Cesar working document 5 a planner's perspective of pss

CESAR WORKING DOCUMENT SERIES Working document no.5

A Planner’s perspective of PSS New insights about the role of knowledge and the planning context.

Peter Pelzer 13 April 2014

This working document series is a joint initiative of the University of Amsterdam, Utrecht University, Wageningen University and

Research centre and TNO

The research that is presented in this series is financed by the NWO program on Sustainable Accessibility of the Randstad: http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/nwoa_79vlym_eng

CESAR Working Document Series no. 4 Instrumenten in het Planproces Abstract: This paper gains insight into the improvement of knowledge use in spatial planning through the application of Planning Support Systems (PSS). It starts from the observation that several geo-‐ICT tools have been developed for this purpose, but its use is lagging behind. Studies aiming to explain this underutilization point at the importance to take a planners’ perspective rather than an instrumental perspective, but use generic models of technology acceptance, mutual learning and knowledge diffusion. This paper fills this omission by focusing explicitly on the role of knowledge in spatial planning. In doing so, the paper will first outline a conceptual framework describing the debate about PSS and knowledge in planning. A distinction is made between two knowledge characteristics (forms, claims) and four knowledge uses (instrumental, symbolic, conceptual, interactive). The framework is empirically analyzed through a literature review of a set of recent PSS case studies. It is found that most PSS applications still strongly focus on instrumental knowledge use, conceptual knowledge use is gaining more and more attention, symbolic knowledge use is hardly observed, and interactive knowledge use only occurs within expert settings. The findings indicate that there is much more potential for PSS to improve knowledge use. For instance, by aiding ‘storytelling’, being more sensitive to the background of actors involved, and more explicitly making learning and enlightenment an aim of the planning process. More research is needed, however, particular into PSS use in existing planning situations. 1.Introduction Since the ‘communicative turn’ in spatial planning, strong emphasis has been placed on the collaborative, interactive, communicative and participatory nature of spatial planning (e.g. Healey, 1992; 2007; Innes, 1998; Innes and Booher, 2010). Post-‐modernist approaches dominate the debate; a ‘new orthodoxy [that] clusters around the idea that the core of planning should be an engagement with a range of stakeholders, giving them voice and seeking to achieve a planning consensus.’ (Rydin, 2007, p.54). However, this approach has also lead to relativism and appreciation of any statement relating to a planning topic. In the words of geinformation-‐researchers Deal and Pallathucheril (2008, p.61): ‘In recent years, community visioning exercises have been increasingly used (…) but those activities are rarely grounded in data or deep analysis; sometimes they amount to little more than wishful thinking.’

From this perspective, scientific knowledge about for instance land use, the environment and regional economics is underutilized, leading to possible sub-‐optimal planning interventions. This paper argues that knowledge should play a more dominant role in spatial planning. It is argued that dedicated ‘knowledge technologies’ (Gudmundsson, 2011), could play a role in this development. It is hypothesized that particularly geo-‐ICT tools specifically designed for spatial planning, often captured under the header of Planning Support Systems (from now on: PSS), could play a crucial role in bridging modernist and post-‐modernist approaches to planning by including analytical and process-‐oriented approaches. PSS are ‘…geoinformation technology-‐based instruments that incorporate a suite of components that collectively support some specific parts of a unique professional planning task’ (Geertman 2008, p.217). Despite enormous technological advancements and the specific focus on supporting planning activities, its use in planning practice has been lagging behind (Vonk, 2006, te Brömmelstroet, 2010), arguably due to a lack of technological acceptance in planning (Vonk, 2006) and an overly scientific and instrumental focus (Te Brömmelstroet, 2010). What has hardly been done, however, is to start from a planning perspective to analyze the potential of PSS (for notable exceptions see Carton 2007; Geertman, 2006; te Brömmelstroet 2010). This paper starts from the debate about knowledge use in spatial planning to evaluate the potential of PSS in practice. The key strength of PSS is its sensitivity to both the process of planning (by specifically supporting tasks) and the content (by providing scientifically sound insights). Moreover, recent developments in participatory GIS (Geertman, 2002; Kahila and Kyttä, 2009) show that PSS also have the potential to align with the proposed collaborative and bottom-‐up nature of planning which has became increasingly popular over the last decaded (Healey, 2007; Innes, 1998). The implications for spatial planning are sketched by Klosterman (2009, iv):‘(….) the development of PSS can be seen as part of a larger effort to return the planning profession to its

CESAR Working Document Series no. 5 A Planner’s perspective of PSS

Page 3

traditional concern with using information and analysis to more effectively engage the future’. This paper builds upon this remark and argues that PSS could function as a bridge between varying practical and theoretical approaches to planning. Hence, it aims to answer the following question: What are the potentials of PSS to improve the use of knowledge in planning? In answering this question, the paper is structured as follows. Section two will briefly review the PSS literature, focusing in particular on the planning context in which the tool is embedded. Subsequently, section three will develop a theoretical framework in which the most important components of the debate about knowledge in planning will be outlined. This section will describe the characteristics of knowledge in planning and the different ways in which knowledge can be used. In section four the conceptual framework from section two and three will be used to analyze the state of the art in PSS. It will be evaluated to what extent different characteristics and uses can be found in PSS case studies and how this can be understood. Based on these findings, section five will relate these findings to the contingencies of the planning context and deduce a set of potentials to improve knowledge use through PSS. The paper will end with a set of conclusions and reflections.

2. PSS in planning practice With lessons learned from Lee’s (1973, also Lee 1994) devastating critique on urban models in the 1970s and accompanied by the growing use and possibilities of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), in the 1990s a set of knowledge technologies specifically suited for spatial planning which become later known as PSS were developed (Stillwell et al., 1999). In several edited volumes (Brail and Klosterman, 2001; Brail, 2008; Geertman and Stillwell, 2003; 2009) the characteristics, application and alleged virtues of a range of PSS such as WhatIf? (Klosterman 1997; 2008), LEAM (Deal and Pallatucheril, 2008; 2009), UrbanSim (Waddell et al., 2008, 2011), CommunityViz (Janes and Kwartler, 2008), and the Land Use Scanner (Koomen and Borsboom-‐van Beurden, 2011; Van der Hoeven et al., 2009) were sketched. However, while the instrumental capacities from most PSS are impressive, use in practice is lagging behind. Therefore, a set of recent studies have shifted their focus to the question why PSS are so infrequently used in planning practice and how this could be improved (te Brömmelstroet, 2010; Geertman, 2008; Vonk, 2006). Vonk (2006) focused on the extent to which organizations accept and adapt to a technology like PSS. The use of PSS in practice should be addressed as a diffusion process for which several bottlenecks such as a lack of awareness and recognition of the value of PSS have to be taken away in order to increase PSS use. Vonk’s (2006) study shed important new light on possibilities to increase the use of PSS, which is not just about improving instrumental characteristics, but also about organizational adoption and carefully tailoring to the needs of varying planning actors. Geertman (2006) complemented these insights by providing an overview of the contingent factors that influence the potential role of information, knowledge and instruments in planning practice (see Figure 1). As among others te Brömmelstroet (2010) has shown, the users or actors involved steer the role of PSS. Spatial planners and transport planners, for instance, tend to have very different working habits, skills and perceptions, making universal application of PSS problematic (te Brömmelstroet, 2010). A barrier that is related to the educational background and prior experience with technology of the actors involved (Vonk, 2006). The same argument goes when local and expert knowledge are combined, for instance through the application of Participatory GIS (Dunn, 2007; Geertman, 2002; McCall, 2003; McCall and Dunn, 2012). The involvement of local stakeholders is dependent on the extent to which the planning process is participatory. The position of planning situations on Arnstein’s (1969) famous ladder varies hugely across institutional contexts and planning issues. Moreover, both the role of participation and the dynamics of knowledge in planning are dependent upon the timing of the planning process (e.g. Teisman 1998). In early phases and under little pressure there is more time for exploration and learning process through PSS, than in later phases under high time pressure in which political involvement becomes stronger.


Page 4

The extent to which politics interferes in the planning process, can be considered as part of the institutional context. This includes the dominant planning style, the political context and the policy model (Geertman, 2006). In the traditional approaches after the Second World War, for instance, planning was seen as a rational and scientific endeavor (Geertman, 2006; Salet and Faludi, 2000), whereas in the 1990s communication and collaboration became increasingly emphasized (Healey, 1992), and planning became to be seen as an inherently politicized and power-‐driven process (Forester, 1989; Flyvbjerg 1998). The institutional context, however, is not only time-‐dependent, but also place-‐dependent as several comparative case studies on metropolitan governance have shown (e.g. Bontje et al., 2011; Salet et al. 2003). Hence, the application of PSS should be carefully tailored to the institutional context. For instance, in the literature about the liberal and decentralised American planning context, there is a stronger emphasis on participation and collaboration of local actors (Innes and Booher, 1999; 2010) than in the centralized and strongly regulated Dutch planning context (Faludi and Van der Valk, 1994; Healey 2007). A point which has not seemed to gathered to much attention in PSS literature (see overviews in Brail, 2008; Geertman and Stillwell, 2009). Moreover, the role of PSS is intrinsically related to the content of the planning issue. Transport planning issues, for instance, tends to be strongly expert-‐oriented and relies on models, whereas in neighborhood revitalization local knowledge and participation plays a much more dominant role. On the one hand this difference is related to the aforementioned actors involved, sub-‐disciplines within the wide field of spatial planning tend to have their own habits regarding the role of knowledge and technology (Geertman, 2006). On the other hand planning topics also place restrictions and demands on the possibilities of PSS, which is also related to the scale op the planning issue. Or as Alexander (2008, p. 210) puts it:

As the level of governance rises and planning moves from more general-‐comprehensive approaches into sectoral or

specialized domains, appreciative knowledge loses more of its value and is replaced by increasing demand for systematic-‐

scientific knowledge: professional and substantive expertise. In more abstract terms, these aspects are part of the extent to which a planning problem is ‘wicked’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Hartmann 2012). Klinke and Renn (2002) discern three challenges that are related to the ‘wickedness’ of a planning problem: complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity. Complexity refers to the difficulty to understand causal linkages, because of their multiplicity and the many feedback loops involved (Byrne, 1998; O’Sullivan, 2004; for planning: De Roo and Silva 2010). Uncertainty is about the extent to which the future can be predicted, something which is dependent on the specific issue and the information available (Klinke and Renn, 2002). Ambiguity, finally, is about conflicting interpretations that can arise within in planning. This challenge has been particularly scrutinized by collaborative and interactive approaches to planning (Innes and Booher 2010, Healey, 2007; Rydin, 2007). For PSS these three challenges are related to the knowledge involved in planning. A central challenge for PSS is to handle and create knowledge and facilitate learning processes (te Brömmelstroet, 2010). The challenge of ambiguity reveals that a modernist conception of knowledge does not suffice for understanding planning processes (cf. Rydin, 2007) For PSS this implicates that a more thorough and holistic understanding of knowledge is necessary.


Page 5

Figure 1: Explanatory framework of the potential planning support role of dedicated information, knowledge and instruments in

planning practice

Based on Geertman (2006)

3. Knowledge use 3.1.Knowledge and planning Following Friedmann (1987), planning is essentially about turning knowledge into action. Implicitly or explicitly, most work dealing with information and knowledge applies the knowledge pyramid consisting of Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom (DIKW) developed by Ackoff (1989, also Rowley 2007). This categorization is based on a hierarchical order, in which meaning is added with each step up the pyramid. Data can be seen as raw elements, describing a specific part of reality. Information is adapted to describe the ‘what’ and ‘where’ of reality, whereas wisdom is about fundamentally understanding a phenomenon. Knowledge is about ‘how’ phenomena work (Ackoff 1989, Rowley 2007). Knowledge will be framed here as an interpretation of an order or pattern out of information. Or as Couclelis puts it prosaically with regards to GIS and knowledge:

[There are] ‘two types of information-processing system: the type that is capable of converting the information it receives into knowledge and the type that is not’. (…) The first kind of information-processing system, the kind capable of converting information into knowledge, is we; the GIS is of the second kind. (Couclelis, 2003, p.165)

While this focus on interpretation is useful for distinguishing knowledge from information and data, it does not reveal why knowledge has been used so differently in varying planning approaches and situations. To an important extent this diversion can be explained by the fact that the status of knowledge differs among the two most important approaches to planning: modernist approaches with a perception of knowledge rooted in positivism and post-modernist approaches with a conception of knowledge rooted in social-constructionism (Alexander, 2000; Allmendinger, 2002; Van Buuren, 2006; Rydin 2007). For modernist approaches to planning, knowledge is a reflection of (spatial) reality; Scientific analysis is seen as the most appropriate way to explain spatial phenomena and provide input for rational decision-making (Salet and Faludi, 2000). Knowledge about the content of a planning problem functions as a starting point for spatial planning. This approach is still important in practice, for instance in the field of environmental and transportation planning. It has, however, received sharp criticisms by proponents of what is often called the ‘communicative turn’ in planning (e.g. Healey 1992, Innes 1998, Sandercock 1998). The central point of critique is that knowledge is no objective entity ‘out there’, but a result of an interactive process among a range of actors. These accounts can be captured under the broad header of the post-modernist approach to planning. Related to the conception of knowledge as an outcome of social processes rather than a reflection of reality, strong emphasis is placed on planning as collaboration, consensus seeking, story telling and participation (e.g. Hajer et al. 2010, Healey 1992, 1997, 2007, Innes and Booher 1999; 2010). The critique on this approach focuses on the risk of relativism and the lack of engagement with spatial phenomena (Deal and Pallathucheril 2009, Rydin 2007). 3.2 Characteristics of knowledge in planning The ongoing debate between modernist and post-modernist perspectives of knowledge is a very interesting academic endeavor, but of little help to planning practitioners. Therefore, this paper will explicitly seek for concepts and heuristics that have a practical value for planning, assuming that both modernist and post-modernist approaches have its specific worth and that a plurality of perspectives on the role of knowledge should be allowed (Van Buuren 2006). Based on the work of


Page 6

Healey (2007; 2008) and Rydin (2007), we argue that knowledge in planning has two characteristics which need to be taken into account when exploring possibilities to improve knowledge use: knowledge forms and knowledge claims.

Healey (2007, p.245) emphasizes the multiplicity of knowledge in planning: ‘What we know exists in many forms, from systematized accounts and analyses, and practical manuals, to stories exchanged in the flow of life, and skills exercised in doing practical work’. She proposes to limit the possible forms of knowledge in planning to four, based on the dimensions explicitness and systematization. In figure 2 the four resulting forms are depicted. The different forms relate to varying approaches to planning; the modernist approaches to analysis, logic and evidence in the upper left corner and post-‐modernist approaches to local and embodied knowledge in the lower right corner.


Page 7

Figure 2: Forms of knowledge based on explicitness and systematization

Source: Healey (2007, Ch.8)

This typology of knowledge forms is very useful since it provides insight into the praxis of actors involved in the planning process. It has, however, no specific relation to spatial planning. Consequently, a second characteristic of knowledge is introduced, which is specifically suited for planning. Inspired by the work of Rydin (2007), these are four knowledge claims (the usage of the term ‘claim’ implies that multiple knowledges can co-‐exist), which are debated and discussed in planning: empirical, process, predictive and normative. Empirical knowledge claims are about the socio-‐economic and environmental situation at a specific moment in time. Process knowledge claims refer to the dynamics of planning. It refers both to how societal processes work and how they conjunct with planning interventions. Predictive knowledge claims deal, according to Rydin (2007, p.60), with ‘prediction of scenario under trend condition’, which in this regard could be extended to all kind of context-‐scenarios. Normative knowledge claims are about understanding what the results will be of a future planning intervention. Note, that this is not the same as a normative claim (Rydin, 2007), although also of crucial importance of less importance for the particular purpose of this paper.

Combining the characteristics form and claim results in a set of typical applications of knowledge in planning (see table 1 for examples), whereby it should be noted that in the messy reality of actual planning situations, one would find combinations of forms and claims, rather than neatly defined ideal types. These characteristics are useful, however, to understand the use of knowledge in planning

Table 1: Characteristics of knowledge in spatial planning: examples of the combination of knowledge form and

knowledge claim in spatial planning. Claim

Form

Empirical Process Predictive Normative

Explicit and

Systematized

Scientific report Analysis of causal chains with

help of computer software

Evolutionary urban

models

Multi Criteria Analysis

Explicit and

Experience-‐based

Local website about

neighbourhood

Best practices and ‘how-‐to’ books Context scenarios Visions of urban

designers

Implicit and

Systematized

Environmental indicators Guidelines about stages in

planning process

Traditional urban

models

Rules of thumb

Implicit and

Experience based

Residents’ feeling of safety

in certain neighbourhoods

Phronesis of planners Popular wisdom. Intuition of planners


Page 8

3.3 Knowledge use While some insightful recent accounts have re-‐addressed the topic of knowledge use in planning (Healey, 2008; Gudmundsson, 2011), the debate about knowledge use dates back to the 1970s and early 1980s. Several scholars realized that the traditional instrumental view of knowledge use did not entirely capture the complex ways in which (scientific) knowledge influences practice. The central question in these studies was not so much what knowledge entails – since various accounts apply related terms like ‘research’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘information’ (e.g. Weiss 1977; Van der Heijden, 1986) – but what it means to use knowledge. Amara et al. (2004) empirically show that three dominant types of how knowledge is used in policy exist: instrumental, symbolic and conceptual. • Instrumental use of knowledge refers to direct application of knowledge into planning practice.

It has a modernistic perspective of the contributing role of knowledge in general, and the endeavour of spatial planning in particular. Planning rests upon scientific knowledge, which is considered a reflection of reality. This approach is found in modernist approaches in which science precedes practice (‘survey before the plan’) and in situations where the planning problem is well-‐defined and agreed upon. It rests on a belief that following the right arguments, procedures and techniques will result in an optimal planning situation, a view that has proved very attractive for developers of a variety of quantitative models ranging from land use to traffic behavior. This type of knowledge use relies strongly on codified knowledge forms, and has traditionally focused on empirically understanding the current situations, predicting the future and providing scientifically sound future visions. This view has been criticized by planner scholars specialized in power analytics (Flyvbjerg, 1998; Flyvbjerg and Richardson, 2002), for being naïve and not acknowledging the power relations determining rationality.

• Symbolic knowledge use acknowledges the latter by describing the use of knowledge in instances in which knowledge is not used so much to gain new insights or solve problems but as a way to sustain predetermined positions or interests (Amara et al. 2004). It has no fixed relation with specific knowledge form; depending on the situation the predetermined position can either be sustained by a local narrative or a model output. However, the most well-‐known examples are based on codified knowledge forms (e.g. Gudmundsson, 2012; Flyvbjerg 1998). Depending on the planning context, this type of use could be applied to any knowledge claim.

• The central premise of conceptual knowledge use is that knowledge is used in indirect, unexpected and implicit ways (Amara et al., 2004; Innes 1998). Knowledge is not used for direct problem solving, but for general enlightenment and understanding, occurring in a non-‐linear way. It is hereby crucial to relate to the tacit knowledge of actors (Polanyi, 1966; Te Brömmelstroet 2010), which is necessarily implicit, central in learning processes. Whereas tacit knowledge is uncontested for conceptual knowledge use, it can be applied in relation to several other forms, depending on the actor.

These three knowledge uses do insufficiently right to the participatory and interactive nature of spatial planning, which is characterized by debate, deliberation and consensus seeking (e.g. Forester, 1999; Innes and Booher 1998) Therefore, the tripartite distinction by Amara et al. (2004) should be complemented by a fourth type: interactive knowledge use. • Interactive knowledge use starts from the perspective that knowledge use is a social process in

which all stakeholders should be involved and different knowledge claims are tested (Rydin 2007). Knowledge use is addressed here as generating output, rather than handling input. Both collaboration and participation are central in this type, which resonates strongly with Habermas’ premise of communicative rationality (Habermas 1983, for spatial planning see Healey 1992, Innes 1998, Innes and Booher 2010). While interactive knowledge use could in principle take place in all planning situations, most examples from the planning literature focus on local engagement and participation (e.g. Innes and Booher, 2010).

4. PSS and Knowledge


Page 9

4.1 Methodological approach To test the value of this framework in the field PSS, a literature review of recent PSS applications is conducted. It is evaluated to what extent the different uses and characteristics are found in PSS case studies and how this can be evaluated. In doing so, three recent edited volumes of PSS applications in practice were reviewed, edited by Brail (2008), Geertman and Stillwell (2009) and Pettit et al. (2008). Additionally, recent studies by Alexander et al. (2012), Pfaffenbichler (2011) and Timmermans and Arentze (2011), te Brömmelstroet (2010), Boroushaki and Malczewski (2010), were included. Three criteria are defined in selecting the articles: they have to be recent (>2008), they have to include some kind of geo-‐information component, and the inclusion of actual planners in the application of the tool (i.e. no model description). The latter proves a challenge in most studies, generally resulting only in minor roles for planners. Nonetheless, 51 articles were included in the analysis, which vary hugely in focus, scale and planning issue. It was not possible to assess whether PSS has value at all, since all case studies included a PSS. 4.2 Instrumental knowledge use Instrumental knowledge use was seen as the traditional role for knowledge technologies in planning. Following a devastating critique by Lee (1973) and the rise of communicative and collaborative approaches (Friedmann, 1987; Forester 1989) to planning, PSS were developed that are more modest in their ambitions and start from the perspective that knowledge use is non-‐linear and interactive. Nontheless, it could be argued that in all but a few exceptions (e.g. Carver et al., 2009; Kahila and Kyttä, 2009), instrumental knowledge use played a substantial role in the application of PSS. While almost all authors realize that the scientific analytical approach to spatial planning has waned, the implicit assumption of technology as a provider of objectified knowledge is still dominant. Only a few case studies, however, explicitly describe instrumental knowledge use. This situation is found in situations with clearly defined problems, were the solution is straightforward (e.g. Levine, 2009; Pelizaro et al., 2009). These examples are mainly found in situations where there was only one sector or aspect of planning involved. Examples include green space planning (Pelizaro et al., 2009), traffic safety planning (Levine, 2009) and pollution emissions (Van Esch et al., 2009). This is related to the fact that these are specialized expert tasks asking for a relatively unambiguous solution. Most authors do realize, however, that their PSS only describes one aspect of planning and the generated knowledge only provides a partial explanation. Moreover, instrumental knowledge use has an almost intrinsic relation with systematized knowledge (e.g. Levine, 2009; Pelizaro et al., 2009). Additionally, the rise of scale of the content of a planning issue a PSS has to cope with and the use of systematized knowledge forms are positively associated (e.g. Alexander, 2008, cf. Van Delden and Hagen-‐Zanker, 2009). More relevant for the purpose of these paper is to see how the other knowledge uses play a role. 4.3 Symbolic knowledge use Symbolic knowledge use is hardly mentioned in almost all of the PSS case studies. Some PSS emphasized the function of PSS to communicate knowledge to a wider audience (e.g. Gibin et al., 2009). However, the political context and power relations that determine the role of knowledge (Flyvbjerg 1998, for technology in planning Gudmundsson et al., 2012; Naess, 2011) are almost absent. One of the explanations could be because that the researchers paid no explicit attention to this issue, but it could also be explained by the fact that most PSS applications are conducted in initial phases and detail about implementation issues, rather than the role of knowledge in a web of politics and power relations. Nonetheless, it could be argued that every PSS implicitly facilitates symbolic knowledge use, since the models include assumptions , which are not always discussed by planners and sometimes function as a black box (Hajer, 1996). In a case study by Lieske et al. (2009), for instance, strong emphasis is put on public engagement. The specific topics to be discussed, ‘landscape sensitivity’ and ‘growth efficiency’ are fixed, however. Hence, the PSS


Page 10

functions to communicate predetermined positions about criteria which function as knowledge input the planning process. It is for this reason that Te Brömmelstroet (2010) calls for ‘Mediated Planning Support’ instead of Planning Support Systems, focusing on transparency and co-‐construction of the tools involved in planning.

One study that is sensitive to symbolic knowledge use is a case study about the Greater Houston motor vehicle safety PSS by Levine (2009). While the author has a strongly instrumental perspective of knowledge use, he is also very much aware of the political context in which the PSS is used. Hence, the knowledge and information provided by his PSS can also be used symbolically:

(…) creating a high visibility advisory body with specialists from a variety of fields (especially from medicine and law) can

provide credibility and support for tough actions that need to be taken to reduce the number and severity of motor vehicle

crashes. (...)In this effort, creating a safety planning support system, such as the Greater Houston motor vehicle safety PSS,

can be an important tool in providing information that allows an advisory body to make recommendations based on

knowledge and information. (Levine, 2009, pp.107) Similarly, De Nijs (2009) mentions that the findings of the Environmental Explorer were used in the political debate by stakeholder groups:

The conclusions were quoted by various stakeholder groups in the Netherlands. One of these, the Netherlands Society for

Nature and Environment (SNM 2005), published an article in its newsletter calling on the Dutch population to stop further

urbanization. (De Nijs, 2009, p.65)

These case studies, however, are exceptions. Much more attention was paid to conceptual knowledge use. 4.4 Conceptual knowledge use The term conceptual knowledge use is only explicitly mentioned in the study by te Brömmelstroet (2010), but seems to be applicable to most of the scrutinized case studies that handle more complex and strategic planning issues (e.g. Deal and Pallatucheril, 2009; Van der Hoeven, 2009, Klosterman, 2008) Te Brömmelstroet (2010) argues that different knowledge forms need to be combined: ‘a PSS which also aims to generate new knowledge [i.e. learning] has to be able to effectively interact with the tacit knowledge of the planning actors’ (te Brömmelstroet, 2010, p.47). An interesting example of this approach is given by a case study by Pettit and Wu (2008), who apply several visualization and simulation (‘virtual worlds’) tools to let users learn about natural phenomena like biodiversity, climate and soil health. The PSS which focused on gaining a better insight into local knowledge and fostering participation (e.g. Carver et al. 2009, Kahila and Kyttäa, 2009) are still in its pioneering phase. Including local knowledge in planning is still very much a learning process (e.g. conceptual knowledge use), both in terms of methodologies and content. The two quotes below aptly describe the focus on understanding and learning of participatory PSS:

(…) planners have to acquire not only new skills and professional roles (Forester 1989; Puustinen 2006), but also develop more

usable and effective participation methods, as well as a deeper understanding of the knowledge hidden in the experiences of

the inhabitants. (…) SoftGIS aims to support urban planning by gathering experiential knowledge systematically and allowing

the urban planners to take part in the development of softGISapplications. (…) we are keen to study how the knowledge of

every day life can be assimilated in planning practices and decision making. (Kahila and Kyttä, 2009, p.389, 398 and 409)

(…) a new planning support system aimed at collecting spatial and contextual information about public perceptions of

landscapes with an emphasis on developing better understandings of place-‐based values and associated meanings. (Carver et

al., 2009, p.444). Interestingly, these participatory PSS focus on gathering and including local knowledge, rather than facilitating debate and interaction. Van der Hoeven et al. (2009) show in a context with only expert planners (the Land use Scanner in the Netherlands), that there is a thin line between learning and interaction:

The system is developed to support the discussion on the long-‐term adaptability of the Netherlands to flood risk. It aims to

facilitate the learning of the user on the subject, instead of giving unambiguous answers on what management strategy is

preferable. This is a significant difference with the more traditional decision support systems. (Van der Hoeven et al., 2009,

p.162, emphasis in original)


Page 11

Hereby it is important to note that this discussion only involves a limited number of stakeholders, an observation that was found throughout the cases. 4.5 Interactive knowledge use As in the case study by Van der Hoeven et al. (2009), in several other PSS applications (e.g. Deal and Pallatucheril, 2009; Hahn et al., 2009; Pettit and Wyatt, 2009) the findings and assumptions of the PSS were discussed by a group of expert stakeholders. While this process leads to learning and enlightenment among stakeholders, it also is a way to create new knowledge as an outcome of interactive knowledge use. In most case studies, knowledge is perceived as a fixed entity, which a PSS helps to expand, a notion which strongly relates to a modernist conception of knowledge. In some approaches, however, participation and interaction were combined to come to a shared knowledge base:

In our experimentation, participation is used to constitute a knowledge base that supports decision making and consensus

building. The process results in better knowledge for all participants and in a strong consensus about the diagnosis of the

actual situation and about the strategic objectives for the local development. (Soutter and Repeti, 2009, p.386)

This case study is an exception in the sense that it combines participation with coping with knowledge claims. In other PSS applications focusing on participation (also PGIS, see Dunn, 2007; McCall and Dunn, 2012) the focus is either on gathering local knowledge or including values and normative claims to reach consensus. The former is already discussed in the previous paragraph about conceptual knowledge use, whereas the integration of (local) values with expert knowledge was found in several PSS (e.g. Alexander et al., 2012; Boroushaki and Malczwewski, 2010; Lieske et al., 2009). Boroushaki and Malczwewski (2010) aim for a tool that:

(…) provides a mechanism for expressing the preferences and objectives of the participants and for generating a

compromise solution that takes into account the individual participants’ evaluations. It offers users a structured environment

for investigating the sources of conflicts, and the intensity of such conflicts, among different participants (Boroushaki and

Malczwewski, 2010, p. 323) In a similar vein, Lieske et al. (2009, p.295) state: (…) a planning support system (PSS) is used to integrate public values in the development of a concept plan which becomes the basis of the comprehensive plan’. The only instance in which different forms of knowledge were explicitly confronted is a case study by Van Delden and Hagen-‐Zanker (2009), who combine qualitative storylines with quantitative modelling. The study only includes expert stakeholders, making it more of a learning exercise than a confrontation of knowledge claims which vary in form. The study is, however, innovative in the sense that it combines different forms of knowledge. 4.6 Knowledge characteristics Unlike the study of Van Delden and Hagen-‐Zanker (2009), most PSS studies focus on one characteristic of knowledge, either by providing input in the planning process through systematized and explicit knowledge forms (e.g. Clarke, 2008; Van Esch et al., 2009; Pelizaro et al., 2009) or capturing local knowledge forms through a PSS (e.g. Carver et al., 2009; Kahila and Kyttä, 2009). All four knowledge claims were found in the case studies, whereby most PSS handle more than one type of claim. An overview is given in Table 2. Whereby it should be noted that Healey’s (2007) distinction in explicit and implicit practical engagement is hard to find in PSS applications, since techniques do not function as a somewhat opaque exogenous force, but are the central topic of inquiry. Moreover, for widely applied tools like CommunityViz, the knowledge characteristics can vary across its applications (for CommunityViz see e.g. Alexander, 2012; Janes and Kwartler, 2008). The characteristic ‘implicit and experience-‐based’ is completely absent, since this is the tacit knowledge held by planning actors, rather than the knowledge handled by a PSS.

Table 2: Characteristics of knowledge and examples of PSS

Claim Empirical Process Predictive Normative


Page 12

Form

Explicit and

Systematized

Greater Houston

motor vehicle safety

PSS (Levine, 2009)

LEAM (Deal and

Pallathuceril 2008, 2009)

SLEUTH (Clarke, 2008) GRAS (Pelizaro et al.,

2009)

Explicit and

Experience-‐based

SoftGIS (Kahila and

Kyttä, 2009)

Combination of tools

(Miller et al., 2009)

METRONOMICA (Van Delden

and Hagen-‐Zanker, 2009)

n/a

Implicit and

Systematized

n/a n/a Land Use Scanner (Van der

Hoeven et al., 2009)

CommunityViz

(Alexander et al., 2012)

Implicit and

Experience-‐based

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Empirical knowledge claims function in two important ways. Firstly, most participatory PSS (e.g. Carver et al., 2009; Kahila and Kyttä, 2009) describe empirical knowledge claims, aiming to better understand the local perspective of the current situation. In PSS focusing on regional or national land use empirical knowledge claims are a starting point for follow-‐up analyses, which focus on knowledge claims with a future orientation. Providing predictive knowledge claims is traditionally a core function of for models in urban planning. These claims are hardly instrumentally used, however, but function more as a learning process or a starting point for discussion. There are different ways PSS deal with predictive knowledge claims. SLEUTH (Clarke, 2008) provides predictions based on past evolutionary processes, whereas scenarios are used by PSS like the Land Use Scanner (Van der Hoeven et al., 2009) LEAM (Deal and Pallutuhceril 2008; 2009) and Metronomica (Van Delden and Hagen-‐Zanker, 2009). A common approach in planning practice is to discuss the input and output from modelling exercises aiming at prediction. Richard Klosterman is explicit, his PSS What If?™ is ‘(…) not attempting to predict precisely an unknowable future. Instead, it is an explicitly policy-‐oriented model that suggest what might happen in the future if clearly specified public policies are adopted and assumptions about the future are correct’ (Klosterman, 2008, p.90 – emphasis in original). As the latter quote reveals, the distinction between predictive and normative knowledge claims in PSS applications is not always clear (see for instance the different ways in which the term ‘scenario’ is used). Nonetheless, based on this literature review, it could be argued that the core function of contemporary PSS is to facilitate and generate normative knowledge claims. A PSS helps to understand the implications of interventions in the regulatory or spatial domain. A range of PSS include impact analysis with regards to for instance land values and travel times (Waddell et al., 2008) and air pollution (Allen, 2008). This function is sometimes accompanied be a normative judgement (i.e. weighing of the impacts). In this regard, Pelizaro et al. (2009) argue that their GRAS PSS provides an optimal way to evaluate the design of green space, based on costs and perceived appreciation by stakeholders. However, when the planning issue becomes more complex and holistic, it becomes very difficult to include strict judgement in a PSS.

5. Potentials of PSS to support knowledge use 5.1 Planning Contingencies The uses and characteristics of knowledge handled by a PSS are dependent on a set of contingent factors (Geertman, 2006). The importance of instrumental characteristics has been extensively outlined elsewhere (Vonk, 2006; te Brömmelstroet, 2010) and will not be repeated here. Instead the focus will be on four factors: the planning actors, the planning process, the content of the planning issue, and the institutional context. The importance of the role of actors is gaining more attention in the PSS literature. Hahn et al. (2009) stress the importance of a ‘DSS architect’; a linking pin between the more technical oriented model builders and the more content oriented policy makers. Actor characteristics which


Page 13

pop up during later phases of the PSS application, such as the differences between spatial planners and transport planners (te Brömmelstroet, 2010), and the varying frames about maps of process oriented policy makers, urban designers and scientific-‐analytic oriented planners (Carton, 2007) only receive limited attention ; for instance reflected by the lack of attention to symbolic knowledge use. While it is well-‐known that the use and characteristics of knowledge gathered through participation, requires a different treatment than expert knowledge (see the developments in Participatory GIS en Participatory PSS), the differentiation among actors involved in the professional circle of policy makers (landscape architects, transport planners etc.) is only in a few PSS applications explicitly taken into account. To a certain extent this is related to the focus on developmental and early stages of the planning process in most case studies. The political dimension becomes more visible when the planning process gets closer to the decision stage (cf. Teisman, 1998). Conversely, PSS studies provide only limited insight into the influence knowledge has had (Gudmundsson, 2011). However, since many PSS have matured (e.g. WhatIf?™, UrbanSim and CommunityViz) it is likely that this aspect will get more attention in the future. Much more attention is paid to the complexity of spatial phenomena a PSS has to cope with (e.g. Batty, 2007), part of the factor content of the planning issue. A range of methods, such as activity-‐based modelling (Timmermans and Arentze, 2011), cellular automata (de Nijs, 2009) and evolutionary modelling (Clarke, 2008) have been developed to capture the complexity of cities and regions. Hereby it is more and more acknowledged that the future is inherently uncertain, a PSS functions to help to understand spatial phenomena and the implications (i.e. conceptual knowledge use), rather than providing a ‘royal road to truth’ (Sayer 2000, p.17). The most problematic for PSS is the final challenge of ‘wicked planning issues’, ambiguity (Renn and Klinke, 2002).This challenges presumes the presence of co-‐existing and conflicting knowledge claims, often taking different forms. In some instances the form of knowledge is a result of the scale of analysis. While most planning issues are inherently multi-‐scale in nature, there is a lacuna in PSS studies which specifically address this topic (for a notable exception see Miller et al., 2009). From a governance perspective, the relevant levels of scale differ across the countries in which a PSS is applied, the institutional context. In Geertman and Stillwell (2009) for instance, it seems that PSS in the US (e.g. Deal and Pallathucheril, 2009, Levine 2009) operate in a relatively empty institutional space, whereas in the cases from the Netherlands, the multiplicity of governmental layers involved in spatial planning becomes apparent (e.g. De Nijs, 2009; Van der Hoeven et al., 2009). These differences, however, are not made very explicit, which makes comparison difficult. The latter would be very fruitful, since more and more a PSS like CommunityViz is applied widely across the world. Carefully tailoring its application to the use and characteristics of knowledge in a particular country or region would likely result in a more successful role for PSS. This brings us to the potentials for PSS to improve knowledge use. 5.2 Potentials: contributions to planning tasks Having analyzed a whole range of different PSS, it is time to turn to the central question of this paper: What are the potentials of PSS to support the use of knowledge in planning? Obviously, there is no clear cut answer to these question. Nonetheless, a set of potentials could be distilled related to the type of knowledge use, the knowledge characteristics and the planning context. These potentials will, in line with Geertman’s (2008) definition of PSS, be framed as contributions to planning tasks. A first important underutilized potential is to pay more attention to the background of the planning actors involved. The task a PSS supports is dependent on the background and institutional reference of the actors involved. For a planner with a strong research oriented function, instrumental knowledge use might be the dominant function of a PSS, whereas for policy makers closely aligned to the political process, symbolic knowledge use plays a much more dominant role. Or as Timms (2008, p.410) puts it with regard to transport models: ‘(…) moves should be made to


Page 14

adopt a communicative approach to transport modelling which views models as being tools in communicative planning processes’. An actor-‐oriented perspective has implications for both the process (how is the PSS embedded in planning) and the instrumental characteristics (what knowledge use is the PSS supporting). While some recent studies (Carton, 2007; te Brömmelstroet, 2010) have provided preliminary answers, more research into the relation between actors and knowledge in the context of PSS is needed. Secondly, the notion of planning as learning (May, 1992) is a fruitful endeavour for PSS application. In several case studies, conceptual knowledge use was –implicitly or explicitly-‐ mentioned as a core aim of PSS. This purpose could be made more explicit, by carefully relating to experiential knowledge (e.g. tacit knowledge) and stimulate a continuous learning process facilitated by a PSS. Participation of local actors is an important component of this learning process, since local knowledge is complementary to expert knowledge. However, in some instances conflict could also arise. Hence, as a third potential PSS could handle this conflict by facilitating the ‘testing of knowledge claims’ (Rydin, 2007). While it is not always easy to distil mere opinions from knowledge, a PSS is a means to get a debate based on arguments. It should be noted that it is hereby important to be very careful to integrate experiential knowledge forms. Systematized knowledge forms are the natural liaison of a knowledge technology like PSS and could easily be privileged resulting in a strongly modernist bias. Moreover, as several case studies revealed, PSS are not only a platform for knowledge claims, but also for other claims like attitudes, values and interests. Hence, PSS could support not only negotiation, but also contribute to create a narrative about a region; planning as storytelling. Or as Hajer et al. (2010, p.22-‐23) put it: ‘Good regional planning is like a tribunal, at which all claims – knowledge, position, interests – are confronted with each other with aim of arriving at a final verdict, a cohesive story’. Couclelis (2005) also pointed at the potential of PSS to support storytelling in planning. In recent PSS applications this task was overlooked, whereas the visual potential (3D visualization, simulation) is overwhelming and could bridge barriers between systematized knowledge forms (‘numbers’) and experience-‐based knowledge forms (‘stories’). This is crucial, since knowledge does not ‘add up’ (Innes, 1998; Rydin, 2007), but is an outcome of co-‐constructivism.

6. Conclusions and Reflections This paper has attempted to provide a new perspective on the role of Planning Support Systems in spatial planning. In doing so it has bridged insights from the PSS literature and knowledge, and subsequently applied this conceptual lens to a set of recent PSS case studies. A starting point was that the answer to an improvement of knowledge use through PSS should be found in a combination of modernist and post-‐modernist approaches to planning. This endeavour has resulted in a set of potentials to improve knowledge use through PSS. When interpreting these findings a couple of caveats should be kept in mind. This paper was based on a secondary literature review, not on a collection of primary data. The latter would probably have resulted in an even more precise understanding of the dynamics of knowledge. As was pointed out before, PSS researchers are in their description not always aware of the nuances of knowledge and planning that are considered in this paper. Nonetheless, some obvious patterns emerged from the literature review. Instrumental knowledge use still permeates many PSS applications, whereas conceptual knowledge use is starting to get more and more attention and is likely to be more firmly on the agenda in future PSS research, such as in the study by te Brömmelstroet (2010). Symbolic knowledge use is surprisingly absent in the case, in contrast with critical studies about knowledge and technology (Flyvbjerg, 1998; Gudmundsson et al., 2012; Naess 2011). Further research should make clear whether this absence is an inherent characteristic of PSS, or related to the instrumental focus and interest (most authors describe their ‘own’ PSS) of the researchers. Interactive knowledge use is a challenge for PSS, because it faces the ambiguities involved in handling different forms of knowledge. Nonetheless, some interesting examples were


Page 15

found of interactive knowledge use within a professional circle. It would be very interesting to extend these approaches to participatory GIS and participatory PSS. An interesting link could also be made with the emerging paradigm of ‘storytelling’ in spatial planning (Couclelis, 2005; Hajer et al., 2010). This paper has deliberately set aside the normative question of what constitutes ‘good’ knowledge use. From a post-‐modernist perspective the answer would always be time and space dependent. A participatory process in which all actors are heard is a key component of good knowledge use. From a modernist perspective, the object of knowledge plays a central role. Put bluntly: including more (instrumental) use of scientific knowledge is better. The latter position is arguably also the reason PSS evolved in the 1990s. All of the four knowledge uses (instrumental, symbolic, conceptual, interactive) have their advantages and disadvantages in spatial planning. Future research should provide empirical insights about instances of what types of knowledge use have benefits in what situations. Only then could PSS become widespread phenomena in practice, rather than a rather marginal and diffuse academic paradigm.

Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Dr. Stan Geertman and Professor Rob van der Heijden for their invaluable comments. The research has been carried out in the Sustainable Accessibility of the Randstad program of the Dutch Science Board (NWO). References ACKOFF, R. (1989) ‘From Data to Wisdom.’ Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16 (1), p.3-‐9. ALEXANDER, K., R. JANSSEN, G. ARCINIEGAS, T. O’HIGGINS, T. EIKELBOOM & T. WILDING (2012) ‘Interactive Marine Spatial Planning: Siting Tidal Energy Arrays around the Mull of Kintyre’. PLoS One, 7 (1), pp.1-‐9. ALEXANDER, E. (2008) ‘The role of knowledge in planning’. Planning Theory, 7 (2), 207-‐210. ALEXANDER, E. (2000) ‘Rationality Revisited: Planning Paradigms in a Post-‐Postmodernist Perspective’. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19 (3), pp.242-‐256. ALLEN, E. (2008) ‘Clicking toward better outcomes: Experiences with INDEX, 1994 to 2006.’ In: BRAIL. R. (2008, ed.) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy. Pp.139-‐166. ALLMENDINGER, P. (2002) ‘Towards a post-‐positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1 (1), pp.77-‐99 ARNSTEIN, S. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-‐224. BONTJE, M., S. MUSTERD & P. PELZER (2011) Inventive City-‐Regions, Path Dependence and Creative Knowledge Strategies. Farnham: Ashgate. BOROUSHAKI, S. & J. MALCZEWSKI (2010) ‘Measuring consensus for collaborative decision-‐making: A GIS-‐based approach. CEUS, vol. 32, pp.322-‐332. BRAIL, R. (2008, ed.) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy. BRAIL, R. & R. KLOSTERMAN (2001, eds.). Planning support systems: integrating Geographical Information Systems, models and visualization tools. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press. BYRNE, D. (1998) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge. CARTON, L.(2007) Map making and map use in a multi-‐actor context: spatial visualizations and frame conflicst in regional policymaking in the Netherlands. Delft University of Technology: PhD-‐thesis. CARVER, S., A. WATSON, T. WATERS, R. MATT, K. GUNDERSON & B. DAVIS (2009) ‘Developing Computer-‐Based Participatory Approaches to Mapping Landscape Values for Landscape and Resource Management’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.431-‐448. CLARKE, K. (2008) ‘A Decade if Cellular Urban Modelling with SLEUTH: Unresolved Issues and Problems’. In: BRAIL. R. (2008, ed.) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy. Pp. 47-‐60. COUCLELIS, H (2005) ‘ “Where has the future gone?” Rethinking the role of integrated land-‐use models in spatial planning’. Environment and Planning A, 37, pp.1353-‐1371. COUCLELIS, H. (2003) ‘The certainty of uncertainty: GIS and the limits of geographical knowledge. Transactions in GIS, 7 (2), pp. 165-‐175.


Page 16

DE NIJS, T. (2009) ‘Future Land-‐use in The Netherlands: Evaluation of the National Spatial Strategy’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.53-‐68. DE ROO G. & E. SILVA (2010, eds) A planner’s encounter with complexity. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate DEAL, B. & V. PALLATUCHERIL (2009) ‘A Use-‐Driven Approach to Large-‐Scale Urban Modelling and Planning Support’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.29-‐52. DEAL, B. & V. PALLATUCHERIL (2008) ‘Simulating Regional Futures: The Land-‐use Evolution and Impacts Assessment Model (LEAM)’. In: BRAIL. R. (2008, ed.) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy. Pp.61-‐84. DUNN, C. (2007) ‘Participatory GIS – a People’s GIS?’. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 31, no.5, pp. 616-‐637. FALUDI, A. & A. VAN DER VALK (1994) Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. FLYVBJERG, B. (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. London: University of Chicago Press. FLYVBJERG, B. & T. RICHARDSON (2002), Planning and Foucault: : in search of the dark side of planning theory. In Allmendinger, P. & M. Tewdewr Jones (2002, eds.) Planning futures: new directions for planning theory, pp.44–63. FORESTER, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkely, CA: University of California Press. FRIEDMANN, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press. GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95. GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2003) Planning Support Systems in Practice. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer. GEERTMAN, S. (2008) Planning Support Systems: A Planner’s Perspective. In: Brail (2008, ed.) Planning Support Systems For Cities and Regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Use Policy, pp.213-‐230. GEERTMAN, S. (2006) ‘Potentials for planning support: a planning-‐conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 33, pp. 863-‐880. GEERTMAN, S. (2002) ‘Participatory planning and GIS: a PSS to bridge the gap’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, pp.21-‐35. GIBIN, M., P. MATEOS, J. PETERSON & P. ATKINSON (2009) ‘Google Maps Mashups for Local Public Health Service Planning’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.227. GUDMUNDSSON, H. (2011) ‘Analysing models as a knowledge technology in Transport Planning.’ Transport Reviews, 31 (2), pp.145-‐159. GUDMUNDSSON, H., E. ERICSSON, M. TIGHT, M. LAWLER, P. ENVALL, M. FIGURUEROA & K. EVANTH (2012) ‘The Role of Decision Support in the Implementation of “Sustainable Transport” Plans’. European Planning Studies, 20 (2), p.171-‐191. HABERMAS, J. (1983) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. HAJER, M., S. VAN ‘T KLOOSTER & J. GRIJZEN (2010) Strong Stories. How the Dutch are reinventing spatial planning. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. HAJER, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. HAHN, B., S. KOFALK, J. DE KOK, J. BERLEKAMP & M. EVERS (2009) ‘Elbe DSS: a Planning Support System for Strategic River Basin Planning’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.92-‐112. HARTMANN, T. (2012) ‘Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: Planning as expectationmanagement. Planning Theory, Online version, accessible via: http://plt.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/15/1473095212440427 HEALEY, P. (2008) ‘Knowledge flows, spatial strategy making and the roles of academics’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, pp. 861-‐881. HEALEY, P. (2007) Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies. Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge: Oxon (UK)/New York (US). HEALEY, P. (1997) Collaborative Places. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. HEALEY, P. (1992) ‘Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, (63) 2, pp.143-‐162. INNES, J. & D. Booher (2010) Planning with Complexity. An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Oxon: Routledge. INNES, J. & D. Booher (1999) ‘Consensus building as role playing and bricolage.’ Journal of the American Planning Association, 61 (1), pp.9-‐25.


Page 17

INNES, J. (1998) ‘Information in Communicative Planning.’ Journal of the American Planning Association, 64 (1), pp.52-‐63. JANES,G. & M. KWARTLER (2008) ‘Communities in Control: Developing Local Models Using CommunityViz®. In: BRAIL. R. (2008, ed.) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.pp. 167-‐184.. KAHILA, M & M. KYTTÄ (2009) ‘SoftGIS as a Bridge-‐Builder in Collaborative Urban Planning’. In: Geertman, S. and J. Stillwell (2009, eds.) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.389-‐412. KLINKE, A. & O. RENN (2002) ‘A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-‐Based Precaution-‐Based, and Discourse-‐Based Strategies’. Risk Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 6. pp.1071-‐1094. KLOSTERMAN, R. (2009) ‘Planning Support Systems: Retrospect and Prospect’ In: In: Geertman, S. & J. Stillwell (2009, eds.) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.iv-‐vii. KLOSTERMAN, D. (1997) ‘Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer Aided Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, (17) 1, pp.45-‐54. KLOSTERMAN, D. (2008) ‘A New Tool for a New Planning: The What if? Planning Support System. In: Brail (2008, ed.) Planning Support Systems For Cities and Regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Use Policy, pp.85-‐100. KOOMEN, E. & J. BORSBOOM-VAN BEURDEN (2011). Land-use modelling in planning practice. (GeoJournal Library, Vol. 101). Dordrecht: Springer LEE, D. B (1994). Retrospective on large-‐scale urban models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 35-‐40. LEE, D. B (1973). Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 39, pp. 163-178. LEVINE, N. (2009) ‘A Motor Vehicle Safety Planning Support System: The Houston Experience’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.p.93-‐112. LIESKE, S. N., S. MULLEN & J.D. HAMERLINCK (2009). Enhancing Cmprehensive Planning with Public Engagement and Planning Support Integration. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.295-‐31. MAY. P. (1992) ‘Policy Learning and Failure’. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 12, pp. 331-‐354. MCCALL, M. & C. DUNN (2012) ‘Geo-‐information tools for participatory spatial planning: fulfilling the criteria for good governance.’ Geoforum, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 81-‐94. MCCALL, M. (2003) ‘Seeking good governance in participatory-‐GIS: a review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.549-‐573. NAESS, P. (2011) ‘The Third Limfjord Crossing: A Case of Pessimism Bias and Knowledge Filtering. Transport Reviews, Vol 31, No.2, pp.231-‐249. O’SULLIVAN, D. (2004) Complexity science and Human Geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 282-‐295. PELIZARO, C., T. ARENTZE & H. TIMMERMANS (2009) ‘GRAS: a Spatial Decision Support System for Green Space Planning’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.191-‐2010. PETTIT, C. & R. WYATT (2009) ‘A Planning Support Systems Toolkit Approach for Formulating and Evaluating Land-‐use Change Scenarios’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.69-‐92. PETTIT, C., W. CARTWRIGHT, I. BISHOP, K. LOWELL, D. PULLAR, D. DUNCAN (2008, eds.) Landscape Analysis and Visualisation: Spatial Models for Natural Resource Management and Planning. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. PETTIT, C. & Y. WU (2008) ‘A Virtual Knowledge World for Natural Resource Management’ In: PETTIT, C., W. CARTWRIGHT, I. BISHOP, K. LOWELL, D. PULLAR, D. DUNCAN (2008, eds.) Landscape Analysis and Visualisation: Spatial Models for Natural Resource Management and Planning. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. PFAFFENBICHLER, P. (2011). Modelling with Systems Dynamics as a Method to Bridge the Gap between Politics, Planning and Science? Lessons Learnt from the Development of the Land Use and Transport Model MARS. Transport Reviews, 31, PP. 267-‐289. POLANYI, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith. RICH, R. (1997) ‘Measuring Knowledge Utilization: Processes and Outcomes’. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilitzation, 10(3), pp. 11-‐24. RITTEL, H. & M. WEBBER (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 155–169. ROWLEY, J. (2007) ‘The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33 (2), p.163-‐180. RYDIN, Y. (2007) ‘Re-‐examining the rol of knowledge within planning theory.’ Planning Theory, (6)1, pp.52-‐68.


Page 18

SALET, W., A. THORNLEY & A. KREUKELS (2003, eds.) Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning: Comparative Case Studies of European City-‐Regions. London and New York: Spon Press Taylor & Francis Group. SALET, W. & A. FALUDI (2000) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning. Amsterdam: KNAW. SANDERCOCK, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis. London: Wiley. SAYER, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science. London: Sage Publications. SOUTTER, M. & A. REPETTI (2009) ‘Land Management with the SMURF Planning Support System’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.369-‐388. STILLWELL, J., S. GEERTMAN & S. OPENSHAW (1999, EDS.) Geographical Information and Planning. Heidelberg: Springer. TIMMERMANS, H. & T. ARENTZE (2011) ‘Transport Models and Urban Planning Practice: Experiences with Albatross’. Transport Reviews, 31, pp. 199-‐207. TIMMS, P. (2008) ‘Transport Models, Philosophy and Language’. Transportation, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.395-‐410. TE BRÖMMELSTROET (2010) Making Planning Support Systems Matter: Improving the use of Planning Support Systems for integrated land use and transport strategy-‐making. PhD-‐thesis. TEISMAN, G. (1998) ‘Models For Research into Decision-Making Processes: On Phases, Streams and Decision-Making Rounds’. Public Adminstration, 78 (4), pp.937-956. VAN BUUREN, A. (2006) Competent Decision-‐Making: The management of multi-‐faceted knowledge in spatial development processes. PhD-‐thesis Erasmus University Rotterdam. Available via: http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/8131/ [accessed April 1, 2012]. VAN DELDEN, H. & A. HAGEN-‐ZANKER (2009) ‘New ways of Supporting Decision-‐Making: Linking Qualitative Storylines with Quantitative Modelling.’ In: GEERTMAN, S. & VAN DER HEIJDEN, R. (1986) ‘Decision support systems and knowledge utilization: options for retail planning’. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol.8, pp. 109-‐130. J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.347-‐369. VAN ESCH, L, G. VOS, L. JANSSEN & G. ENGELEN (2009) ‘The Emission Inventory Water: A Planning Support System for Reducing Pollution Emissions in the Surface Waters of Flanders’. In: GEERTMAN, S. & J. STILLWELL (2009) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods. Springer/GeoJournal Library 95, pp.137-‐158. VAN DER HOEVEN, E., J. VAN DER AARTS, H. VAN DER KLIS & E. KOOMEN (2009). ‘An integrated discussion support system for new Dutch flood risk management strategies’.In: S. GEERTMAN & J.STILLWELLL (Eds.), Planning support systems: Best practices and new methods. Berlin: GeoJournal Library, Springer. pp.159-‐174. VONK, G. (2006) Improving Planning Support. The use of Planning Support Systems for spatial planning. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies. WADDELL, P. (2011). Integrated Land Use and Transportation Planning and Modelling: Addressing Challenges in Research and Practice. Transport Reviews, 31, 209-‐229. WADDELL, P., X. LIU & L. WANG (2008) ‘UrbanSim: An Evolving Planning Support System for Evolving Communities.’ In: BRAIL. R. (2008, ed.) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions. Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.pp. 103-‐138. WEISS, C. (1977) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.