Just Accepted Manuscripts
Thematic Call for papers: URBAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Jumping Off AI Anxiety and Enthusiasm Bandwagons: The Legacy of Positivism and Its Pluralist Antidotes in Planning Thought and Information Science

PDF
  • Giulia Guadagnoli
Giulia Guadagnoli
DiDA, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/contest-16165

Published 2026-01-02

Keywords

  • Positivism,
  • Pluralism,
  • Ontology,
  • Complexity,
  • Human-Computer Interaction

How to Cite

Guadagnoli, G. (2026). Jumping Off AI Anxiety and Enthusiasm Bandwagons: The Legacy of Positivism and Its Pluralist Antidotes in Planning Thought and Information Science. Contesti. Città, Territori, Progetti. https://doi.org/10.36253/contest-16165

Copyright (c) 2026 Giulia Guadagnoli

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In the last three decades, post-positivist approaches to planning theory sprung in parallel to digital applications intended as decision support systems in planning practice. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) raises expectations about the solutions to planning problems these systems may deliver. These expectations stir either anxiety or enthusiasm depending on whether one acknowledges the limitations of expert knowledge, or assumes that they rest on inadequate computing abilities. This article traces the lineage of contemporary enthusiasm about AI in planning practice back to the legacy of positivism in planning thought. Moreover, the article addresses the anxiety by showcasing pluralist challenges to positivist legacies across planning theory and information science. In this light, the paper lays the conceptual ground for planners' engagement with scholarship akin to post-positivist perspectives in information science, to foster pluralist due diligence in the use of AI applications.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Allen, P. M. 2021, Complexity: the evolution and planning of towns and cities, in Portugali, J. ed. Handbook on Cities and Complexity, Cheltenham, UK and North Hampton, USA, Edward Elgar.
  2. Allmendinger, Ph. 2002, Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory, in «Planning Theory», 1(1), pp. 77–99.
  3. Balducci, A. and Mäntysalo, R. 2013, Urban planning as a trading zone, Springer.
  4. Batty, M. 2000, Editorial, in «Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design», 27, pp. 167-168.
  5. Batty, M. 2022, The post-pandemic city: speculation through simulation, in «Cities», 124, 103594.
  6. Batty. M. and Torrens, P.M. 2001, Modeling complexity: The limits to prediction, in «UCL Working Papers Series», Paper 36 – Oct 01.
  7. Borgo, S., Galton, A., Kutz, O. 2022, Foundational ontologies in action: understanding foundational ontology through examples, in «Applied Ontology», 17, pp. 1-16.
  8. Borri, D., Camarda, D., Grassini, L. 2006, Distributed Knowledge in Environmental Planning: Hybrid IT-Based Approaches in Scenario-Building Contexts, in «Group Decision and Negotiation», 15, pp. 557–580.
  9. Brenner, N ed. 2014, Implosions/explosions: Towards a study of planetary urbanisation, Berlin: Jovis.
  10. Brenner, N. 2018, Debating planetary urbanization: For an engaged pluralism, in «Environment and Planning D: Society and Space», 36(3), pp. 570-590.
  11. Campagna, M. 2016, Metaplanning: about designing the Geodesign process, in «Landscape and Urban Planning», 156, pp. 118-128.
  12. Casati, R., and Varzi, A. C. 1999, Parts and places: The structures of spatial representation, MIT press.
  13. Couclelis, H. 1983, Some second thoughts about theory in the social sciences, in «Geographical Analysis»,15(1), pp. 28-33.
  14. Davoudi, S. 2012, The Legacy of Positivism and the Emergence of Interpretive Tradition in Spatial Planning, in «Regional Studies», 46(4), pp. 429-441.
  15. Fainstein S. S. 2000, New directions in planning theory, in «Urban Affairs Review», 35(4), pp. 451-478.
  16. Ferrario, R. 2006, Who Cares about Axiomatization? Representation, Invariance, and Formal Ontologies, in «Epistemologia», 2, pp. 323-342.
  17. Friedmann, J. 1987, Two Centuries of Planning Theory, in Id., Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 51-85.
  18. Gaio, S., Borgo, S., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Guarino, N. 2010, Un'introduzione all'ontologia DOLCE, in «AIDAinformazioni», 28 (1-2), pp. 107-125.
  19. Gil, R. ed. 2020, City information modelling: digital planning for sustainable cities, in «Built Environment, 46 (4).
  20. Geertman, S., and Stillwell, J. 2004, Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice, in «Computers, Environment and Urban Systems», 28(4), pp. 291-310.
  21. Guarino N. 1998, Formal Ontology and Information Systems, in Id., ed. Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS’98), Amsterdam, Trento: IOS Press, pp. 3–15.
  22. Guarino, N., and Guizzardi, G. 2006, In the defense of ontological foundations for conceptual modeling, in «Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems», 18(1), pp. 115-126.
  23. Healey P. 1997, Traditions of planning thought, in Id., Collaborative Planning, Palgrave, London, pp. 7-30.
  24. Jiang, H., Geertman, S., Witte, P. 2020, Avoiding the planning support system pitfalls? What smart governance can learn from the planning support system implementation gap, in «Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science», 47(8), pp. 1343-1360.
  25. Lim, Th. C. 05 Feb 2025, Words and Meaning in 2024, in «Planning Theory & Practice».
  26. Lindblom, C. E. 1959, The science of muddling through, in «Public Administration Review», 19(2), pp. 79-88.
  27. Pelzer, P., Geertman, S., van der Heijden, R. 2015, Knowledge in communicative planning practice: a different perspective for planning support systems, in «Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design», 42, pp. 638 – 651.
  28. Portugali, J. ed. 2021, Handbook on Cities and Complexity, Cheltenham, UK and North Hampton, USA, Edward Elgar.
  29. Schmid, C. 2018, Journeys through planetary urbanization: decentering perspectives on the urban, in «Environment and Planning D: Society and Space», 36(3), pp. 591-610.
  30. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
  31. Varzi, A. C. 2019, Carnapian engineering, in S. Borgo, R. Ferrario, C. Masolo, and L. Vieu eds., Ontology Makes Sense. Essays in Honor of Nicola Guarino, Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp. 3–23.
  32. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. The Falmer Press.
  33. Yiftachel, O. 1989, Towards a new typology of urban planning theories, in «Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design», 16, pp. 23-39.