IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v37y2010i4p578-591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Experiential Approach to Research in Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Straatemeier
  • Luca Bertolini
  • Marco te Brömmelstroet
  • Perry Hoetjes

    (Stadgenoot, Sarphatistraat 410, PO Box 9252, 1006 AG Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Most planning research seeks to understand how current planning practices influence (and are influenced by) the processes and institutional contexts of decision making and the transformation of spaces. Typically, analytical methods borrowed from other social sciences are employed for this purpose. However, if one wants to know how new planning practices can be generated, a different research approach seems to be needed. Relevant innovations do not originate in an academic vacuum, but have to be developed in coproduction with intended users and in the context of their intended use. Only then can a reciprocal learning process between research and practice be activated in which original hypotheses about possible planning innovations are developed through iterative testing, reflection, and adaptation. In our opinion, carrying out research into possible planning innovations thus requires a different type of research methodology from the one typically applied. Because of its static nature, a traditional comparative case-study analysis—as often used in planning research—does not allow for such an iterative, evolutionary process. In this paper we propose a new methodology, which we have labelled ‘experiential case-study analysis’. In this approach each case study provides learning experiences that fuel theory building, but also serve as input for the next case study. We have used this approach to develop and test different planning innovations in three case studies in the field of transport and urban planning in The Netherlands.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:37:y:2010:i:4:p:578-591
    DOI: 10.1068/b35122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b35122
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b35122?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joan E. van Aken, 2004. "Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field‐Tested and Grounded Technological Rules," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 219-246, March.
    2. 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.
    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. Julio A. Soria-Lara & Luca Bertolini & Marco Te Brömmelstroet, 2017. "Towards a more effective EIA in transport planning: a literature review to derive interventions and mechanisms to improve knowledge integration," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(5), pages 755-772, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Thorat, Amit & Vanneman, Reeve & Desai, Sonalde & Dubey, Amaresh, 2017. "Escaping and Falling into Poverty in India Today," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 413-426.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Zemp, Stefan & Stauffacher, Michael & Lang, Daniel J. & Scholz, Roland W., 2011. "Classifying railway stations for strategic transport and land use planning: Context matters!," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 670-679.
    7. 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.
    8. Silva, Cecília & Teixeira, João & Proença, Ana & Bicalho, Tamara & Cunha, Isabel & Aguiar, Ana, 2019. "Revealing the cycling potential of starter cycling cities: Usefulness for planning practice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 138-147.
    9. Riedl, Marcel & Hrib, Michal & Jarský, Vilém & Jarkovská, Martina, 2018. "Media analysis in a case study of Šumava National Park: A permanent dispute among interest groups," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 71-79.
    10. Silva, Cecília & Bertolini, Luca & te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Milakis, Dimitris & Papa, Enrica, 2017. "Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 135-145.

    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 & 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.
    2. 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.
    3. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    4. 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.
    5. Hoe Chin Goi & Jiro Kokuryo, 2016. "Design of a University-Based Venture Gestation Program (UVGP)," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(01), pages 1-35, March.
    6. Baran Grzegorz, 2020. "Social Innovation Living Labs as Platforms to Co-design Social Innovations," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 36-57, March.
    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. Raffaele Fabio Ciriello & Alexandra Cecilie Gjøl Torbensen & Magnus Rotvit Perlt Hansen & Christoph Müller-Bloch, 2023. "Blockchain-based digital rights management systems: Design principles for the music industry," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-21, December.
    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. Kasper P.H. Lange & Gijsbert Korevaar & Inge F. Oskam & Paulien M. Herder, 2017. "Developing and Understanding Design Interventions in Relation to Industrial Symbiosis Dynamics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Dalila Cisco Collatto & Aline Dresch & Daniel Pacheco Lacerda & Ione Ghislene Bentz, 2018. "Is Action Design Research Indeed Necessary? Analysis and Synergies Between Action Research and Design Science Research," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 239-267, June.
    13. van Burg, E. & Gilsing, V.A. & Reymen, I.M.M.J. & Romme, A.G.L., 2008. "Creating university spin-offs : A science-based design perspective," Other publications TiSEM ed13609d-fde4-43dc-ba8a-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Daniela Paddeu & Paulus Aditjandra, 2020. "Shaping Urban Freight Systems via a Participatory Approach to Inform Policy-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    15. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    16. Dekkers, Rob & de Boer, Ronald & Gelsomino, Luca Mattia & de Goeij, Christiaan & Steeman, Michiel & Zhou, Qijun & Sinclair, Scott & Souter, Victoria, 2020. "Evaluating theoretical conceptualisations for supply chain and finance integration: A Scottish focus group," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    19. Marcos Leandro Hoffmann Souza & Luis Henrique Rodrigues & Maria Isabel Wolf Motta Morandi, 2018. "Design of a System Dynamics Model to Analyze the Styrene Demand in the Brazilian Market," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 87-104, February.
    20. Langley, David J. & Zirngiebl, Marthe & Sbeih, Janosch & Devoldere, Bart, 2017. "Trajectories to reconcile sharing and commercialization in the maker movement," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 783-794.

    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:sae:envirb:v:37:y:2010:i:4:p:578-591. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.