Search for: All records

Socio-Ecological System modelling projects are becoming increasingly complicated, with multiple actors and aspects being the norm. Such projects can cause problems for the modellers when this involves different elements, goals, philosophies, etc., all pulling in different directions – we call this “Chimaera Modelling.” Although such situations are common when you talk to modellers, they do not seem to be explicitly discussed in the literature. In this paper, we attempt to turn this perceived “inside” phenomenon into an “outside” phenomenon and to start a debate to increase transparency among the modelling community. We discuss the different aspects which may be relevant to this problem to start this debate, including: the underlying philosophy, modelling goals, extent of choice the modellers have, different stages of modelling, and kinds of actors that are involved. We further map out some of the dimensions with which Chimaera Modelling connects. We briefly discuss these and propose to the community as a whole to work on their methodological development, feasibility, risks and applicability as their resolution is far beyond the scope of this paper. We end with a brief description of the broad possible approaches to such situations. Our main message is a call for recognition of Chimaera Modelling as a likely side-effect of multi-stakeholder, multi-purpose projects, and to take this into account proactively at the project team level and be transparent about the tensions and contradictions that underly such modelling. 

Over the past several decades, urban planning has considered a variety of advanced analysis methods with greater and lesser degrees of adoption. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is probably the most notable, with others such as database management systems (DBMS), decision support systems (DSS), planning support systems (PSS), and expert systems (ES), having mixed levels of recognition and acceptance (Kontokosta, C. E. (2021). Urban informatics in the science and practice of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(4), 382–395. doi:10.1177/0739456X18793716; Yigitcanlar, T., Desouza, K. C., Butler, L., & Roozkhosh, F. (2020). Contributions and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in building smarter cities: Insights from a systematic review of the literature. Energies, 13(6), 1473). Advances in information technologies have moved very slowly in the field of urban planning, more recently concerning ‘smart city’ technologies while revolutionizing other domains, such as consumer goods and services. Baidu, Amazon, Netflix, Google, and many others are using these technologies to gain insights into consumer behaviour and characteristics and improve supply chains and logistics. This is an opportune time for urban planners to consider the application of AI-related techniques given vast increases in data availability, increased processing speeds, and increased popularity and development of planning related applications. Research on these topics by urban planning scholars has increased over the past few years, but there is little evidence to suggest that the results are making it into the hands of professional planners (Batty, M. (2018). Artificial intelligence and smart cities. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(1), 3–6; Batty, M. (2021). Planning education in the digital age. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(2), 207–211). Others encourage planners to leverage the ubiquity of data and advances in computing to enhance redistributive justice in information resources and procedural justice in decision-making among marginalized communities (Boeing, G., Besbris, M., Schachter, A., & Kuk, J. (2020). Housing search in the Age of Big data: Smarter cities or the same Old blind spots? Housing Policy Debate, 31(1), 112–126; Goodspeed, R. (2015). Smart cities: Moving beyond urban cybernetics to tackle wicked problems. Cambridge journal of regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 79–92). This article highlights findings from a recent literature review on AI in planning and discusses the results of a national survey of urban planners about their perspectives on AI adoption and concerns they have expressed about its broader use in the profession. Currently, the outlook is mixed, matching how urban planners initially viewed the early stages of computer adoption within the profession. And yet today, personal computers are essential to any job.