IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p11774-d1207107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing Complex Knowledge in Sustainable Planning: A Semantic-Based Model for Multiagent Water-Related Concepts

Author

Listed:
  • Mauro Patano

    (Department of Engineering for Innovation, Università del Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy)

  • Domenico Camarda

    (Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Construction and Chemistry (DICATECh), Polytechnic University of Bari, 70125 Bari, Italy)

Abstract

The concepts of green infrastructures, nature-based solutions and ecosystem services are today considered an integral part of the broader theme of the urban bioregion, with an intrinsic character of complexity. It is certainly difficult to structure bioregional processes in a balanced and sustainable way, able to keep local energy production and consumption cycles closed. It is a complex issue of knowledge bases, and problems are increased by the participatory dimension of environmental planning. In fact, when rational planning models have failed in the face of prominent individual needs and environmental complexity, a path has emerged towards the inclusion of multiple citizens’ and stakeholders’ knowledge. The cognitive structure of the plans has thus changed from systems of exclusively expert, formal knowledge to systems of diffused, multi-agent knowledge. This has involved richness but also significant problems in understanding and managing knowledge bases. In this complexity, there are some common peculiarities when it comes to socio-environmental systems. A common feature of the reference domains of ecosystem services, nature-based solutions and green infrastructures is the water resource. A management model of hydrological data, which are structurally relevant and cross-sectoral in environmental planning actions, could represent a flagship initiative. The used approach could be conveyed to more complex and extensive areas of the environmental domain in a perspective of sustainable planning. The present paper is part of a research work oriented toward handling complex environmental subjects, such as green infrastructures, nature-based solutions or ecosystem services, with a knowledge modelling approach. This approach is based on semantic extensions, elaborated form the concept of semantic web, to allow shared interpretations of knowledge coming from different languages and scientific domains. It is also based on using applied ontologies, elaborated from the concept of ontology-based classification, to support a structured organization of knowledge contents. The main research objective is therefore to investigate about a knowledge management system with semantic extensions, populated with hydrological knowledge contents, as well as to propose a preliminary functional architecture. A simple ontology of data is extracted, aiming at clarifying and improving inter-domain communication, so as to enhance a common semantic understanding in a complex environmental system.

Suggested Citation

  • Mauro Patano & Domenico Camarda, 2023. "Managing Complex Knowledge in Sustainable Planning: A Semantic-Based Model for Multiagent Water-Related Concepts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11774-:d:1207107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11774/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11774/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A Khakee & A Barbanente & D Borri, 2000. "Expert and experiential knowledge in planning," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(7), pages 776-788, July.
    2. Dino Borri & Domenico Camarda & Laura Grassini, 2006. "Distributed Knowledge in Environmental Planning: Hybrid IT-Based Approaches in Scenario-Building Contexts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 557-580, November.
    3. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    4. Anna Liddo & Grazia Concilio, 2017. "Making Decision in Open Communities: Collective Actions in the Public Realm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 847-856, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    2. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    5. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Davies-Colley, Christian & Smith, Willie, 2012. "Implementing environmental technologies in development situations: The example of ecological toilets," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-8.
    7. Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Moulaert & Jan Schreurs & Konrad Miciukiewicz, 2014. "Integrative Spatial Quality: A Relational Epistemology of Space and Transdisciplinarity in Urban Design and Planning," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 393-411, August.
    8. Füg, Franz & Ibert, Oliver, 2020. "Assembling social innovations in emergent professional communities. The case of learning region policies in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 541-562.
    9. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    10. Peter Munthe-Kaas, 2015. "Agonism and co-design of urban spaces," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 218-237, July.
    11. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Corianne Payton Scally & J. Rosie Tighe, 2015. "Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 749-769, July.
    13. F. Ackermann & M. Yearworth & L. White, 2018. "Micro-processes in Group Decision and Negotiation: Practices and Routines for Supporting Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 709-713, October.
    14. Derk Jan Stobbelaar, 2020. "Impact of Student Interventions on Urban Greening Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    15. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    16. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.
    17. Einsiedel, Edna F. & Boyd, Amanda D. & Medlock, Jennifer & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 149-158.
    18. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    19. Jongwng Ju & Jaecheol Kim, 2023. "Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    20. repec:lib:000cis:v:5:y:2017:i:1:p:26-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Maie Kiisel, 2013. "Local Community Participation in the Planning Process: A Case of Bounded Communicative Rationality," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 232-250, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11774-:d:1207107. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.