Planning support systems and interdisciplinary learning

Abstract

Planning is both an interdisciplinary and a collaborative endeavour. A range of disciplines are involved in planning, which arguably all have a specific frame through which they perceive reality and address planning issues. Three main disciplinary frames can be discerned: analytical, design and negotiation. Within this context, increasing usage is made of planning support systems (PSS), which are integrated sets of tools, often digital, aiming to support different tasks in the planning process. PSS arguably have the potential to support the planning process by facilitating interdisciplinary learning processes, involving “frame reflection” by different disciplinary actors. This paper studies this assumption through two case studies in which a PSS was applied in an interdisciplinary setting. It was found that “frame reflection” (double-loop learning) occurred in only one of the two case studies -and that this involved several frictions between disciplines. In the other case study more practical forms of learning were found (single-loop learning) – also valuable for planning. It is concluded that PSS have potential for interdisciplinary learning, particularly where the impact analysis function and a shared spatial language improve the quality of the dialogue. With regard to the latter, however, PSS should be prevented from dominating the discussion as this is something which is particularly problematic for stakeholders with a design frame. In future research, the role of local stakeholders in relation to PSS and interdisciplinary learning could also be taken into account.

Keywords::

• communication
• disciplines
• frames
• learning
• planning support systems

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Rob van der Heijden and Rob Goodspeed for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper, as well as Planning Theory & Practice editors Heather Campbell and Aidan While, and three anonymous reviewers for their critical and constructive remarks. In addition the authors would like to thank the interviewees and participants, and Mark Degenkamp (Municipality of Utrecht), Ralph Klerkx (TNO), Basten Kolthof (TNO) and Marco te Brömmelstroet (University of Amsterdam) for their support in the Cartesiusdriehoek workshop.

Notes

^1. Hence, because of the focus on the relation between different elements the term planning support system is used, rather than a planning support tool. Note, however, that several articles use both concepts interchangeably.

^2. For more details about Urban Strategy and the workshop please refer to Pelzer Klerkx, and Kolthof (2014b).

^3. For more details about the PSS and the details of the planning issue please refer to Pelzer et al. (2013).

Additional information

Funding

This research is financially supported by the Connecting Sustainable Cities (VerDuS) programme of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NOW): www.verdus.nl.

Notes on contributors

Peter Pelzer

Peter Pelzer is a PhD candidate at Utrecht University. His research investigates, both empirically and conceptually, the role of Planning Support Systems in planning practice.

Stan Geertman

Dr. Stan Geertman is Associate Professor in Geo-Information Science and Chair of Spatial Planning at Utrecht University. He has published widely in both national and international journals and has published a range of editorial books.