This paper proposes that urban informatics can represent a flow of information from diverse and voluminous data into and back from the planning process. We present a proof-of-concept of how an urban informatics approach can improve public understanding of essential information in the planning process, and we propose a theoretical construct of how it can make planning processes more democratic and participatory, especially for disadvantaged groups. Specifically, this study uses a multi-dimensional spatial scan technique to discover household movement patterns in Chicago from millions of household address records between 2006 and 2015. The results locate the types of movement and displacement associated with specific places at a highly detailed spatial resolution. A user-interface is developed and proposed to enhance sharing of the information to the general public and involves diverse stakeholders in policy-making processes.
AlbinoVBerardiUDangelicoRM (2015)
Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology22(1): 3–21.
2.
AngelidouM (2017)
The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities. Journal of Urban Technology24(4): 3–28.
3.
AuerbachJBlackburnCBartonH, et al. (2018)
Coupling data science with community crowdsourcing for urban renewal policy analysis: An evaluation of Atlanta’s anti-displacement tax fund. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. Epub ahead of print December 26, 2018. DOI:10.1177/2399808318819847.
4.
BaileyKBlandfordBGrossardtT, et al. (2011)
Planning, technology, and legitimacy: Structured public involvement in integrated transportation and land-use planning in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design38(3): 447–467.
5.
BaileyKGrossardtT (2010)
Toward structured public involvement: Justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers100(1): 57–86.
6.
BattyM (1992)
Urban modeling in computer-graphic and geographic information system environments. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design19(6): 663–688.
7.
BattyM (1995)
New ways of looking at cities. Nature377: 574.
8.
BattyM (2013) The New Science of Cities.
Cambridge:
MIT Press.
9.
BilandzicMVenableJ (2011)
Towards participatory action design research: Adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. Journal of Community Informatics7: 3.
10.
BoulangeCPettitCGunnLD, et al. (2018)
Improving planning analysis and decision making: The development and application of a walkability planning support system. Journal of Transport Geography69: 129–137.
11.
CardulloPKitchinR (2018)
Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: Up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal 84, 1–13.
12.
CeccatoVASnickarsF (2000)
Adapting GIS technology to the needs of local planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27(6): 923–937.
13.
ChaskinRJJosephMLVoelkerS, et al. (2012)
Public housing transformation and resident relocation: Comparing destinations and household characteristics in Chicago. Cityscape 14(1): 183–214.
14.
DealBPanHPallathucherilV, et al. (2017a)
Urban resilience and planning support systems: The need for sentience. Journal of Urban Technology24(1): 29–45.
15.
DealBPanHTimmS, et al. (2017b)
The role of multidirectional temporal analysis in scenario planning exercises and planning support systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems64: 91–102.
16.
DeLucaSDuncanGJKeelsM, et al. (2010)
Gautreaux mothers and their children: An update. Housing Policy Debate20(1): 7–25.
17.
DerbyshireJ (2019)
Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Epub ahead of print September 22 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X19877885.
18.
DingLHwangJDivringiE (2016)
Gentrification and residential mobility in Philadelphia. Regional Science and Urban Economics61: 38–51.
19.
DuMZhangX (2020)
Urban greening: A new paradox of economic or social sustainability?Land Use Policy92: 104487.
20.
EllenIGO’ReganKM (2011)
How low income neighborhoods change: Entry, exit, and enhancement. Regional Science and Urban Economics41(2): 89–97.
21.
ElwoodSA (2001)
GIS and collaborative urban governance: Understanding their implications for community action and power. Urban Geography22(8): 737–759.
22.
ElwoodSA (2002)
GIS use in community planning: A multidimensional analysis of empowerment. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space34(5): 905–922.
23.
ElwoodSGhoseR (2001)
PPGIS in community development planning: Framing the organizational context.Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization38(3–4): 19–33.
24.
Foth M (2009) Handbook of research on urban informatics: The practice and promise of the real-time city. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
25.
FothMChoiJHSatchellC (2011) Urban informatics. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work, pp.1–8. New York: ACM.
26.
FuYZhangX (2018)
Two faces of an eco-city? Sustainability transition and territorial rescaling of a new town in Zhuhai. Land Use Policy78: 627–636.
27.
GaoYLiTWangS, et al. (2018)
A multidimensional spatial scan statistics approach to movement pattern comparison. International Journal of Geographical Information Science32(7): 1304–1325.
28.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (2004)
Planning support systems: An inventory of current practice.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems28: 291–310.
29.
GreenleeAJ (2019)
Assessing the intersection of neighborhood change and residential mobility pathways for the Chicago metropolitan area (2006–2015). Housing Policy Debate29: 186–212.
30.
HarrisB (1965)
New tools for planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners31(2): 90–95.
31.
HellerSB (2014)
Summer jobs reduce violence among disadvantaged youth. Science346(6214): 1219–1223.
32.
HoehnerCMSchootmanM (2010)
Concordance of commercial data sources for neighborhood-effects studies. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine87(4): 713–725.
33.
JankowskiPNyergesTLSmithA, et al. (1997)
Spatial group choice: A SDSS tool for collaborative spatial decision making. International Journal of Geographical Information Science11(6): 577–602.
34.
JonesP (2011)
Developing and applying interactive visual tools to enhance stakeholder engagement in accessibility planning for mobility disadvantaged groups. Research in Transportation Business & Management2: 29–41.
35.
Jorgensen DL (2015) Participant Observation. In: R.A. Scott and S.M. Kosslyn (eds) Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Hoboken: Wiley. DOI:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0247.
36.
KeelsM (2008)
Residential attainment of Now-Adult gautreaux children: Do they gain, hold or lose ground in neighborhood ethnic and economic segregation?Housing Studies23(4): 541–564.
37.
Klosterman RE (1995) The appropriateness of geographic information systems for regional planning in the developing world. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 19(1): 1–13.
38.
Klosterman RE (1997) Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning education and research 17(1): 45–54.
39.
LimCKimKJMaglioPP (2018)
Smart cities with big data: Reference models, challenges, and considerations. Cities82: 86–99.
40.
LiuXSongYWuK, et al. (2015)
Understanding urban China with open data. Cities47: 53–61.
41.
McClureK (2006)
The low-income housing tax credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs. Housing Policy Debate17(3): 419–446.
42.
McClureK (2008)
Deconcentrating poverty with housing programs. Journal of the American Planning Association74(1): 90–99.
43.
McMillenDP (2003)
The return of centralization to Chicago: Using repeat sales to identify changes in house price distance gradients. Regional Science and Urban Economics33(3): 287–304.
44.
MalczewskiJ (1996)
A GIS-based approach to multiple criteria group decision-making. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems10(8): 955–971.
45.
MenneckeBCrosslandMKillingsworthB (2000)
Is a map more than a picture? An examination of the role of subject characteristics, task complexity, and technology on map reading and decision making. MIS Quarterly24(4): 601–630.
46.
MertonRK (1945)
Sociological theory. American Journal of Sociology50(6): 462–473.
47.
MooreLVDiez RouxAV (2006)
Associations of neighborhood characteristics with the location and type of food stores. American Journal of Public Health96(2): 325–331.
48.
OwensA (2019)
Building inequality: Housing segregation and income segregation. Sociological Science6: 497.
49.
PanHDealB (2019)
Reporting on the performance and usability of planning support systems – Towards a common understanding. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 13(1), 137–159.
50.
PanHDealBDestouniG, et al. (2018)
Sociohydrology modeling for complex urban environments in support of integrated land and water resource management practices. Land Degradation & Development29(10): 3639–3652.
51.
PanHPageJZhangL, et al. (2019a)
Understanding interactions between urban development policies and GHG emissions: A case study in Stockholm region. Ambio 49: 1313–1327.
52.
PanHYangTJinY, et al. (2020)
Understanding heterogeneous spatial production externalities as a missing link between land-use planning and urban economic futures. Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print Janurary 13 2020. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1701186
53.
PanHZhangLCongC, et al. (2019b)
A dynamic and spatially explicit modeling approach to identify the ecosystem service implications of complex urban systems interactions. Ecological Indicators102: 426–436.
54.
PelzerPArciniegasGGeertmanS, et al. (2013) Using MapTable® to learn about sustainable urban development. In: Geertman S., Toppen F., Stillwell J.(eds) Planning Support Systems for Sustainable Urban Development. Berlin: Springer, pp.167–186.
55.
Randon-FurlingJOlteanuMLucquiaudA (2018)
From urban segregation to spatial structure detection. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. Epub ahead of print September 4, 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2399808318797129.
56.
RedaelliE (2012)
Cultural planning in the United States: Toward authentic participation using GIS. Urban Affairs Review48(5): 642–669.
57.
StratigeaAPapadopoulouCAPanagiotopoulouM (2015)
Tools and technologies for planning the development of smart cities. Journal of Urban Technology22(2): 43–62.
58.
ThakuriahPVTilahunNYZellnerM (2017) Big data and urban informatics: Innovations and challenges to urban planning and knowledge discovery. In: Thakuriah PV, Tilahun NY, Zellner M, (eds) Seeing Cities Through Big Data. Berlin: Springer, pp.11–45.
59.
VonkGGeertmanS (2008)
Improving the adoption and use of planning support systems in practice. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy1(3): 153–173.
60.
VonkGGeertmanSSchotP (2005)
Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space37(5): 909–924.
61.
VoorheesAM (1959)
The nature and uses of models in city planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners25(2): 57–60.
62.
WongYCHoKMChenH, et al. (2015)
Digital divide challenges of children in low-income families: The case of shanghai. Journal of Technology in Human Services33(1): 53–71.
63.
Yang T, Pan H, Hewings G, et al. (2019) Understanding urban sub-centers with heterogeneity in agglomeration economies – Where do emerging commercial establishments locate?. Cities 86: 25–36.
64.
YuXZhongHZhouT, et al. (2018)
Rail transit development in lagging regions. Journal of Transport and Land Use11(1): 1003–1024.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
