IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v104y2017icp70-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

PSS: Beyond the implementation gap

Author

Listed:
  • Geertman, Stan

Abstract

In the last couple of decades, a large number of papers on planning support systems (PSS) have been published in national and international, scientific and professional journals. What is remarkable about PSS is that for quite some time their history has been dominated by an implementation gap, that is, a discrepancy between supply and demand: despite the availability of a growing number and diversity of potentially valuable PSS instruments, planning practitioners are rather hesitant to buy, implement or apply them. This implementation gap leads to the question whether PSS are a valuable tool for planning practice. In this commentary, I answer this question by taking a closer look at the PSS debate from four perspectives, namely those of PSS history, PSS research, PSS education and PSS in practice. Although these perspectives are closely related, I show that they also reveal different aspects of this issue. For each of these perspectives, I start with a hypothetical conclusion and present some of my underlying considerations. At the end of this contribution, I summarize the situation, finalize the hypothetical conclusions and provide some recommendations concerning the implementation gap. These include focusing on the positive rather than the negative: we should look at the success stories (successful or best practices) and try to learn from them; after all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Furthermore, PSS are by no means a panacea for all our problems or challenges in planning practice. In my opinion, selectivity in their application in actual planning practice evidences a growing maturity of the PSS field.

Suggested Citation

  • Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:70-76
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416309272
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2005. "Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 909-924, May.
    2. Helen Couclelis, 2004. "Pizza over the Internet: e-commerce, the fragmentation of activity and the tyranny of the region," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 41-54, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Patrick Witte, 2021. "Smartening urban governance: An evidence‐based perspective," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 744-758, June.
    3. Yanliu Lin & Kasper Benneker, 2022. "Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in The Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 391-410, February.
    4. Christopher J Pettit & Scott Hawken & Carmela Ticzon & Simone Z Leao & Aida E Afrooz & Scott N Lieske & Tess Canfield & Hrishi Ballal & Carl Steinitz, 2019. "Breaking down the silos through geodesign – Envisioning Sydney’s urban future," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(8), pages 1387-1404, October.
    5. Marleau Donais, Francis & Abi-Zeid, Irène & Waygood, E. Owen D. & Lavoie, Roxane, 2022. "Municipal decision-making for sustainable transportation: Towards improving current practices for street rejuvenation in Canada," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 152-170.
    6. Shlomit Flint Ashery & Carl Steinitz, 2022. "Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2020. "Planning support science: Developments and challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1326-1342, October.
    8. Till Degkwitz & Daniel Schulz & Jörg Rainer Noennig, 2021. "Cockpit Social Infrastructure: A Case for Planning Support Infrastructure," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 10(4), pages 104-120, October.
    9. Chiara Cocco & Piotr Jankowski & Michele Campagna, 2019. "An Analytic Approach to Understanding Process Dynamics in Geodesign Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-21, September.
    10. Cunha, Isabel & Silva, Cecília, 2023. "Assessing the equity impact of cycling infrastructure allocation: Implications for planning practice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 15-26.
    11. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Patrick Witte, 2020. "Avoiding the planning support system pitfalls? What smart governance can learn from the planning support system implementation gap," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1343-1360, October.
    12. Oliver Lock & Michael Bain & Christopher Pettit, 2021. "Towards the collaborative development of machine learning techniques in planning support systems – a Sydney example," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(3), pages 484-502, March.
    13. Anna M Hersperger & Christian Fertner, 2021. "Digital plans and plan data in planning support science," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(2), pages 212-215, February.
    14. Pilvi Nummi & Viktorija Prilenska & Kristi Grisakov & Henna Fabritius & Laugren Ilves & Petri Kangassalo & Aija Staffans & Xunran Tan, 2022. "Narrowing the Implementation Gap: User-Centered Design of New E-Planning Tools," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    2. Lee, Richard J. & Sener, Ipek N. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Handy, Susan L., 2017. "Relationships between the online and in-store shopping frequency of Davis, California residents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 40-52.
    3. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    4. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    5. Tessa Eikelboom & Ron Janssen, 2015. "Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1065-1087, November.
    6. Haozhi Pan & Stan Geertman & Brian Deal, 2020. "What does urban informatics add to planning support technology?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1317-1325, October.
    7. Adam Sadowski & Karolina Lewandowska-Gwarda & Renata Pisarek-Bartoszewska & Per Engelseth, 2021. "A longitudinal study of e-commerce diversity in Europe," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 169-194, March.
    8. Papa, Enrica & Coppola, Pierluigi & Angiello, Gennaro & Carpentieri, Gerardo, 2017. "The learning process of accessibility instrument developers: Testing the tools in planning practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 108-120.
    9. Silva, Cecília & Patatas, Tiago & Amante, Ana, 2017. "Evaluating the usefulness of the structural accessibility layer for planning practice – Planning practitioners’ perception," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 137-149.
    10. Yoonshin Kwak & Brian Deal & Grant Mosey, 2021. "Landscape Design toward Urban Resilience: Bridging Science and Physical Design Coupling Sociohydrological Modeling and Design Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Qing Zhai & Xinyu Cao & Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Feng Zhen, 2017. "The interactions between e-shopping and store shopping in the shopping process for search goods and experience goods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 885-904, September.
    12. Francisco Javier Moreno Marimbaldo & Miguel-Ángel Manso-Callejo & Ramon Alcarria, 2018. "A Methodological Approach to Using Geodesign in Transmission Line Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-30, August.
    13. Sendy Farag & Tim Schwanen & Martin Dijst, 2005. "Shopping online and/or in-store? A structural equation model of the relationships between e-shopping and in-store shopping," ERSA conference papers ersa05p283, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Douglas Cumming & Sofia Johan & Zaheer Khan & Martin Meyer, 2023. "E-Commerce Policy and International Business," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 3-25, February.
    15. Gerber, Pierre J. & Carsjens, Gerrit J. & Pak-uthai, Thanee & Robinson, Timothy P., 2008. "Decision support for spatially targeted livestock policies: Diverse examples from Uganda and Thailand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 37-51, March.
    16. Moshe Givoni & Eda Beyazit & Yoram Shiftan, 2016. "The use of state-of-the-art transport models by policymakers – beauty in simplicity?," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 385-404, July.
    17. Lenz, Barbara & Nobis, Claudia, 2007. "The changing allocation of activities in space and time by the use of ICT--"Fragmentation" as a new concept and empirical results," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 190-204, February.
    18. Thomas Straatemeier & Luca Bertolini & Marco te Brömmelstroet & Perry Hoetjes, 2010. "An Experiential Approach to Research in Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(4), pages 578-591, August.
    19. Tim Schwanen & Martin Dijst & Mei‐Po Kwan, 2008. "Icts And The Decoupling Of Everyday Activities, Space And Time: Introduction," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 99(5), pages 519-527, December.
    20. Haozhi Pan & Si Chen & Yizhao Gao & Brian Deal & Jinfang Liu, 2020. "An urban informatics approach to understanding residential mobility in Metro Chicago," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1456-1473, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:70-76. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.