IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/igg/jepr00/v11y2022i1p1-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Narrowing the Implementation Gap: User-Centered Design of New E-Planning Tools

Author

Listed:
  • Pilvi Nummi

    (Aalto University, Finland)

  • Viktorija Prilenska

    (Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia)

  • Kristi Grisakov

    (Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia)

  • Henna Fabritius

    (FinEst Centre for Smart Cities, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia)

  • Laugren Ilves

    (Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia)

  • Petri Kangassalo

    (Aalto University, Finland)

  • Aija Staffans

    (Aalto University, Finland)

  • Xunran Tan

    (Aalto University, Finland)

Abstract

Developing new digital tools to fit the needs of communicative urban and green area planning requires understanding of the various prospective user groups, the different contexts of use, the planning tasks, and the communicative activities at hand. However, it is not self-evident that user research can be applied in research and innovation projects with limited human and time resources. In this article, a user-centered design (UCD) approach is applied in the development of new collaborative 3D tools for urban and green area planning in a multidisciplinary research team in the GreenTwins project. This research shows how essential it is to select easy-to-learn user research methods, identify the knowledge needs for tool development, and ensure that user insight is transmitted to development. In the GreenTwins project, this was achieved by applying a simple UCD framework (PACT) and engaging the research and development team in the process. Despite the challenges, the results show that the methodology used was beneficial.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:igg:jepr00:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:1-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/IJEPR.315804
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    3. Ediane Bó dos Santos & Fernanda Mayara Nogueira & Dávia Marciana Talgatti, 2021. "Plant Species Composition and the Perception of the Afforestation in Urban Public Green Spaces in a Municipality in Eastern Brazilian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-16, 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. 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. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Sofia Eckersten & Berit Balfors & Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling, 2021. "Challenges and Opportunities in Early Stage Planning of Transport Infrastructure Projects: Environmental Aspects in the Strategic Choice of Measures Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2020. "Planning support science: Developments and challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1326-1342, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Daniela C. Zappi & Juliana Lovo & Alice Hiura & Caroline O. Andrino & Rafael G. Barbosa-Silva & Felipe Martello & Livia Gadelha-Silva & Pedro L. Viana & Tereza C. Giannini, 2022. "Telling the Wood from the Trees: Ranking a Tree Species List to Aid Urban Afforestation in the Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, January.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Britz, Wolfgang & Pérez-Dominguez, Ignacio & Narayanan, Gopalakrishnan Badri, 2015. "Analyzing Results from Agricultural Large-scale Economic Simulation Models: Recent Progress and the Way Ahead," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(02), June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:igg:jepr00:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:1-22. 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: Journal Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.igi-global.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.