Reconsidering Scale: Using Geographic Information Systems to Support Spatial Planning Conversations

References

• Allen, T. F. H., & Starr, T. B. (1982) Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
   Google Scholar
• Annin, P. (2006) The Great Lakes Water Wars (Washington, DC: Island Press).
   Google Scholar
• Batty, M. (2008) Planning support systems: progress, predictions, and speculations on the shape of things to come, in: R. K. Brail (Ed) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions, pp. 3–30 (Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).
   Google Scholar
• Borgström, S. T., Elmqvist, T., Angelstam, P., & Alfsen-Norodom, C. (2006) Scale mismatches in management of urban landscapes. Ecology and Society, 11(2), p. 16.10.5751/ES-01819-110216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brail, R. K., & Klosterman, R. E. (2001) Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models, and Visualization Tools (Redlands, CA: ESRI Press). Available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0701/2001003074-d.html.
   Google Scholar
• Cash, D., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), p. 8.10.5751/ES-01759-110208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. (2010) GO TO 2040: Comprehensive Regional Plan (Chicago, IL: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP)).
   Google Scholar
• Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. (2015a) Water 2050 Regional Forum: Meeting Notes, April. Available at http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/366242/April+2015+Forum+Notes/cd698ed0-422e-4eee-a9ee-f88f3a59e4e7.
   Google Scholar
• Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. (2015b) Water 2050 Regional Forum: Meeting Notes, January. Available at http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/366242/WaterForumNotes_011515.pdf/5e247fb3-b752-4e3e-a14c-be1b636d8573.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. (2012) Rescaling environmental governance: watersheds as boundary objects at the intersection of science, neoliberalism, and participation. Environment and Planning A, 44(9), pp. 2207–2224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A., & Bakker, K. (2014) The eco-scalar fix: rescaling environmental governance and the politics of ecological boundaries in Alberta, Canada. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1), pp. 128–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A., & Davidson, S. (2011) The watershed approach: challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance unit. Water Alternatives, 4(1), p. 14.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A., & McCarthy, J. (2015) Reviewing rescaling: strengthening the case for environmental considerations. Progress in Human Geography, 39(1), pp. 3–25. doi:10.1177/0309132514521483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming, G. (2011) Spatial resilience in social-ecological systems (New York, NY: Springer).10.1007/978-94-007-0307-0
   Google Scholar
• Cumming, G., Cumming, D. H. M., & Redman, C. L. (2006) Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society, 11(1), p. 14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming, G., Olsson, P., Chapin, F., & Holling, C. (2012) Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology, pp. 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniell, K. A., & Barreteau, O. (2014) Water governance across competing scales: Coupling land and water management. Journal of Hydrology, 519, Part C(0), pp. 2367–2380. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. (2006) Potentials for planning support: a planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(6), pp. 863–880.10.1068/b31129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. (2008) Planning support systems: a planner’s perspective. In R. K. Brail (Ed) Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions, pp. 211–230 (Massachusetts, UK: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. C., Ostrom, M., & Ahn, T. K. (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecological Economics, 32(2), pp. 217–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golledge, R., Marsh, M., & Battersby, S. (2008) A conceptual framework for facilitating geospatial thinking. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98(2), pp. 285–308. doi:10.1080/00045600701851093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. J., Zellner, M., Milz, D., Radinsky, J., & Lyons, L. (2015) Seeing is not believing: cognitive bias and modelling in collaborative planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(3), pp. 319–335. doi:10.1080/14649357.2015.1045015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holling, C. S. (1992) Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62(4), pp. 447–502.10.2307/2937313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogstra, M., & Schanz, H. (2009) Future orientation and planning in forestry: a comparison of forest managers’ planning horizons in Germany and the Netherlands. European Journal of Forest Research, 128(1), pp. 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10342-008-0234-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. R., Wilson, J. A., Cleaver, C., & Vadas, R. L. (2012) Social-ecological scale mismatches and the collapse of the sea urchin fishery in Maine. USA. Ecology and Society, 17(2), p. 15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (2007) Deliberating about the future, in: L. D. Hopkins & M. Zapata (Eds) Engaging the Future: Forecasts, Scenarios, Plans, and Projects, pp. 199–220 (Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).
   Google Scholar
• Kurtz, H. E. (2003) Scale frames and counter-scale frames: constructing the problem of environmental injustice. Political Geography, 22(8), pp. 887–916. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2003.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Lieshout, M., Dewulf, A., Aarts, N., & Termeer, C. (2011) Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a “mega farm” in a small Dutch village. Ecology and Society, 16(1), p. 38.10.5751/ES-04012-160138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, K. N. (1993) Greed, scale mismatch, and learning. Ecological Applications, 3(4), pp. 560–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowe, K. (2011) Neighborhood, city, or region: deconstructing scale in planning frames. Berkeley Planning Journal, 24(1).
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, S. C., Wehrmann, H. A., Knapp, V. H., Lin, Y.-F., Glatfelter, F. E., Angel, J. R., Thomason, J., & Injerd, D. A. (2012) Northeastern Illinois Water Supply Planning Investigations: Opportunities and Challenges of Meeting Water Demand in Northeastern Illinois (Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey, Prairie Research Institute).
   Google Scholar
• Milz, D. (2015) Mismatched scales, mismatched intentions: regional wastewater planning on cape cod, Massachusetts, USA (Ph.D.), University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, T., & Newig, J. (2010) Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: setting the stage for a broader debate. Environmental Management, 46(1), pp. 1–6. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9531-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Pelosi, C., Goulard, M., & Balent, G. (2010) The spatial scale mismatch between ecological processes and agricultural management: do difficulties come from underlying theoretical frameworks? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139(4), pp. 455–462. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., & Geertman, S. (2014) Planning support systems and interdisciplinary learning. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(4), pp. 527–542. doi:10.1080/14649357.2014.963653.
   Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., Geertman, S., van der Heijden, R., & Rouwette, E. (2014) The added value of planning support systems: a practitioner’s perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 48, pp. 16–27. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., Arciniegas, G., Geertman, S., & Lenferink, S. (2015) Planning support systems and task-technology fit: a comparative case study. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 8(2), pp. 155–175. doi:10.1007/s12061-015-9135-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., Goodspeed, R., & te Brömmelstroet, M. (2015) Facilitating PSS workshops: a conceptual framework and findings from interviews with facilitators, in: S. Geertman, J. F. Jr, R. Goodspeed, & J. Stillwell (Eds) Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities, pp. 355–369 (New York, NY: Springer International Publishing).10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8
   Google Scholar
• Radinsky, J., Milz, D., Zellner, M., Pudlock, K., Witek, C., Hoch, C. J., & Lyons, L. (2017) How planners and stakeholders learn with visualization tools: using learning sciences methods to examine planning processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(7), pp. 1296–1323. doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1221795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004) Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), pp. 121–139.10.1023/B:EDPR.0000026609.94841.2f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thayer, Robert L. (2003) LifePlace: Bioregional Thought and Practice, 1st ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press).
   Google Scholar
• Vervoort, J. M., Rutting, L., Kok, K., Hermans, F. L. P., Veldkamp, T., Bregt, A. K., & van Lammeren, R. (2012) Exploring dimensions, scales, and cross-scale dynamics from the perspectives of change agents in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 17(4), p. 24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vervoort, J. M., Hoogstra, M. A., Kok, K., van Lammeren, R., Bregt, A. K., & Janssen, R. (2014) Visualizing stakeholder perspectives for reflection and dialogue on scale dynamics in social-ecological systems. Human Ecology Review, 20(2), pp. 157–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006) A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), p. 13.10.5751/ES-01530-110113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardropper, C. B., Chang, C., & Rissman, A. R. (2015) Fragmented water quality governance: Constraints to spatial targeting for nutrient reduction in a Midwestern USA watershed. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, pp. 64–75. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, O. R. (2002) The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
   Google Scholar
• Zellner, M., & Campbell, S. (2015) Planning for deep-rooted problems: what can we learn from aligning complex systems and wicked problems? Planning Theory & Practice, 16(4), pp. 457–478. doi:10.1080/14649357.2015.1084360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zellner, M., Riolo, R., Rand, W., Brown, D., Page, S., & Fernandez, L. (2010) The problem with zoning: nonlinear effects of interactions between location preferences and externalities on land use and utility. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(3), pp. 408–428.10.1068/b35053
   Google Scholar
• Zellner, M., Lyons, L., Hoch, C. J., Weizeorick, J., Kunda, C., & Milz, D. (2012) Modeling, learning, and planning together: an application of participatory agent-based modeling to environmental planning. URISA Journal, 24(1), p. 77.
   Google Scholar