A missed opportunity to implement a 3D digital twin in strategic planning in the Ålesund region, Norway: What to blame?

References

• Ahrweiler, P., Frank, D. & Dilbert, N. 2019. ‘Co-designing social simulation models for policy advise: Lessons learned from the INFSO-SKIN study’. [conference paper]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8732901/authors#authors (accessed 29 April 2024).
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. 2006. Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 38(6), 1149–1170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. 2015. Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 42(3), 510–525.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. 2017. Strategic planning: Ontological and epistemological challenges. Gunder, M., Madanipour, A. & Watson, V. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, 28–40. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. AIP Journal July, 216–224.
   Google Scholar
• Babelon, I. 2021. Digital Participatory Platforms in Urban Planning. PhD thesis. Newcastle: Northumbria University. http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/45337/ (accessed 19 April 2024).
   Google Scholar
• Banfield, E.C. 1959. Ends and means in planning. International Social Science Journal 11(3), 361–368.
   Google Scholar
• Boelens, L. & de Roo, G. 2016. Planning of undefined becoming: First encounters of planners beyond the plan. Planning Theory 15(1), 42–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, S. 2011. Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’: Moving beyond the agonistic- communicative divide. Planning Theory 10(2), 161–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brabham, D.C. 2013. The four urban governance problem types suitable for crowdsourcing citizen participation. Silva, C.N. (ed.) Citizen e-Participation in Urban Governance: Crowdsourcing and Collaborative Creativity, 50–68. IGI Global. eBook. DOI:10.4018/978-1-4666-4169-3.ch004
   Google Scholar
• Daniel, C. & Pettit, C. 2022. Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: Results of a citation network analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 49(7), 1875–1892.
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. 2017. Spatial planning: The promised land or rolled-out neoliberalism? Gunder, M., Madanipour, A. & Watson, V. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, 15–17. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de Roo, G. 2017. Spatial planning and the complexity of turbulent, open environments: About purposeful interventions in a world of non-linear change. Gunder, M., Madanipour, A. & Watson, V. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, 314–325. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Deal, B., Pan, H., Pallathucheril, V. & Fulton, G. 2017. Urban resilience and planning support systems: The need for sentience. Journal of Urban Technology 24(1), 29–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DIGIPLAN. 2021a. DIGIPLAN Final Report: Evaluating Spatial Planning Practices with Digital Plan Data. Targeted Analysis. https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/wsl/islandora/object/wsl:27456 (accessed 29 April 2024).
   Google Scholar
• DIGIPLAN. 2021b. DIGIPLAN – Synthesis Report: Evaluating Spatial Planning Practices with Digital Plan Data. https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/ESPON%20DIGIPLAN_Final%20synthesis%20report.pdf (accessed 29 April 2024).
   Google Scholar
• Fiskaa, H. 2014. Med lov skal land byggast Bygningsloven av 1965 – planleggingas ‘grunnlov’ i Norge. Kart og Plan 74, 32–45.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, A., Fan, Z., Day, C. & Barlow, C. 2020. Digital twin: Enabling technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE Xplore 8, 108952–108971.
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. 2006. Potentials for planning support: A planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33(6), 863–880.
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. 2017. PSS: Beyond the implementation gap. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 104, 70–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. & Stillwell, J. 2020. Planning support science: Developments and challenges. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 47(8), 1326–1342.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P., Barbrook-Johnson, P., Narasimhan, K.P. & Wilkinson, H. 2018. Computational modelling of public policy: Reflections on practice. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 21(1): Article 14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. & Hackel, C. 2017. Lessons for developing a planning support system infrastructure: The case of Southern California’s Scenario Planning Model. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46(4), 777–796.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. & Healey, P. 1999. Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies 7(5), 623–646.
   Google Scholar
• Gunder, M., Madanipour, A. & Watson, V. 2017. Planning theory: An introduction. Gunder, M., Madanipour, A. & Watson, V. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, 1–12. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, B. 1989. Beyond geographic information systems. Journal of the American Planning Association 55(1), 85–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2007. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2018. Creating public value through caring for place. Policy and Politics 46(1), 65–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2000. Planning in relational time and space: Responding to new urban realities. Bridge, G. & Watson, S. (eds.) A Companion to the City, 517–530. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Higdem, U. & Kvalvik, K.J. 201). Regional planstrategi - strategi for planleggingen eller ny fylkesplan? Aarsæther, N.J. & Hanssen, G.S. (eds.) Plan- og bygningsloven 2008 - en lov for vår tid? 107–118. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, S.-E., Byrkjeland, M., Båtevik, F.O., Pettersen, I.B., Skogseid, I. & Yttredal, E.R. 2012. Continuity and change in path-dependent regional policy development: The regional implementation of the Norwegian VRI programme. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 66(3), 133–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, H., Geertman, S. & Witte, P. 2020a. Avoiding the planning support system pitfalls? What smart governance can learn from the planning support system implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 47(8), 1343–1360.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, H., Geertman, S. & Witte, P. 2020b. Ignorance is bliss? An empirical analysis of the determinants of PSS usefulness in practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 83: Article 101505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, H., Geertman, S. & Witte, P. 2021. The effects of contextual factors on PSS usefulness: An international questionnaire survey. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 14, 221–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kommunal- og distriktsdepartementet. 2008. Lov om planlegging og byggesaksbehandling (plan- og bygningsloven). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-27-71 (accessed 29 April 2024).
   Google Scholar
• Kommunal- og distriktsdepartementet. 2022. Reguleringsplan: Veileder. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/2804283df64641cea321fdcdcac779f4/reguleringsplan_2022.pdf (accessed 29 April 2024).
   Google Scholar
• Korenhof, P., Blok, V. & Kloppenburg, S. 2021. Steering representations—Towards a critical understanding of digital twins. Philosophy & Technology 34, 1751–1773.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review 19(2), 79–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, M., Fang, S., Dong, H. & Zu, C. 2021. Review of digital twin about concepts, technologies, and industrial applications. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 58, 346–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEvoy, S., van de Ven, F.H.M., Blind, M.W. & Slinger, J.H. 2018. Planning support tools and their effects in participatory urban adaptation workshops. Journal of Environmental Management 207, 319–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metze, T. 2020. Visualization in environmental policy and planning: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 22(5), 745–760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger. 2018. Postpolitics and planning. Gunder, M., Madanipour, A. & Watson, V. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, 180–193. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research 66(3), 745–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordtveit, I. & Hernes, M.B. 2016. Regionale myndigheters bruk av digital plandialog. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/eebc71d90ac14cf0b3e9ec814129dadc/regionale_myndigheters_bruk_digital_plandialog.pdf (accessed 29 April 2024).
   Google Scholar
• Page, J., Mörtberg, U., Destouni, G., Ferreira, C., Näsström, H. & Kalantari, Z. 2020. Open-source planning support system for sustainable regional planning: A case study of Stockholm County, Sweden. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 47(8), 1508–1523.
   Google Scholar
• Pan, H., Kwak, Y. & Deal, B. 2022. Participatory development of planning support systems to improve empowerment and localization. Journal of Urban Technology 29(2), 33–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P. 2015. Usefulness of Planning Support Systems: Conceptual Perspectives and Practitioners’ Experiences. PhD thesis. PhD Series InPlanning vol. 3. Utrecht: Utrech University. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/312867 (accessed 19 April 2024).
   Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P. 2017. Usefulness of planning support systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical illustration. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 104, 84–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., Geertman, S. & van der Heijden, R. 2015. Knowledge in communicative planning practice: A different perspective for planning support systems. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 42(4), 638–651.
   Google Scholar
• Ringholm, T. & Hofstad, H. 2018. Regional planstrategi – strategi for planleggingen eller ny fylkesplan? Aarsæther, J. & Hanssen, G.S.H. (eds.) Plan- og bygningsloven 2008 - fungerer loven etter intensjonene? 107–118. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Roskamm, N. 2015. On the other side of ‘agonism’: ‘The enemy,’ the ‘outside,’ and the role of antagonism. Planning Theory 14(4), 384–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo, P., Lanzilotti, R., Costabile, M.F. & Pettit, C.J. 2018. Towards satisfying practitioners in using planning support systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 67, 9–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. 2017. Communicative planning. Gunder, M., Madanipour, A. & Watson, V. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory, 93–104. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. 2016. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W.R. 1981. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. London: Prentice-Hall International.
   Google Scholar
• Shahat, E., Hyun, C.T. & Yeaom, C. 2021. City digital twin potentials: A review and research agenda. Sustainability 13(6): Article 3386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivastava, P. & Hopwood, N. 2009. A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(1), 76–84.
   Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M. 2010. Making Planning Support Systems Matter: Improving the Use of Planning Support Systems for Integrated Land Use and Transport Strategy-Making. PhD thesis. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam,
   Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M. 2017. Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 104, 77–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M., & Schrijnen, P. 2010. From planning support systems to mediated planning support: A structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 37(1), 3–20.
   Google Scholar
• Trygg, K. & Wenander, H. 2022. Strategic spatial planning for sustainable development–Swedish planners’ institutional capacity. European Planning Studies 30(10), 1985–2001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verdouw, C., Tekinerdogan, B., Beulens, A. & Wolfert, S. 2021. Digital twins in smart farming. Agricultural Systems 189: Article 103046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vonk, G.A. 2006. Improving Planning Support. PhD thesis. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• Vonk, G. & Geertman, S. 2008. Improving the adoption and use of planning support systems in practice. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 2008(1), 153–173.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., Geertman, S., Hooimeijer, P. & Lin, Y. 2019. The usefulness of a web-based participatory planning support system in Wuhan, China. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 74, 208–2017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar