Chapter 41: Urban Planning Applications

Chapter Overview

Urban planning shapes the built environment: where housing is built, how people move, what services are accessible, and who benefits from development. Community Mapping provides planners with tools to ground these decisions in community knowledge, spatial evidence, and equity analysis. This chapter examines how Community Mapping supports comprehensive plans, zoning reform, transportation networks, public realm design, climate adaptation, tactical urbanism, and equitable planning processes.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

Explain how Community Mapping informs comprehensive municipal planning
Apply Community Mapping to zoning and land use analysis
Identify transportation planning applications of spatial community data
Evaluate public realm mapping for walkability and accessibility
Recognize how Community Mapping supports climate resilience planning
Articulate equity principles in planning applications of Community Mapping
Apply Community Mapping to tactical urbanism and incremental interventions

Key Terms

Comprehensive Plan: Long-range municipal planning document that guides growth, land use, infrastructure, and service delivery over 10-25 years.
Zoning: Legal framework that regulates land use, building form, density, and permitted activities by geographic zone.
Complete Streets: Streets designed for all users — pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers — not just automobiles.
Tactical Urbanism: Small-scale, often temporary interventions that improve public spaces, test design concepts, or demonstrate community priorities.

41.1 The Planner's Toolkit

Urban planners operate at the intersection of policy, design, and politics. They must balance competing interests: property owners and renters, developers and residents, drivers and pedestrians, growth and preservation. They work within legal frameworks (zoning bylaws, provincial policy, federal regulation) while responding to community needs, market pressures, and political priorities.

Community Mapping gives planners a structured way to bring evidence and community voice into this complex environment. Without spatial data, planning often defaults to abstract principles, political pressure, or the loudest voices in the room. With Community Mapping, planners can ground decisions in observable patterns: where people live, where services exist, where accessibility is poor, and where community priorities lie.

Planners use Community Mapping across scales. At the regional scale, they map growth corridors, transit networks, watershed boundaries, and employment centres to coordinate infrastructure and land use policy across municipalities. At the municipal scale, they map neighborhoods, housing types, commercial zones, parks, and institutional anchors to inform comprehensive plans and capital budgets. At the neighborhood scale, they map pedestrian networks, parking supply, tree canopy, building conditions, and community assets to guide local area plans or public realm improvements.

The tools vary with the scale and purpose. Regional planners often work with census data, satellite imagery, and modeled projections. Neighborhood planners supplement quantitative data with walking audits, resident workshops, and participatory mapping sessions. The best planning integrates both: the rigor of data analysis and the nuance of lived experience.

But planners must also reckon with the limits of their authority. In most jurisdictions, planners advise, recommend, and implement — but elected officials make final decisions on land use, budgets, and policy. Community Mapping can surface inequities, identify gaps, and document community priorities — but it cannot force action. Planners who hope to use Community Mapping effectively must understand the political context in which they work and build coalitions strong enough to turn evidence into policy.

Jane Jacobs (1961) famously challenged top-down urban planning that ignored how neighborhoods actually functioned. Her critique remains relevant: planners armed with data but disconnected from community knowledge risk producing plans that look rational on paper but fail in practice. Community Mapping, done well, bridges this gap.

41.2 Comprehensive Plans

A comprehensive plan (also called an official plan, general plan, or master plan depending on jurisdiction) is the long-range vision document that guides municipal growth and development. It sets out policies on land use, housing, transportation, environment, economic development, parks, and public services — typically over a 10- to 25-year horizon.

Community Mapping is foundational to comprehensive planning. Before planners can say where the city should grow, they must map where it is now: existing land use, housing types, population density, employment centres, transit networks, parks, schools, and service infrastructure. They must also map needs and gaps: where housing is unaffordable, where transit is inadequate, where services are absent, where environmental risks are high.

A comprehensive plan grounded in Community Mapping begins with a baseline inventory. Planners map existing conditions across multiple dimensions: demographics (age, household size, income, language), housing stock (single-family, apartments, condition, tenure), employment (job density, major employers, commute patterns), services (schools, healthcare, community centres), infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, transit), and environment (green space, watercourses, hazard zones).

This baseline is not neutral documentation. What gets mapped shapes what gets discussed. A baseline inventory that includes social assets (volunteer networks, cultural organizations, mutual aid groups) frames the community differently than one limited to municipal infrastructure. A housing analysis that maps eviction rates and rental affordability alongside property values and building permits tells a different story than one focused only on supply.

From the baseline, planners project future scenarios. Community Mapping supports scenario modeling: if population grows by 20,000 over the next decade, where should new housing go? How much park space will be needed? Can the transit system handle increased demand? Spatial modeling combined with community input helps planners test options before committing to one path.

Comprehensive plans also establish policy frameworks that are inherently spatial. A policy requiring new development within 800 meters of transit relies on mapping transit stops and walkable catchment areas. A policy protecting agricultural land requires mapping soil capability and existing farm operations. A policy promoting 15-minute neighborhoods requires mapping service proximity and pedestrian accessibility.

Effective comprehensive planning is participatory. Planners who map at communities without involving residents produce plans that reflect official data but miss local knowledge and priorities. Best practice includes public workshops where residents identify assets and needs on maps, walking tours that ground planning discussions in observable conditions, and iterative review where draft maps are validated by those who live in the places being planned.

41.3 Zoning and Land Use

Zoning is the legal mechanism that implements the comprehensive plan. It divides the municipality into zones (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, etc.) and establishes rules for each zone: what land uses are permitted, what building forms are allowed, what density is acceptable, and what procedures govern change.

Community Mapping reveals how zoning shapes — and sometimes distorts — community life. A map showing single-family zoning covering 70% of residential land while multi-family housing is limited to a few high-density corridors makes visible the spatial logic of housing scarcity and exclusion. A map showing that food retailers are prohibited by zoning in low-income neighborhoods while permitted in wealthier areas documents structural barriers to food access.

Planners use Community Mapping to analyze zoning mismatches: places where the zoned use conflicts with community need. A neighborhood zoned for low-density single-family homes but experiencing demographic aging may need zoning reform to allow accessory dwelling units, duplexes, or small apartment buildings so seniors can age in place and younger households can afford to live there. A commercial corridor zoned for auto-oriented retail but located on a transit line may benefit from zoning that permits mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development.

Community Mapping also supports inclusionary zoning analysis. Inclusionary zoning requires or incentivizes affordable housing in new developments. Effective inclusionary policy depends on spatial targeting: which zones, which neighborhoods, which transit corridors? Mapping housing costs, income levels, displacement risk, and transit access helps planners design inclusionary rules that produce affordable housing where it is most needed (see Chapter 16 for housing vulnerability analysis).

Zoning reform — especially upzoning to allow greater density or mixed use — is politically contentious. Opponents often invoke neighborhood character, parking, or property values. Community Mapping provides evidence to support or challenge these claims. A map showing that existing multi-family buildings are well-integrated into a neighborhood's fabric counters claims that apartments will destroy character. A map showing that a neighborhood near transit has lower car ownership than distant suburbs challenges parking requirements designed for auto-dependent contexts.

But mapping alone does not win zoning fights. Planners must pair evidence with inclusive engagement processes that give residents meaningful voice in how their neighborhoods evolve — without allowing exclusionary opposition to veto housing or community needs (Chapter 35 discusses governance tensions in planning).

41.4 Transportation Planning

Transportation systems shape who can access jobs, services, education, and community life. Community Mapping is central to transportation planning because mobility is inherently spatial: where people live, where they need to go, and what routes connect them.

Planners map transit networks to analyze coverage, frequency, and accessibility. A 400-meter walk-shed map around every bus stop shows where transit is accessible on foot. An isochrone map showing travel time by transit from a low-income neighborhood to major employment centres reveals whether transit is a viable option or whether residents are forced into car ownership they cannot afford. A service-frequency map distinguishes between transit that comes every 10 minutes (usable for daily commuting) and transit that comes every hour (useful only for planned trips).

Community Mapping also supports pedestrian and cycling infrastructure planning. Walkability audits — often conducted by residents, youth, or accessibility advocates — map sidewalk conditions, crosswalk safety, lighting, street trees, and obstacles. Cycling network analysis maps existing bike lanes, identifies gaps, and prioritizes corridors based on demand, safety, and connectivity. Kevin Lynch's concept of legibility (1960) — the clarity with which people can read and navigate a city — reminds planners that infrastructure alone is insufficient; networks must be coherent, continuous, and intuitive.

Complete Streets frameworks integrate Community Mapping to shift street design from automobile-first to multi-modal. A complete street accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and cars — with priority given to the most vulnerable users. Community Mapping identifies where streets fail this standard: arterial roads with no sidewalks, intersections with long crossing distances, commercial streets with no bike infrastructure. Jeff Speck's Walkable City principles emphasize that streets must be safe, comfortable, and interesting — all qualities that can be mapped and measured.

Transportation equity mapping overlays transportation access with demographic vulnerability. A map showing that low-income neighborhoods, racialized communities, or seniors have longer commute times, poorer transit access, or more dangerous pedestrian conditions documents structural inequity. Planners can use this evidence to prioritize investment in underserved areas (see Chapter 15 on equity mapping).

Finally, transportation planning increasingly addresses car dependence and climate. Community Mapping shows the spatial mismatch between jobs and affordable housing, revealing why people drive long distances. It maps parking supply, showing where excessive parking consumes land that could support housing or green space. And it models emissions by zone, identifying neighborhoods where transit investment or land use intensification would reduce greenhouse gas production.

41.5 Public-Realm Mapping

The public realm — streets, sidewalks, parks, squares, trails, and civic spaces — is where community life happens outside private property. Urban planners increasingly recognize that the quality of public space shapes social cohesion, physical activity, mental health, economic vitality, and civic engagement.

Community Mapping documents the public realm's spatial distribution and quality. Planners map park access: how many residents live within a 10-minute walk of a public park? Are park-poor areas correlated with low-income neighborhoods, racialized communities, or aging populations? Is the distribution equitable?

But access is not the same as quality. Community Mapping also assesses public space quality through walking audits, observational studies, and resident workshops. What parks have play structures, sports facilities, washrooms, seating, shade? Which parks feel safe? Which are poorly maintained, difficult to access, or dominated by activities that exclude certain users? Qualitative mapping ensures that a neighborhood with a park on paper is not assumed to have met public space needs if that park is unsafe, inaccessible, or unwelcoming.

Planners also map streetscape quality: width of sidewalks, presence of street trees, condition of pavement, density of street furniture (benches, bike racks, waste bins), lighting, and visual interest (building facades, shop windows, public art). These elements determine whether streets feel comfortable, safe, and inviting — or hostile and mono-functional.

Placemaking — the practice of designing public spaces that foster belonging, activity, and social interaction — relies heavily on Community Mapping. Before redesigning a plaza or street, planners map how the space is currently used: pedestrian flows, gathering spots, times of peak activity, user demographics, conflicts (e.g., cyclists and pedestrians competing for narrow space). Participatory mapping exercises ask residents what they value, what they avoid, and what changes they want.

The equity dimension matters here, too. Whose public space gets investment? Planners must ask whether new parks, streetscape improvements, or public art projects are distributed equitably or whether they concentrate in wealthier, whiter, or more politically organized neighborhoods. Community Mapping that overlays public realm investment with demographic vulnerability reveals patterns of spatial injustice — and supports more equitable allocation.

41.6 Resilience and Climate Adaptation

Cities face climate risks: flooding, extreme heat, wildfires, storms, sea-level rise, and drought. Urban planners must integrate climate adaptation into land use, infrastructure, and public space decisions. Community Mapping is essential to this work because climate risks are spatially distributed, and vulnerability is uneven.

Planners map hazard zones: floodplains, wildfire interface areas, coastal erosion zones, landslide risk areas. These maps inform land use policy (restrict development in high-risk zones), building standards (require flood-proofing or fire-resistant materials), and emergency planning (identify evacuation routes and shelter locations).

But hazard alone does not determine risk. Vulnerability mapping adds demographic and social dimensions: who lives in hazard zones? Do they have resources to evacuate, recover, or adapt? A flood zone inhabited by wealthy homeowners with insurance and social networks presents different planning challenges than a flood zone inhabited by low-income renters with limited mobility and precarious housing (Chapter 14 covers vulnerability mapping in depth).

Heat vulnerability mapping has become a critical planning tool as urban heat islands intensify. Planners combine surface temperature data (often from satellite imagery) with demographic data (age, income, social isolation) and built environment factors (tree canopy, building materials, air conditioning prevalence). The resulting maps show where heat risk is highest and guide targeted interventions: street tree planting, cool-surface materials, shade structures, and cooling centres.

Climate adaptation planning also involves mapping green infrastructure: existing parks, street trees, urban forests, wetlands, and permeable surfaces that absorb stormwater, reduce heat, and sequester carbon. A map showing tree canopy coverage by neighborhood often reveals inequity: wealthier areas have mature tree canopy while low-income neighborhoods are heat islands with minimal green cover. Planners use this evidence to prioritize tree planting and green infrastructure investment.

Resilience planning increasingly emphasizes community assets alongside physical infrastructure. A neighborhood with strong social networks, community organizations, and mutual aid capacity is more resilient than one that is socially fragmented — even if both face the same physical hazard. Mapping social infrastructure (community centres, faith organizations, volunteer networks) alongside climate risk supports integrated resilience planning.

Donovan Rypkema's work on heritage planning intersects with climate resilience: older buildings often have adaptive reuse potential, embodied carbon advantages, and cultural significance. Mapping heritage assets within climate risk zones helps planners balance preservation and adaptation rather than defaulting to demolition.

41.7 Equity in Urban Planning

Planning has a legacy of harm. Urban renewal destroyed low-income and racialized neighborhoods. Highway construction displaced communities. Exclusionary zoning entrenched segregation. Planners today must reckon with this history and commit to equity-centered practice.

Community Mapping supports planning equity when it is used to document disparities, center marginalized voices, and guide resource allocation toward those most in need. Chapter 15 introduced equity mapping principles; this section applies them to planning contexts.

Spatial equity analysis overlays service access, infrastructure quality, environmental hazards, and investment patterns with demographic data on race, income, disability, and language. A map showing that park investment concentrates in high-income neighborhoods while low-income neighborhoods have aging infrastructure and environmental hazards documents structural inequity. A transportation map showing that racialized neighborhoods have longer commute times and poorer transit access reveals how planning decisions have produced unequal mobility.

But equity mapping must not stop at documentation. The test is whether findings lead to redistributive action: Do budgets shift toward underserved areas? Do policies change to prevent future harm? Are affected communities given decision-making power?

Jennifer Keesmaat, former Chief Planner of Toronto, emphasizes that equity in planning requires both technical rigor and political courage. Planners can map inequity clearly, but changing policy requires confronting entrenched interests, challenging exclusionary neighborhood opposition, and building coalitions with affected communities. Community Mapping provides evidence, but organizing provides power.

Equity-centered planning also interrogates who benefits from development. A rezoning that allows market-rate housing in a low-income neighborhood may displace existing residents through rent increases and cultural change. Community Mapping can model displacement risk, identify vulnerable populations, and support policies (inclusionary zoning, anti-displacement measures, community land trusts) that ensure existing residents benefit from growth rather than being pushed out.

Finally, equity planning requires procedural justice: Who is invited to participate in planning processes? Are meetings accessible by transit, at accessible times, in multiple languages? Are engagement methods inclusive of people with disabilities, newcomers, youth, and elders? Community Mapping of demographic diversity should inform engagement design so participation reflects the community's full diversity, not just homeowners or those with flexible schedules.

41.8 Tactical Urbanism

Tactical urbanism — also called DIY urbanism, pop-up urbanism, or guerrilla urbanism — uses low-cost, temporary interventions to improve public spaces, test design concepts, or demonstrate community priorities. Examples include painted crosswalks, parklets (seating platforms built over parking spaces), temporary bike lanes, community murals, and pop-up parks.

Community Mapping supports tactical urbanism by identifying intervention sites: Where are public spaces underused, unsafe, or car-dominated? Where do residents want change? Where can a small intervention have outsized impact? A map showing a dangerous intersection with high pedestrian traffic and frequent collisions makes the case for a tactical intervention like curb extensions or a painted crosswalk.

Tactical urbanism is often framed as a testing ground for permanent change. A temporary bike lane painted on a street demonstrates demand and feasibility before committing to capital investment. A pop-up park on a vacant lot shows how the community would use green space and builds support for permanent park development. Community Mapping documents the before state, tracks usage during the intervention, and evaluates outcomes to inform permanent design.

Mike Lydon and Anthony Garcia's work on tactical urbanism emphasizes that these interventions work best when they emerge from community priorities, involve residents in design and implementation, and are supported (or at least tolerated) by municipal government. Unsanctioned interventions risk removal, fines, or conflict. Municipally sanctioned tactical urbanism provides a legitimate pathway for community action while giving planners a tool to test ideas quickly and inexpensively.

But tactical urbanism has equity risks. If temporary interventions concentrate in wealthier, more organized, or whiter neighborhoods, they reinforce spatial inequality rather than challenging it. Planners must ensure that tactical urbanism opportunities are distributed equitably and that residents in marginalized neighborhoods have the resources, permissions, and support to lead their own interventions.

Community Mapping helps avoid this trap by tracking where tactical projects happen, who leads them, and who benefits. A map showing that all tactical urbanism projects over five years occurred in high-income neighborhoods is a red flag that requires policy change: targeted funding, streamlined approvals, or capacity-building support for underserved communities.

41.9 Working with Municipal Staff

Urban planning does not happen in a vacuum. Planners work alongside municipal staff in engineering, public works, parks and recreation, economic development, and bylaw enforcement. Community Mapping is most effective when it is a shared tool across departments.

But municipal silos are real. Engineers prioritize traffic flow. Parks staff prioritize maintenance budgets. Bylaw officers prioritize compliance. Planners prioritize long-term vision. These different mandates can produce conflict: a planner proposes narrowing a street to improve walkability; an engineer objects that it will slow traffic; a parks department worries about maintenance costs.

Community Mapping can help bridge these silos by providing a shared evidence base. A map showing pedestrian collision rates, walking volumes, transit ridership, and community priorities provides common ground for discussion. It does not eliminate disagreement, but it shifts debate from opinion to evidence.

Effective planning also requires understanding how municipal staff receive community input. Some staff are open, collaborative, and hungry for resident knowledge. Others are defensive, dismissive, or overwhelmed. Some see community engagement as a requirement to check off rather than a source of insight. Planners who want to embed Community Mapping in municipal practice must build trust with staff, demonstrate value, and integrate mapping into existing workflows rather than adding it as extra work.

Community Mapping also reveals when municipal systems are ignoring community input. A map showing that resident concerns about a dangerous intersection were raised in five consecutive years of public consultations but never acted upon documents a failure of responsiveness. This evidence can support advocacy for procedural change: clearer timelines, public tracking of issues, and accountability mechanisms.

Finally, planners must be honest about the limits of municipal authority. Some issues that Community Mapping reveals — poverty, systemic racism, housing unaffordability, inadequate social services — require provincial, federal, or structural change that municipalities cannot deliver alone. Planners can document these issues, advocate for change, and coordinate local responses, but they cannot solve them unilaterally. Recognizing this limit prevents burnout and helps communities direct their energy toward the right levers of change.

41.10 Synthesis and Implications

Urban planning shapes the built environment, and the built environment shapes how people live. Community Mapping gives planners tools to ground decisions in spatial evidence, community knowledge, and equity analysis. But mapping alone does not produce good planning. It must be paired with inclusive engagement, political courage, and long-term commitment.

The core insights from this chapter:

1. Community Mapping makes planning legible. Maps translate complex data into accessible visuals, helping residents, decision-makers, and staff understand patterns, gaps, and possibilities.

2. Planning is inherently political. Zoning, land use, transportation, and public space decisions allocate resources, privilege some uses over others, and shape who thrives. Community Mapping does not eliminate politics, but it provides evidence that can shift debates toward equity and accountability.

3. Equity requires intentional action. Mapping disparities is necessary but insufficient. The test is whether findings lead to redistributive policy, investment in underserved areas, and power-sharing with affected communities.

4. Participation must be authentic. Planners who map at communities without involving residents produce plans that miss local knowledge and priorities. Best practice includes residents in defining questions, validating findings, and shaping recommendations.

5. Planning is ongoing, not one-time. Comprehensive plans may have 20-year horizons, but communities change faster than that. Community Mapping must be maintained, updated, and responsive — not frozen at the moment of plan adoption.

6. Collaboration across departments matters. Planning works best when it is a shared practice across municipal silos, supported by common evidence and aligned goals.

7. Tactical interventions test ideas. Small-scale, temporary projects allow communities and planners to experiment, learn, and build support for permanent change.

Looking forward, planners must integrate Community Mapping into standard practice — not as an optional add-on, but as foundational to understanding the places they plan. They must also confront the structural barriers that limit planning's impact: inadequate funding, provincial overrides, developer influence, and political resistance to equity-centered change. Community Mapping provides evidence and tools, but systemic change requires organizing, advocacy, and political will.

41.11 Plan-Comment Workshop

Purpose: Apply Community Mapping evidence to write substantive public comments on a municipal zoning bylaw or comprehensive plan, practicing the planner-as-advocate role.

Materials Needed:

Access to a real municipal zoning bylaw or comprehensive plan (available via municipal website)
Community Mapping data from prior coursework or provided datasets (demographics, housing, transit, services, parks, hazards)
GIS software or printed base maps
Writing materials

Steps:

Select a document to review. Choose a zoning bylaw amendment, official plan update, neighborhood plan, or other planning document currently under public consultation in a municipality you can research.
Map the affected area. Identify the geographic scope of the plan or bylaw change. Create or use an existing base map.
Conduct spatial analysis. Using available Community Mapping data, analyze:
- Who lives in the affected area? (demographics: age, income, household type, tenure)
- What services and assets exist? (transit, parks, schools, community organizations)
- What needs or gaps are present? (housing affordability, service deserts, hazards)
- How does the proposed change interact with these patterns?
Identify equity implications. Will the proposed change benefit or harm vulnerable populations? Does it address documented gaps or worsen disparities? Does it align with community priorities?
Draft your comments. Write a structured public comment (500-750 words) that:
- Identifies yourself and your interest in the plan
- Summarizes the spatial evidence you analyzed
- States your position (support, oppose, or support with conditions)
- Provides specific recommendations grounded in Community Mapping findings
- Cites relevant policy frameworks (e.g., equity goals in the comprehensive plan, provincial policy, best practices)
Peer review. Exchange comments with a classmate. Provide feedback on clarity, evidence quality, and persuasiveness.
Reflect. Write a 1-page reflection on the experience. What did you learn about translating Community Mapping into policy advocacy? What was challenging? What would make your comment more effective?

Deliverable: A formal public comment document (500-750 words) plus a 1-page reflection and supporting maps or data visualizations.

Time Estimate: 3-4 hours (including research, analysis, writing, and peer review)

Safety and Ethics Notes: Use publicly available data only. Do not identify individuals or households. If the planning document involves contentious issues (e.g., displacement risk, racialized neighborhoods), approach the exercise with humility and consult with affected communities if possible. Acknowledge the limits of outsider analysis.

Extension Option: If the planning document is genuinely under consultation and the deadline permits, consider submitting your comment to the municipality and reporting back to the class on the outcome.

Key Takeaways

Community Mapping supports urban planning by grounding decisions in spatial evidence, community knowledge, and equity analysis.
Planners use Community Mapping across scales and purposes: comprehensive plans, zoning reform, transportation networks, public realm design, and climate adaptation.
Equity in planning requires mapping disparities, redistributing resources toward underserved areas, and centering marginalized voices in decision-making.
Tactical urbanism uses temporary interventions to test design concepts and demonstrate community priorities before committing to permanent change.
Effective planning requires authentic participation, collaboration across municipal departments, and political courage to challenge exclusionary norms.
Community Mapping provides evidence, but translating evidence into policy requires organizing, advocacy, and sustained engagement with decision-makers.

Plain-Language Summary

Urban planning decides where housing gets built, how people move around, what public spaces exist, and who benefits from city growth. Community Mapping helps planners make these decisions based on real evidence: where people live, what services they need, where gaps exist, and what communities want.

Planners use Community Mapping to write long-range plans, change zoning rules, design streets and parks, prepare for climate risks, and make cities more fair. Good planning involves residents in mapping their own neighborhoods, listens to their priorities, and directs resources toward places that have been left out.

But mapping alone doesn't change cities. Planners also need political courage to challenge bad policies, money to invest in underserved neighborhoods, and partnerships with communities to turn plans into action. Community Mapping is a tool — powerful, but only as good as the people who use it and the systems willing to act on what it shows.

End of Chapter 41.

Chapter 41. Urban Planning Applications