Australian Loval Governments' Practice and Prospects with Online Planning

AUSTRALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PRACTICE AND PROSPECTS WITH ONLINE PLANNING

(Version 09/21/05)

Tan Yigitcanlar

INTRODUCTION

Public participation is a very important part of the planning process that provides opportunities and encouragement for the public to express their views (Burke 1979, Day 1997, Beder 1999, Campbell and Marshall 2000, Brody et.al. 2003). However public involvement in planning requires a system to be accessible to all. To achieve broad participation, authorities will have to check their arrangements for public access to planning information and services. These arrangements include effective use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). ICTs are today resulting in new opportunities for public involvement in urban planning and also in addressing the digital divide to make sure everyone can take part in the planning process (Innes and Booher 2000, Jankowski and Nyerges 2001, Craig 2002).

Online planning ñ sometimes referred to as internet-assisted urban planning ñ is a new frontier for the planning discipline. It creates a new platform for planning operations and processes, and increases the opportunity for public participation. Online planning offers people access to a seamless record of the progress and approval of planning proposals and policies (Shiode 2000, McGinn 2001).

The Internet is the main medium of information exchange for online planning, and geographic information systems (GIS) are another significant technology which plays an important part in online planning. A decade ago, Pickles (1995) stated that GIS technology is beyond the reach of ordinary citizens, since GIS and spatial data are expensive and require high levels of training for competent use.  Fortunately, with the substantial decrease in technology costs and introduction of Internet GIS, online data and analysis tools are becoming widely accessible to the public. Internet GIS applications increase public access to information and promote active participation in the planning process (Ceccato and Snickars. 2000, Kingston et.al. 2000). Schiffer (1995) saw the promise of online planning, and according to Carver (2003) use of Internet GIS for planning is a step in the right direction; that of citizen empowerment through greater involvement and openness and accountability on behalf of decision makers. Thus planning benefiting from the Internet and GIS can help local authorities organize planning schemes to involve residentsí interaction with their planning processes.

This paper examines Australian local governmentsí potential and experiences in implementing online planning. In Australia, local councils have statutory powers over land use zoning and the development approval processes and they are obligated to develop and implement strategic and local plans. This paper considers the extent to which of those local councils are willing to embrace ICTs as planning tools, and the extent to which households might be ready to access new computer technologies.

In this research the following questions are considered: (a) What are the patterns of computer and the Internet use across households? (b) What might be done to narrow the digital divide? (c) What are current local government policies, capabilities and projects with respect to online planning? (d) What are the potentials of local government areas (LGAs) in implementing online planning?

The research reported here is based on primary data collection and analysis, and secondary data analysis.

Primary data collection and analysis involved conducting a survey of planning officers in Australiaís local councils to obtain information on the extent to which of them are making use or plan to make use of ICTs to support online planning. The results of that survey are used to assess the potential and willingness of local governments to adopt ICTs for online planning.

Secondary data was used to ascertain the degree to which local councils are using Internet in their planning departments. This was carried out through a search of council websites. Secondary data analysis also focused on using Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2001 census data to conduct a spatial and demographic analysis of ICT adoption by households in LGAs in Australia.

This paper discusses the following issues of online planning: E-participation, the digital divide, information technology usage both across local councils in LGAs and by households within those LGAs. It then explores local councilsí experiences in online planning.

ONLINE PLANNING AND E-PARTICIPATION

ICTs have been part of the planning system since the introduction of the main frame computer in the 1960s. However, in terms of computational use for public participation, it is a relatively new phenomenon which focuses on visualization and analysis using GIS. Access to and participation in use of geographic information are important conditions when communities or societies at large, address common problems in their living environments. Access to geographic information is both a necessary and possibly an enabling condition for participation in its use (De Man 2003). At that point ICTs and explicitly the Internet are seen as breaking down barriers to participation, principally those concerning accessibility to geographic information.

Many planning departments are now using the Internetís interactive features to create a place for focused discussion and information exchange on the planning schemes (Yigitcanlar et.al. 2003). The Internet together with GIS launches a channel to get mass participation in a spatial referenced decision-making (Jankowski and Stasik 1997, Leitner et.al. 2000). Internet GIS is beginning to have a significant impact on the communities which participate in it (Plewe 1997, Batty 1998, Craig 1998, Peng and Tsou 2003).

The new form of public participation, which is called e-participation and is based around ICTs, has the power to enable participation in a variety of levels for stakeholders and the public (Carver et.al. 2001, Ghose and Huxhol 2001). Online planning and e-participation occurs several different levels (Figure 1). The bottom rung of the online planning ladder represents online (planning) service delivery. The flow of information is essentially one-way; from server to client. Further up the ladder, the communication becomes bi-directional making participation more interactive through the sharing of information, ideas and feedback (Carver 2003). When it is implemented at the two-way communication level, online planning is a progress of getting common consensus about particular decision-making. Traditional participation methods often diminish the range of participants. By online planning many more residents can have the opportunity to participate in prioritizing potential development or decisions. Not only does online planning increase the potential number of participants in the planning process, but it further democratizes the participatory process (Huxol 2001). By creating online systems, the highly political issue of prioritizing planning and development can be brought into the privacy of residentsí homes, where they can voice their opinions equally.

Figure 1: Online planning ladder (Adopted from Smyth 2001)

The Royal Town Planning Institute (2001:40-41) underlines the importance of online planning in its report on modernizing local government:

Local councils have a task to prepare community strategies which will engage the commitment and participation of the public as partners in decision making. This is a strategic partnership for the process of preparing local development plans collaboratively. To provide this partnership and collaborative planning services local governments should grasp opportunities being developed for online planning. This means more than simply offering information and standard advice in an electronic form; it can also mean a change in the relationship between professional staff and the public. Members of the community will expect to make contact with planners more easily and directly through the new channels of ICTs. This will require an even stronger customer focus by planners, with collaboration rather than aloof professional distance becoming the norm.

Large numbers of local governments abroad have begun to explore ways of taking the challenge of participatory planning in setting policy and budgetary priorities more seriously by using online technologies. The Canadian city of Guelph has for example, implemented an impressively comprehensive and inclusive city planning strategy which draws on an extensive array of techniques for harnessing the experience and expertise of a wide range of citizens. This includes a particular emphasis on involving those who would not normally be participants in such discussions (Wiseman 2003, Guelph City Council 2004).

In Australia the most creative examples of participatory community planning strategies have been driven by local governments. For example, the city of Port Phillip, Victoria has applied an online participatory planning strategy for identifying and prioritizing community and social indicators and using these to guide policy and resource allocation priorities. According to Wiseman (2003) another important progress is the recent reforms to the Victorian local government legislation. Before these reforms there was no legislative requirement for local governments to engage in participatory planning. Therefore, these reforms will provide further encouragement for this process by making it mandatory for local governments to conduct regular participatory processes. These processes will identify local priorities and progress measures by benefiting from online services such as local e-government (Yigitcanlar 2003).

Online planning does not only provide information, but it also supports consultation processes that encourage active participation of citizens in considering and establishing planning policies. However when applying ICTs to planning, local authorities need to carefully consider and address the digital divide.

THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

The term digital divide is used to describe the patterns of unequal access to information technology that surfaced during the 1990s (McNeal 2003). It is also used as a term to indicate social exclusion in the online world as we move to the knowledge economy/society (Woodbury and Thompson 1999, Graham 2002, Stimson 2002). Most of the available literature suggests that socioeconomic status and demographic characteristics determine the frequency of use of ICTs (Hoffman and Novak 2000). In particular, issues of income and education are often seen as being important, while age and ethnic background may also be an issue (The National Office for the Information Economy 2002, Van derMeer and Van Winden 2003).  There may also be an important geographic component.

The concept of the digital divide is generally understood as a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing three distinct aspects: (a) The global divide; (b) The social divide; and (c) The democratic divide (Norris 2001). Likewise Mossberger et.al. (2003) categorized the digital divides as: (a) The access divide; (b) The skills divide; (c) The economic opportunity divide; and (d) The democratic divide.

The digital divide is becoming more of a recognized reality as technology makes phenomenal progress and online planning and local e-government applications are becoming popular in the new information age. Graham says that (2002: 37):

Even in advanced industrial nations with rapid maturing internet markets, whole sections of the urban population fail to benefit from the skills, education, equipment, infrastructure, capital, finance and support necessary to go and remain online. This is so at precisely the time when being online is becoming ever-more critical to access key resources, information, public services and employment opportunities.

The various demographic dimensions, along which the digital divide runs, represent a map of how social power is distributed. No matter where they are located, those who have higher incomes have greater access to, and are more likely to use the Internet. Urban dwellers are usually better connected to electronic media than rural dwellers. Those with more education often have both higher incomes, and better connectivity. Trying to close the digital divide can be interpreted as one form of economic redistribution. Riley (2004:18) argues ìnarrowing the digital divide is only a matter of timeî and asks;

Prior programs of a Keynesian type have successfully extended other forms of infrastructure ñ electricity, sewage, education, telephone ñ from the upper classes to the entire population. Are there some significant differences between internet connectivity and these prior forms of infrastructure extension that precludes the digital divide from being treated in the same way as the provision of roads or sewers?

The digital divide is a complex issue with no singular cause or effect. Unfortunately, new technologies alone will not suffice to close the digital divide, since they are heavily dependent on physical and human capital, and the general economic policy environment (Digital Divide Network 2003). Whilst online planning provides many opportunities for local authorities to serve citizens more effectively, it also runs the risk of widening existing inequalities and making non-IT users second-class citizens.

The first step in handling the digital gap is to understand the breadth and depth of any cultural, racial, education, knowledge or literary divide that exists in any given jurisdiction. It is incumbent on governments to bridge these divides and ensure that there are no inequities between those who have the capacity to engage in online, with governments and those who do not have access or do not wish to participate in the online world (Riley 2004).

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001) states that apart from general approaches in reducing the digital divide like extending the infrastructure, skills and information, it will be especially important to offer low cost access. With computers and the Internet access available at public institutions like libraries, post offices, local and regional government facilities, schools etc., individuals can build up familiarity with information technology and develop important relevant skills. The provision of low-cost and subsidized access in schools for example, will help to establish sound fundament for computer literacy of the future workforce and will improve the diffusion of decisive knowledge for the new economy. This diffusion of knowledge is an important aspect of developing successful online planning.

Digital Divide Network (2003:3) underlines that addressing the digital divide requires a multi-faceted approach involving:

(a) Affordable access to information tools for the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and those living in rural areas; (b) Economic development of communities developing an infrastructure of telecommunications facilities and cultivating a well-trained workforce so that communities can remain competitive in attracting and retaining businesses; (c) Internet content that is relevant to and produced by communities addressing the availability of community-relevant information, overcoming language and literacy barriers, and promoting the diversity of cultural voices; and (d) A society devoted to lifelong learning developing the learning skills which will enable all generations to adapt to constantly changing times.

International practices have shown that there are many citizens who currently can not participate in the planning process, and as online planning becomes more pervasive they will increasingly be left behind and become disenfranchised (Kennard 2001). Therefore, for any online planning project to be successful there needs to be some degree of community development. The real success of online planning comes from developing policies and programs for: (a) Understanding the differences among the public; (b) Taking various public opinions and needs into consideration; (c) Adding them into decision making processes; and (d) Fine tuning online planning for a wider individual and community participation (Kuttan and Peters 2003). Consequently, only by understanding needs of the residents and addressing the digital divide, local governments will be able to realize the true vision of online planning.

AUSTRALIAN LGAS POTENTIAL AND EXPERIENCES IN ONLINE PLANNING

Household Use of Information Technology

An objective of the research was to find a way to assess factors that might influence the development and use of online planning in LGAs. Consequently, important considerations are: (a) Who has access to computers and the Internet; (b) How people use those technologies; (c) Peoples attitudes toward them; and (d) Sharing of information on the Internet. If an insufficient number of people use and feel comfortable with computer and the Internet systems, then moving planning services to an online mode may be questioned.

The 2001 census data does not provide information regarding peopleís attitudes towards ICT utilization, although it does provide some information concerning the extent of Internet and computer use. That data has been analyzed to identify those factors affecting computer and the Internet use. Variables such as age, gender, education, occupation, geographic location and income were considered. The 2001 census data, together with other spatial datasets, were examined using SPSS and GIS analytical tools to develop basic profiles of computer and the Internet users by households in LGAs.

Socioeconomic and demographic differences in the use of computers and the Internet are important because the ability to use these technologies has become increasingly critical to decision support in planning and development. In Australia, in the last few years there has been a rapid increase in computer and the Internet use, not only in homes, but also at the workplace, schools, and other locations. Broadband connections, available principally through cable modems and digital subscriber lines, are making higher-speed connections available to an increasing number of Australians and expanding options for online usage. Not surprisingly as a result, household computer and the Internet use has increased substantial across Australian States and Territories (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Household computer and the Internet use by years and States/Territories (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002)

Computer use has increased substantially in the past few years. As indicated by the 2001 Census almost half of the population (43.1%) used a computer. As Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003) indicates the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) had the highest rate of computer use (58.0%). The income category with the largest number of respondents in the ACT was the upper middle income category ($1000-1499 per week), while the income category with the largest number of respondents across Australia was the low income category ($200-299). As Canberra being the nationís capital city, education and income levels are remarkably high in ACT. Also the larger proportion of students (31.4%) in ACT than the national average (26.1%) may be another reason for the higher than average use of computers.

The Northern Territory (NT) recorded the lowest reported use of personal computers (32.9%). This may be due to the fact that the average income in NT is quite low (the largest number of people responded that their income was $160-199). Another reason for the low reported use of computers in NT could be the relatively large proportion of indigenous people (25.8% of the population compared to 1 to 9% in the other States) (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2003).

Australia is a nation where more and more people are going online everyday. Individuals continue to expand their use of computers and the Internet. As of 2001, 38.1 per cent of the population had used the Internet or email. 84.6 per cent of those who used a computer also used the Internet. The Internet use in ACT was 54.1 per cent and in NT was 31.8 per cent where the national average was 36.5 per cent. The rates of computer and the Internet use are varied by States and Territories (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2003).

In general, the analysis of 2001 census data has shown that Australian households are embracing technology. However its use is varied in different localities and not every household has a similar attitude in using or accessing these technologies.

To determine the potential of online planning use among households in LGAs, this research grouped LGAs under three categories in regard to their household use of computers and the Internet; where computer and the Internet use is below 20 per cent it is referred to as ëlowí; where it is between 20 and 40 per cent as ëmediumí; and equal to and more than 40 per cent as ëhighí.

13.1 per cent of LGAs are recorded as LGAs with ëhighí competence of households in using computers and the Internet, 79.4 per cent of them as ëmediumí and only 7.4 per cent of them as ëlowí(Table 1). Figure 3 illustrates the results of the GIS analysis that combines both computer and the Internet use and assigns an accessibility level for LGAs. This analysis showed that computers and the Internet technology are accessible to at least more than one-fifth of the population in most LGAs (92.5%) apart from some remote areas of the country.  

Table 1: Household use of information technology by their local councilís size and location

Figure 3: Household computer and the Internet use across LGAs

This analysis on householdsí characteristics in LGAs has shown that households with children, those on higher incomes and living in metropolitan areas or large regional cities were more likely to have access to computers and the Internet. Also users are more likely to be young, male, better educated, more affluent, urban, and not members of a racial or ethnic minority group than the population as a whole.

Local Councilsí Use of Information Technology

To analyze local councilsí use of information technology, a survey with local council planning officials was conducted to provide primary data in determining their potential in developing and adopting online planning. This survey was carried out during August 2003. The questionnaire was e-mailed or posted directly to the chief planning officers of all local planning authorities in Australia. In Territories (i.e. ACT and NT), local governments are not responsible for planning and development tasks. Therefore in ACT and NT planning departments of the Territory governments were invited to respond. The use of ICTs by State governments and planners in the private and academic sectors falls outside the scope of the survey.

In essence, the survey sought to ascertain the extent to which planning authorities are using relevant ICTs ñ GIS and the Internet. It sought to find what stage they had reached at the implementation in online planning and what factors were inhibiting progress. Respondents were asked to provide brief details of the technical environment in terms of hardware, networks and software, the geographical data in use or being captured, and the organizational context for information provision in planning. The scope of the survey also included planning authoritiesí commitments and plans for the future. From 626 planning authorities 383 of them (61.2 %) responded to this survey (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Responding local councils

Additional information is collected for each responding council either by visiting their websites or by telephone interviews. In terms of core office applications all of the councils have fully developed word processing, spreadsheet and presentation packages. Access to the Internet is pervasive, and the analysis found that more than three quarters of councils have websites and fully operational e-mail (80.5%). However, a digital divide continues to exist where some remote and smaller local governments lack high-speed broadband connections or have no connection to the Internet at all.

In terms of legislative obligation within Australia there is no direct regulation to mandate local councils to disseminate their planning information on the Internet. However, Planning Acts of each State require that copies of all planning schemes for every local government must be kept open for public inspection. Those acts indirectly encourage a vision for placing all planning schemes and related information on the Internet to foster public participation in urban planning.

Local councils are grouped under four categories to observe the digital divide among metropolitan, regional, large, medium and small size councils ñ according to their location, population and administration sizes. This grouping consists of: (a) Metropolitan city councils (population > 50K); (b) Metropolitan town or shire councils (population < 50K); (c) Regional city councils (population > 25K); and (d) Regional town or shire councils (population < 25K). The response rates of metropolitan councils were lower than regional councilsí, and larger councilsí response rates were slightly higher than smaller councilsí (Table 2). Along with these, the high response rate points out to: (a) noticeable homogeneous interest on the topic among the Australian local councils; (b) reliability of the survey results.

Table 2: Number and percentage of the responding local councilís by their size and location

The survey found that 13.6 per cent of the responding councils are willing to adopt online planning at the online decision support systems level and 11.5 per cent at the online opinion surveys level. 66.8 of them are considering having it at the online discussion level and providing strong two way communication with their residents. Another significant result was that almost all councils now see the Internet as an inevitable technology for the online service delivery (Table 3).

Table 3: Local councilsí choice of online planning level

Survey results indicate that ICT applications are now firmly embedded in most of the responding local planning authorities (Table 4). The growth in the Internet made it possible to obtain a wide range of services online. The use of the Internet and GIS is a recent development in the provision of planning services to the public. Many planning authorities have responded to the challenge by providing a range of sites orientated at various aspects of service delivery. In most of the Australian local councils technical applications such as GIS and the Internet are now becoming well established, but in some of them, are still being developed and enhanced. However in some remote localities the use of these technical applications is more varied and has the potential for further development.

Table 4: Local councilsí ICT utilization

One of the most striking features of the survey is the dramatic demand on the use of digital datasets and maps in planning departments. The survey pointed out that 89 per cent of planning departments in LGAs are making use of digital datasets and maps. It also showed that with respect to GIS, 81.2 per cent of responding councils have fully operational GIS. The survey found that 91.4 per cent of planning departments of local councils ñ those with GIS ñ are utilizing GIS in their planning processes. Common planning related application areas of GIS include, urban planning, planning enquiries, property services, various engineering applications, infrastructure planning, environmental planning, neighborhood planning, urban design, rural planning and urban renewal.

One of the good indicators in determining ICT level of a local council is its capability to produce in-house digital data for its planning process. 80.1 per cent of local authorities have facilities to collect and manipulate data to use in planning operations. Besides that 83 per cent of local councils are using other governmental departmentsí electronic data and map sources and 32 per cent of authorities are using electronic data from private companies.

With the rising issue of public participation, the importance of information distribution has come to the forefront particularly at the local levels. As councils are realizing the benefits of replacing paper-intensive processes with direct access to information and timely feedback, information is being made available digitally that was previously difficult to locate or assimilate. As high as 73.8 per cent of councils provide and distribute planning information in digital format to government, non-government institutions and the public.

With the increasing use of GIS technology in planning and with the growing importance of information distribution, the web provides an ideal medium to make these previously advanced GIS tools accessible to a wider audience. The survey results confirm this statement as 32 per cent of local councils make planning information publicly available on their web sites. Moreover, 12.1 per cent of local councils make planning information available to the public via their internet GIS sites.

On average local councils have been using GIS for about six years. However a comprehensive GIS is accommodated in most of the capital cities more than a decade ago (e.g. Canberra 20, Brisbane 17, Perth 10 years). In terms of dedicated GIS staff there are 1.6 full-time and 1.4 part-time GIS specialists employed, although there are relatively large number of planning staff that uses GIS casually for their planning tasks (Table 5).

Table 5: Local councilsí GIS personnel and years of GIS utilization

Four major GIS software packages are dominantly used for planning applications. These are: MapInfo (65.8%), ESRI (25.3%), Intergraph (5.4%) and AutoDesk (5.4%). Besides these major GIS software packages 22.9 per cent of councils are making use of either their in-house developed software or one of the popular Australian GIS software ñ such as AusSoft Latitude (Table 6). One of the interesting findings is that remote and small size councils generally prefer to use State governmentís in-house developed/customized software packages or purchase light GIS packages that would meet their limited needs.

Table 6: Local councilsí use of GIS software

Expected results were observed from the analysis of the divide between LGAs in terms of population, and council administration size and location. In general, LGAs population and local councilís administration size ñ as well as the councilís budget ñ is a more determinate factor on the divide than its location ñ metro or regional. This is likely occurring because metropolitan city councils are better equipped with ICTs than regional town or shire councils. However, as these technologies becoming more affordable and advanced, their utilization among the local councils is expanding rapidly. A large number of councils that are currently not utilizing ICTs are now seriously considering these technologies (Table 7). Among the councils with no operational GIS, almost half of them (49.3%) are considering establishing and benefiting from GIS in their planning tasks. In general, this consideration is stronger, particularly at larger councils.

Table 7: Local councils intention in ICT utilization

Most city, town and shire administrators appear concerned about providing online services to citizens to encourage their participation in the planning process. A significant number of them are planning to provide information and planning services online. Currently 49.3 per cent of responding councils have the intention to use the Internet as a tool for public participation ñ at different levels ñ for planning. When we looked at the metropolitan and regional divide in councils intention to utilize ICTs, we observed that in general metropolitan councils have greater intention in using ICTs as a public participation medium compared to regional councils. Additionally city councils are more willingly to apply ICTs for online planning than town and shire councils. Most city, town and shire administrators are extremely interested in providing online planning including online transactions to their residents. 86.4 per cent of the councils are interested in using the Internet for online planning within the next five years.

Respondents were asked to identify any obstacles that existed in adopting e-planning effectively within their organization. Local governments with limited interest in providing online planning listed the lack of citizen demand and limited value to the community as their reasons. They also listed cost, security, and privacy issues. Only 18 respondents stated no obstacles. The rest identified a range of obstacles, which are budgetary limitations (49.7%), complexity of technology and automation of the process (44.7%), lack of experienced technical staff (43.9%), lack of interest among the public (29.9%), the digital divide and accessibility problems (15%), privacy and data related problems (14.2%), lack of understanding the planning system (11.2%), lack of vision at the councilís administration (8.6%), and restrictions of the planning legislations (8.3%) (Table 8).

Table 8: Obstacles in online planning implementation

Local Councils and Residentsí Potential for Online Planning

Evaluation of the potential of LGAs depends on many factors including detailed surveys and feasibility analyses at the local level. However this research examined generic factors to have an overall idea on the potential of LGAs for online planning. To determine the level of potential this research grouped LGAs in three categories namely ëhighí, ëmediumí and ëlowí levels of competence for online planning (Figure 5).

The LGAs which carry ëhighí potential for online planning are the ones where: Household computer and the Internet access are equal to or more than 40 per cent; Planning department has an operational GIS system and; Council is currently using the Internet as a medium for public participation in planning.

The LGAs with mediumí level of potential are the ones where: Household computer and the Internet access are between 20 and 40 per cent; Planning departments have either an operational GIS system or are considering GIS and; Currently using or intend to use the Internet as a medium for public participation in planning.

The LGAs with low level of potential are the ones where: Household computer and the Internet access are below 20 per cent; Planning departments have either no operational GIS system or they are not considering GIS and; Currently not using or they have no intention to use the Internet as a medium for public participation in planning.

Figure 5: LGAs potential for online planning

The distribution of LGAs potential clearly reveals that for online planning applications disadvantaged councils and households are the ones in the remote regional areas. In contrast to that most of the councils and their households in the metropolitan areas have a great potential to go online for planning (Table 9).

Table 9: LGAs potential for online planning

Research findings point out rural and remote LGAs as vulnerable localities in terms of technology adoption, however access and equity issues are not only limited to rural and remote Australians. It also needs to be recognized that there are a range of potentially disadvantaged groups ñ unemployed, low income, people with disabilities at the metropolitan cities whose needs require consideration.

Local Councilsí Experiences in Online Planning

Contrary to the short history of online planning, Australia has a large number of initiatives in this field. One of the good practices is Blue Mountains Councilís planning initiative. The Internet has been used very effectively by the council to exhibit its local environmental plan. The council has taken great care to base its planning instruments on accurate data about the local environment (Herborn 2003). Residents are not only able to obtain detailed information on land use, infrastructure, vegetation and other data within land parcels, but also communicate with councilís planners online. By making this information publicly available, it also became open to challenge and updating (Blue Mountains City Council 2004). Herborn (2003:12) says that:

In the last 10 years a very high proportion of councils have developed websites in Australia. Some provide maps that can be browsed and downloaded as a PDF file and some provide maps by using Internet GIS. What is currently available at the Blue Mountains City could become widespread in the future. Its website is distinguished by its greater depth and the degree of interactivity with its mapping system. It provides a model that could be imitated by other councils striving to encourage public participation in planning.

The Brisbane Smart City initiative provides a good example for online planning. In this project GIS and the Internet are used as platforms to form a two-way communication and a collective vision for the city that incorporates eight strategic direction statements of: (a) A clean and green city; (b) An accessible city; (c) A city designed for subtropical living; (d) A smart and prosperous city; (e) A creative city; (f) An inclusive city; (g) An active and healthy city; and (h) A regional and world city (Brisbane City Council, 2005). This project also incorporates several other initiatives to support planning discussions such as OurBrisbane, YourCityYourSay and Queensland Governmentís GetInvolved portals. These three portals are among the important elements of the Brisbane City Councilís e-governance program. Brisbane City Council also developed effective initiatives to narrow the digital divide. In addition to the provision of PCs in public libraries, the council also entails making low cost hardware available to individuals. One example is partnership with Green PCs ñ a social enterprise that intended to bridge the digital divide ñ in selling recycled computers that are refurbished to accommodate the Internet usage (Odendaal 2003, Infoxchange 2005).

Another example of good practice is the initiative implemented by the NSW State Government. In NSW planning information is being made available through the web via a system called GIS-based Planning Information (iPlan). A substantial number of the LGAs in NSW have a variety of information online such as local environmental and town plans. It makes planning information more accessible and is a major step towards the democratization of information and GIS. The land development and real estate industries derive benefits from iPlan as well as local communities (Herborn 2003). Local communities need information about planning controls in neighboring LGAs. iPlan successfully provides improved access to that information with a two-way communication opportunity (NSW Government 2004). The iPlanís vision can be summarized briefly as: (a) One stop shop for planning information and services from government and industry; (b) Fast and efficient retrieval of planning policies and controls; (c) Informed strategic planning through improved access to infrastructure, natural resources, zoning, land use, transport, socio-economic and other relevant information; and (d) Facilitation of public participation in planning the future of NSW (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources 2005).

Conclusions

Over the past two decades the issue of public participation in planning was one of the central subjects of discussion in Australia (Troy 1999, Gleeson and Low 2000, Uddin 2004). With a tremendous pace of development in ICTs, and their increased use among the Australian local governments and the public, ICTs have become important tools to foster public participation in planning (Stein 1998, Singh 2002, Odendaal 2003, Local Government Management Australia 2005).

As Herborn (2003) stated, prospects for online planning in Australian cities are bright. The thresholds for the use of online planning are becoming lower. This means that more people are potentially able to use online systems to enhance their access to planning information and to actively debate planning proposals.

A large number of councils in LGAs across Australia have the background and infrastructure to establish online planning. Furthermore, councils in more than three-quarters of those LGAs surveyed, consider the Internet to be an extremely important source of planning information. A significant number of residents in Australia are able to use computers and the Internet, and their level of use varies significantly across LGAs. However the prerequisites for the adoption and development of online planning are present in many councils.

Furthermore there are a number of good initiatives on the development of online planning in Australia. They are using online planning instruments and to widen and deepen public participation. Similar systems can be developed in other LGAs throughout Australia, and this would lead to a wider public participation and democratization of the planning process.

The digital divide problem needs to be overcome urgently and Australian governments and NGOs are developing a wide range of initiatives to close the divide (Centre for International Research on Communication and Information Technologies 1997, 1999, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 2001, Infoxchange 2005). A good example would be the ACT State Governmentís (2002) Community IT Access Plan. This plan include initiatives to: (a) Provide public ICT access through libraries and community centers; (b) Offer ICT training programs; (c) Provide ICT access and training to disadvantaged target groups including people with a disability and their careers; (d) Distribute free computer training resources through libraries, shopfronts and community centers; and (e) Establish a PC Reuse Scheme to provide affordable refurbished computers to people on low incomes and not-for-profit community groups. The continuum of these policies will help in narrowing the divide and increase the accessibility of online planning.

Hewitt (2000) and Warschauer (2003) emphasized online planning as an exciting frontier, but technology alone is not going to get us there. What it is going to take us there is using technology as a tool to provide greater accountability, transparency and collective decision making through better and more meaningful public access to government information. Therefore online planning activities should not be focused solely on technology but be supported by it and e-participation should supplement, not substitute for traditional modes of public participation. More importantly prime attention needs to be on the development of policies and initiatives for social inclusion. As Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (2005) states, we also need to keep in mind that using technology to promote social inclusion is a productive approach in ensuring digital inclusion.

About the Author. Dr Tan Yigitcanlar is a lecturer at the School of Environmental Planning, Griffith University, Brisbane - Australia. The main focus of his research is developing online urban planning services for local government associations. It is clustered around several themes: civic engagement, community-based planning, sustainable urban development, web-based decision support systems, local e-government, urban modeling, and understanding urban structure, processes and driving forces. More information is available at his personal website: www.t-a-n.info.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002, Communication and Information Technology: Household Use of Information Technology, May 2004, www.abs.gov.au.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003, The 2001 Census: Computer and Internet Use, May 2004, www.abs.gov.au.

ACT Government, 2002, Community IT Access Plan (Canberra: Australian Capital Territory Government Chief Ministerís Department).

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2001, Bridging the Digital Divide: Refocusing on a Market-based Approach (Melbourne: Monash University Press).

Batty, M., 1998, Digital planning. In Sikdar, P., S. Dhingra and K. Rao (Eds.), Computers in urban planning and urban management, (New Delhi: Narosa).

Beder, S., 1999, Public participation or public relations? In Martin, B. (Eds.), Technology and public participation, (Wollongong: University of Wollongong), 143-158.

Blue Mountains City Council, 2004, Towards a more sustainable Blue Mountains 2000-2025. May  2004, www.ourfuturebluemtns.nsw.gov.au.

Brisbane City Council, 2005, Living in Brisbane 2010, Brisbane City Council Information.

Brody, S., D. Godschalk, and R. Burby, 2003, Mandating participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), 245-264.

Burke, E. 1979, A participatory approach to urban planning (New York: Human Science Press).

Campbell, H. and R. Marshall, 2000, Public involvement and planning: Looking beyond the one to the many. International Planning Studies, 5(3), 321-344.

Carver, S., A. Evans, R. Kingston, and I. Turton, 2001, Public participation, GIS, and cyberdemocracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 907-921.

Carver, S. 2003, The Future of Participatory Approaches Using Geographic Information: Developing a Research Agenda for the 21st Century. URISA Journal 15(1), 61-71.

Ceccato, V. and F. Snickars. 2000, Adapting GIS technology to the needs of local planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(6), 923-937.

Centre for International Research on Communication and Information Technologies. 1997, Effective Use of Online Services. Melbourne.

Centre for International Research on Communication and Information Technologies. 1999, Designing for Australiaís Online Future. Melbourne.

Craig, W., 1998, The Internet Aids Community Participation in the Planning Process. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 22(4), 393-404.

Craig, W., 2002, Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems (Taylor and Francis).

Day, D., 1997, Citizen participation in planning process: An essentially contested concept. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 421-434.

Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 2005, Digital Inclusion, May  2005, www.dcita.gov.au.

Digital Divide Network. 2003, Addressing the digital divide, May 2005, www.digitaldividenetwork.org.

De Man, E., 2003, Cultural and Institutional Conditions for Using Geographic Information. URISA Journal, 15(1), 29-33.

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, 2005, Planning information and services for NSW, May 2005, www.iplan.nsw.gov.au.

Gleeson, B. and N. Low, 2000, Australian urban planning: New challenges, new agendas. (Sydney: Allen and Unwin).

Graham, S., 2002, Bridging urban digital divides: Urban polarization and ICTs. Urban Studies, 31(1), 33-56.

Ghose, R., and W. Huxhold, 2001, Role of local contextual factors in building public participation GIS: The Milwaukee Experience. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 28(3), 195-208.

Guelph City Council, 2004, Planning, environment and transportation, May 2004, www.city.guelph.on.ca.

Herborn, P., 2003, Democratizing GIS: Progress and prospects for Australian cities. State of Australian Cities Conference Proceedings, Sydney.

Hewitt, P., 2000, Closing the digital divide: ICTs in deprived areas (London: Department of Trade and Industry).

Hoffman, D. and T. Novak, 2000, The evolution of the digital divide: Examining the relationship of race to Internet access and use over time, May 2005, www.2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/papers.html.

Huxol, J., 2001, Charlestown Openspace Prioritization Project: A Participatory Model Using the Web, May 2004, www.envstudies.brown.edu/thesis/2001/huxol.

Infoxchange, 2005, Infoxchange Australia Technology for Social Justice: Digital Divide: Bridging the Gap, May 2005, www.infoxchange.net.au/digital_divide.html.

Innes, J. and D. Booher, 2000, Public participation in planning: New strategies for the 21^st century. The annual conference of ACSP, University of California, Berkeley, November 2000.

Jankowski, P. and M. Stasik, 1997, Spatial understanding and decision support system: a prototype for public GIS. Transactions in GIS, 2(1), 73-84.

Jankowski, P., and T. Nyerges, 2001, Geographic information systems for group decision-making: Towards a participatory geographic information science (London: Taylor and Francis).

Kennard, W., 2001, Equality in the Information Age. In Compaine. B. (Eds.) The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? (London: The MIT Press).

Kingston, R., I. Turton, S. Carver, and A. Evans, 2000, Web-based public participation geographical information systems: An aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24(2), 109-125.

Kuttan, A. and L. Peters, 2003, From Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity (Maryland: Scarecrow Education). 

Leitner, H., S. Elwood, E. Sheppard, S. McMaster, and R. McMaster, 2000, Modes of GIS provision and their appropriateness for neighborhood organizations-Examples from Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. URISA Journal, 12(4), 43-56.

Local Government Management Australia, 2005, E-planning system for NSW, May 2005, www.lgma.com.au.

McGinn, M., 2001, Getting Involved in Planning (Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Development Department).

Mossberger, K., C. Tolbert, and M. Stansbury, (Eds.) 2003, Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide (Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press).

McNeal, R., 2003, The Access Divide. In Mossberger, K., C. Tolbert., and M. Stansbury, (Eds.) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide (Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press).

The National Office for the Information Economy, 2002, Advancing Australia: The Information Economy, Progress Report (Canberra: NOIE).

Norris, P., 2001, Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide, Communication, society, and politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

NSW Government, 2004, iPlan - Planning information and services for New South Wales, May 2005, www.iplan.nsw.gov.au.

Odendaal, N., 2003, ICT and Local Governance: Understanding the Difference between Cities in Developed and Emerging Economies. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(2003), 585-607.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2001, Understanding the digital divide, May 2005, www.oecd.org.

Peng, Z. and M. Tsou, 2003, Internet GIS: Distributed Geographic Information Services for the Internet and Wireless Networks (New York: Wiley).

Pickles, J., (Eds.) 1995, Ground Truth. The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems (New York: Guilford Press).

Plewe, B., 1997, GIS On-Line: Information, retrieval, mapping and the Internet (Santa Fe: On Word Press).

Riley, T., 2004, The Digital Divide and Information Sharing: Examining the Issues (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services).

The Royal Town Planning Institute, 2001, Report of the RTPI Think Tank on Modernizing Local Government (London: Opportunities for the Planning Profession).

Schiffer, M., (1995), Issues of Collaborative Spatial Decision-Support in City Planning Context. Densham, Armstrong and Kemp (Eds), Report from the Specialist Meeting on Collaborative Spatial Decision-Making, Santa Barbara, NCGIA.

Shiode, N., 2000, Urban Planning, Information Technology, and Cyberspace. Journal of Urban Technology, 7(2), 105-126.

Singh, S., 2002, A Good Practice Guide for Government Electronic Service Delivery. Communications Research Forum 2002, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Stein, P., 1998, 21^st century challenges for urban planning: The demise of environmental planning in NSW. In Gleeson, B., and P. Hanley (Eds.), Renewing Australian planning? New challenges, new agendas (Canberra: Australian National University).

Stimson, R., 2002, The digital divide: Social economic and spatial distributional issues in ICTs and implications for regional strategy. International symposium on innovation, entrepreneurship, regional development and public policy, Uddevalla, Sweden, June 2002.

Smyth, E., 2001, Would the Internet widen public participation? Master Thesis, University of Leeds.

Troy, P., 1999, Serving the city: The crisis in Australia's urban services (Sydney: Pluto Press).

Uddin, K., 2004, Public Participation Evaluation: A Conceptual Model for Evaluating Planning Advisory Committee. PIA NSW Division Conference, Wollongong, November 2004.

Van derMeer, A. and W. Van Winden, 2003, E-governance in cities: a comparison of urban ICT policies, Regional Studies, 37, 407-419.

Warschauer, M., 2003, Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide (London: The MIT Press).

Wiseman, J., 2003, Engaging citizens and communities in urban planning: Learning from recent Australian and international experiments. State of Australian Cities Conference Proceedings, Sydney.

Woodbury, B. and T. Thompson, 1999, The new digital divide, cited in Graham S. 2002, Bridging urban digital divides? Urban polarization and ICTs. Urban Studies 31(1), 33-56.

Yigitcanlar, T., 2003, Bridging the Gap between Citizens and Local authorities via E-Government. Symposium on E-Government: Opportunities and Challenges, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, May 2003.

Yigitcanlar, T., S. Baum, and R. Stimson, 2003, Analyzing the Patterns of ICT Utilization for Online Public Participatory Planning in Queensland, Australia. Assessment Journal Spring, 5-21.