IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v104y2017icp77-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain

Author

Listed:
  • te Brömmelstroet, Marco

Abstract

The tenuous link between knowledge and processes of urban strategy-making leads to suboptimal plans, time delays and financial costs. The planning professional is ill-equipped to deal with fundamental urban challenges that threaten the quality and competiveness of cities and regions. For decades, Planning Support Systems (PSS) are being developed to address this challenge. The PSS research domain grew accordingly. Only recently did researchers start to focus more directly on how PSS are used (or not used) by planning practitioners. Understanding the real-life application of PSS is fundamental for addressing the challenges of knowledge use. This commentary argues that we need to go beyond the current simplistic understanding of several key concepts. It identifies academic pathways that further mature the conceptualization of PSS, of planning processes, of the participants and the relationship between them. The argument builds on ten years of full-time research in this domain and combines this with recent insights from other academic fields, such as group performance and behavior psychology. This provides us pathways towards a more realistic evaluation of how knowledge can regain its important role in urban planning.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:77-83
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585641630413X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.011?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. Henrik Gudmundsson, 2011. "Analysing Models as a Knowledge Technology in Transport Planning," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159.
    2. Helen Couclelis, 2005. "“Where has the Future Gone?†Rethinking the Role of Integrated Land-Use Models in Spatial Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(8), pages 1353-1371, August.
    3. Straatemeier, Thomas, 2008. "How to plan for regional accessibility," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 127-137, March.
    4. 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.
    5. P Healey, 1996. "The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 23(2), pages 217-234, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2003. "Planning Support Systems: An Introduction," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Stan Geertman & John Stillwell (ed.), Planning Support Systems in Practice, chapter 1, pages 3-22, Springer.
    8. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    9. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    10. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Pieter M Schrijnen, 2010. "From Planning Support Systems to Mediated Planning Support: A Structured Dialogue to Overcome the Implementation Gap," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(1), pages 3-20, February.
    11. Innes, Judith E. & Gruber, Judith, 2005. "Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6pf9k6sk, University of California Transportation Center.
    12. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "PSS are more user-friendly, but are they also increasingly useful?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 96-107.
    13. Robert Goodspeed, 2016. "Sketching and learning: A planning support system field study," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(3), pages 444-463, May.
    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. Zappa, William & Junginger, Martin & van den Broek, Machteld, 2019. "Is a 100% renewable European power system feasible by 2050?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233, pages 1027-1050.
    2. Jorge Ivan Gonzalez & Mauricio Perez Salazar, 2019. "Mercados y Bienestar. Ensayos en memoria de homero cuevas," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Economía, number 79.

    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. Pelzer, Peter, 2017. "Usefulness of planning support systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical illustration," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 84-95.
    2. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "PSS are more user-friendly, but are they also increasingly useful?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 96-107.
    3. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Stewart, Anson F., 2017. "Mapping transit accessibility: Possibilities for public participation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 150-166.
    6. te Brommelstroet, Marco, 2010. "Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 25-41.
    7. te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Bertolini, Luca, 2008. "Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 251-259, July.
    8. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2020. "Planning support science: Developments and challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1326-1342, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Gaber, John & Gaber, Sharon L., 2010. "Using face validity to recognize empirical community observations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 138-146, May.
    11. Geoffrey A. Battista & Kevin Manaugh, 2019. "My way or the highway? Framing transportation planners’ attitudes in negotiating professional expertise and public insight," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1271-1290, August.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Soria-Lara, Julio A. & Aguilera-Benavente, Francisco & Arranz-López, Aldo, 2016. "Integrating land use and transport practice through spatial metrics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 330-345.
    17. 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.
    18. Rehana Shrestha & Heike Köckler & Johannes Flacke & Javier Martinez & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2017. "Interactive Knowledge Co-Production and Integration for Healthy Urban Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, October.
    19. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2007. "A SWOT Analysis of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(7), pages 1699-1714, July.
    20. Michael Lowry, 2010. "Online public deliberation for a regional transportation improvement decision," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 39-58, January.

    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:77-83. 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.