The added value of Planning Support Systems: A practitioner’s perspective

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 16-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Pelzer ◽  
Stan Geertman ◽  
Rob van der Heijden ◽  
Etiënne Rouwette
Author(s):  
Oliver Lock ◽  
Michael Bain ◽  
Christopher Pettit

The rise of the term ‘big data’ has contributed to recent advances in computational analysis techniques, such as machine learning and more broadly, artificial intelligence, which can extract patterns from large, multi-dimensional datasets. In the field of urban planning, it is pertinent to understand both how such techniques can advance our understanding of cities, and how they can be embedded within transparent and effective digital planning tools, known as planning support systems. This research specifically focuses on two related contributions. First, it investigates the role of planning support systems in supporting a participatory data analytics approach through an iterative process of developing and evaluating a planning support system environment. Second, it investigates how specifically machine learning planning support systems can be co-designed by built environment practitioners and stakeholders in this environment to solve a real planning issue in Sydney, Australia. This paper presents the results of applied research undertaken through the design and implementation of four workshops, involving 57 participants who were involved in a co-design process. The research follows a mixed-methods approach, studying a wide array of measures related to participatory analytics, task load, perceived added value, recordings and observations. The results highlight recommendations regarding the design and evaluation of planning support system environments for co-design and their coupling with machine learning techniques. It was found that consistency and transparency are highly valued and central to the design of a planning support system in this context. General attitudes towards machine learning and artificial intelligence as techniques for planners and developers were positive, as they were seen as both potentially transformative but also as simply another technique to assist with workflows. Some conceptual challenges were encountered driven by practitioners' simultaneous need for concrete scenarios for accurate predictions, paired with a desire for predictions to drive the development of these scenarios. Insights from this work can inform future planning support system evaluation and co-design studies, in particular those aiming to support democracy enhancement, greater inclusion and more efficient resource allocation through a participatory analytics approach.


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (8) ◽  
pp. 1343-1360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huaxiong Jiang ◽  
Stan Geertman ◽  
Patrick Witte

The implementation of smart governance in government policies and practices is criticised for its dominant focus on technology investments, which leads to a rather technocratic and corporate way of ‘smartly’ governing cities and less consideration of actual user needs. To help prevent a mismatch between the demand for and the supply of technology, this paper explores what smart governance can learn from efforts in debates on planning support systems to close the ‘PSS implementation gap’. This gap refers to a long-standing discrepancy between the availability of planning support systems (supply) and the time-bound support needs of planning practice (demand). By exploring both the academic field of smart governance and the debates on the planning support system implementation gap, this paper contributes to the further development of smart governance by learning from the experiences in the planning support system debates. Two particular lessons are distilled: (1) for technology to be of added value to practice, it should be attuned to the wishes and capabilities of the intended users and to the specifics of the tasks to be accomplished, given the particularities of the context in which the technology is applied; and (2) closing the planning support system implementation gap reveals that knowledge on the context specificities is of utmost importance and will also be of importance to the smart governance developments. In conclusion, smart governance can and should become more aware of the role of contextual factors in collaboration with users and urban issues. This is expected to shift the emphasis from today’s technology-focused, supply-driven smart governance development, to a socio-technical, application-pulled and demand-driven smart governance development.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Markus Rittenbruch ◽  
Marcus Foth ◽  
Peta Mitchell ◽  
Rajjan Chitrakar ◽  
Bryce Christensen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document