www.uctc. net/research/papers/UCTC-FR-2012-12.pdf (accessed 1 February 2014). Cuff D, Hansen M and Kang J (2008) Urban sensing: Out of the woods. Association for Computing ‘Machinery. Communications of the ACM 51(3): 24 Decker J (1993) Simulation methodologies for observing large-scale urban structures. Landscape and Urban Planning 26: 231-250. Dourish P (2004) Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press. Dunn CE (2007) Participatory GIS—A people’s GIS? Progress in Human Geography 31(5): 616-637. Evans-Cowley J (2010) Planning in the real-time city: The future of mobile technology. Journal of Planning Literature 252): 136-149. Evans-Cowley J and Kitchen J (2011) E-Government. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association (Planners Press) Foth M, Bajracharya B, Brown R, et al. (2009) The second life of urban planning? Using NeoGeography tools for community engagement. Journal of Location Based Services 3(2):97. Gergen KJ (2000) The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books. Goggin G and Clark 3 (2009) Mobile phones and community development: A contact zone between media and citizenship. Development in Practice 19(4/5): 585-597. Goodchild M and Sui D (2011) The convergence of GIS and social media: Challenges for GlScience. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 25(11): 1737-1748. Gordon E and Koo G (2008) Placeworlds: Using virtual worlds to foster civic engagement. Space and Culture 11): 204-221. Hampton KN (2003) Grieving for a lost network: Collective action in a wired suburb. Special Issue: ICTs and Community Networking. The Information Society 19(5): 417-428. Hanzl M (2007) Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies 28(3): 289-307. Harkin J (2003) Life lines. New Statesman 17: 774, R3-RS. Riggs and Gordon lg. Harris B (1996) Planning technologies and planning theories. In: Mandelbaum SJ, Mazza L and Burchell RW (eds) Explorations in Planning Theory. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 483-496. Kaiser EJ and Godschalk DR (1995) Twentieth century land use planning: A stalwart family tree. Journal of the American Planning Association 6\(3): 365-385. Katz JE (1996) The social consequences of wireless communications. In: The Emerging World of Wireless Communications. Annual Review of the Institute for Information Studies. Nashville, TN Institute for Information Studies, pp. 91-199. Katz JE (1998) The social side of information networking. Society 35: 402. Kwak H, Lee C, Park H and Moon $ (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pp. 591-600. ACM. Available at: http://dl.acm.orgicitation.cfimid = 1772751 Lindholm M and Sarjakoski T (1992) User models and information theory in the design of a query interface for GIS. In: Frank AU, Campari I and Formentini U (eds) Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space. Berlin: Springer, pp. 328-347. Ling R (2004) The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Nickerson R, Muntermann J, Varshney U, et al. (2009) Taxonomy development in information systems: Developing a taxonomy of mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. Verona, Italy. Pitkin B (2001) A historical perspective of technology and planning. Berkeley Planning Journal 15: 32-55. Ratti C, Williams $, Frenchman D, et al. (2006) Mobile landscapes: Using location data from cell phones for urban analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33(5): 721. Ray AP (2011) Planning Connected: Using Online Social Networks to Improve Knowledge about Places ‘and Communities (Masters Thesis). Available at: CalPoly Digital Commons http://digitalcommons, calpoly.edu/theses/580. Riggs W, Steins C and Chevan A (2015) City Planning Department Technology Benchmarking Survey 2015. Los Angeles: Planetizen. Available at: http: /www.planetizen.com/node/73480/city-planning- department-technology-benchmarking-survey-2015 (accessed 7 July 2015). Simpson DM (2001) Virtual reality and urban simulation in planning: A literature review and topical bibliography. Journal of Planning Literature 15(3): 359-376. Skelton T and Gough KV (2013) Introduction: Young people’s im/mobile urban geographies. Urban Studies 50(3): Slotterback CS (2011) Planners’ perspectives on using technology in participatory processes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38(3): 468-485. ‘Smith A 2015) U.S. Smartphone use in 2015, Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us- smartphone-use-in-2015/ (accessed 7 July 2015). Townsend A (2000) Life in the real-time city: Mobile telephones and urban metabolism. Journal of Urban Technology 7(2): 85-104, Zurita G and Baloian N (2012) Mobile, collaborative situated knowledge creation for urban planning. Sensors 12(5): 6218-6243, William Riggs is an Assistant Professor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo focusing on transportation, housing, economies, and technology. He is an active Planning Practitioner and sits on the City of San Luis Obispo, Planning Commission. Kayla Gordon is a Practicing Planner at PlaceWorks in Los Angeles, CA. She received her Master's degree from the Department of City Planning at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.