IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v49y2022i2p391-410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Yanliu Lin

    (Utrecht University, the Netherlands)

  • Kasper Benneker

Abstract

Although a growing body of literature has examined a variety of planning support systems, few studies have been conducted to understand emerging planning support apps for mobile participation and its impact on collaborative planning. This research develops a conceptual framework for assessing different phases of collaborative planning processes and the added value of planning support apps in stakeholder interaction and management. The case studies include four Dutch regeneration projects, which are ongoing pilot projects of the new Environment and Planning Act and supported by a variety of planning support apps. The data for each case study were collected from multiple sources, including policy documents, interviews with stakeholders and online information. The results show that the apps support to engage many participants, provide real-time communication and facilitate effective interactions between the stakeholder managers and local residents. However, their performance is largely dependent on the user-friendliness of the system. Besides, a good consensus building process in the planning phase has a positive effect on stakeholder management and the performance of the apps in the execution phase.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:49:y:2022:i:2:p:391-410
    DOI: 10.1177/23998083211009239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23998083211009239
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/23998083211009239?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. Robin Lybeck, 2018. "Mobile Participation in Urban Planning; Exploring a Typology of Engagement," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5), pages 523-539, October.
    2. Brian Deal & Haozhi Pan & Varkki Pallathucheril & Gale Fulton, 2017. "Urban Resilience and Planning Support Systems: The Need for Sentience," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 29-45, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Enzo Falco & Reinout Kleinhans, 2018. "Digital Participatory Platforms for Co-Production in Urban Development: A Systematic Review," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 7(3), pages 52-79, July.
    5. Lin, Yanliu, 2018. "A comparison of selected Western and Chinese smart governance: The application of ICT in governmental management, participation and collaboration," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 800-809.
    6. Robert Goodspeed, 2016. "The Death and Life of Collaborative Planning Theory," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(4), pages 1-5.
    7. 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.
    8. Haozhi Pan & Si Chen & Yizhao Gao & Brian Deal & Jinfang Liu, 2020. "An urban informatics approach to understanding residential mobility in Metro Chicago," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1456-1473, October.
    9. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    10. 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.
    11. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2020. "Planning support science: Developments and challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1326-1342, October.
    12. 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.
    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. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Patrick Witte, 2020. "Avoiding the planning support system pitfalls? What smart governance can learn from the planning support system implementation gap," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1343-1360, October.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2020. "Planning support science: Developments and challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1326-1342, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Kinigadner, Julia & Büttner, Benjamin, 2021. "How accessibility instruments contribute to a low carbon mobility transition: Lessons from planning practice in the Munich region," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 157-167.
    14. 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.
    15. Christmann, Gabriela & Schinagl, Martin, 2023. "Digitalisation in everyday urban planning activities: Consequences for embodied practices, spatial knowledge, planning processes, and workplaces," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 141-150.
    16. Freke Caset & Filipe M Teixeira, 2022. "Visualizing the potential for transit-oriented development: Insights from an open and interactive planning support tool in Flanders, Belgium," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 411-426, February.
    17. Weckström, Christoffer & Kujala, Rainer & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Saramäki, Jari, 2019. "Assessment of large-scale transitions in public transport networks using open timetable data: case of Helsinki metro extension," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Patrick Witte, 2021. "Smartening urban governance: An evidence‐based perspective," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 744-758, June.
    19. Daphna Levine & Shai Sussman & Meirav Aharon-Gutman, 2022. "Spatial-temporal patterns of self-organization: A dynamic 4D model for redeveloping the post-zoning city," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(3), pages 1005-1023, March.
    20. 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.

    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:49:y:2022:i:2:p:391-410. 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.