IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v43y2016i3p444-463.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sketching and learning: A planning support system field study

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Goodspeed

Abstract

One of the important bottlenecks to the wider adoption of planning support systems is a lack of evidence about whether they improve planning processes. In addition, existing research does not include field studies with high context validity. This paper fills this gap in the literature by reporting the results from a field study evaluating the performance of a planning support systems used for sketch planning as part of a land use planning project in metropolitan Austin, Texas, USA. Participants reported high levels of learning and dialog quality, the two chosen planning support systems performance measures. A regression analysis finds both are related to the ability of planning support systems to change participants’ perceptions. In addition, as suggested by learning theory, the planning support systems performance outcomes are significantly related to participants’ identity as a planner and meeting attendance, but are not related to gender or educational attainment. Finally, for the planning support systems studied here, participation in the planning support systems creation is less important than other factors in explaining planning support systems performance. The paper contributes to efforts to develop and implement robust measures of planning support systems performance and links concept of planning support systems performance to broader theories of learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Goodspeed, 2016. "Sketching and learning: A planning support system field study," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(3), pages 444-463, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:43:y:2016:i:3:p:444-463
    DOI: 10.1177/0265813515614665
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265813515614665
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0265813515614665?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. Huib Ernste, 2012. "Framing Cultures of Spatial Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 87-101.
    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.
    3. Beukers, Els & Bertolini, Luca & Te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2014. "Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: identifying interventions for improving communication and trust," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 61-72.
    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. 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. 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.

    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. 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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    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. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Ying Li & Yani Lai & Yanliu Lin, 2024. "The Role of Diversified Geo-Information Technologies in Urban Governance: A Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Frank van Kouwen & Carel Dieperink & Paul P. Schot & Martin J. Wassen, 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Working Papers 2007.52, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:43:y:2016:i:3:p:444-463. 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.