Digitalization in land-use planning: effects of digital plan data on efficiency, transparency and innovation

References

• Batty, M. 2021. “The Digital Transformation of Planning.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 48 (4): 593–597. doi:10.1177/23998083211016122.
   Google Scholar
• Brauneis, R., and E. P. Goodman. 2018. “Algorithmic Transparency for the Smart Cit.” Yale Journal of Law and Technology 20 (1): 103–176.
   Google Scholar
• Christmann, G., O. Ibert, J. Jessen, and U. Walther. 2020. “Innovations in Spatial Planning as a Social Process – Phases, Actors, Conflicts.” European Planning Studies 28 (3): 496–520. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1639399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EC. 2007. INSPIRE Directive.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2017. How Digital is Your Country? Europe Improves but Still Needs to Close Digital Gap [Press release]. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/how-digital-your-country-europe-improves-still-needs-close-digital-gap.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. 2017. Territorial and Urban Dimensions of Digital Transition in Europe: Policy Brief. Luxembourg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON DIGIPLAN. 2021a. DIGIPLAN-Evaluating Spatial Planning Practices with Digitalplan Data. https://www.espon.eu/digiplan.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON DIGIPLAN. 2021b. DIGIPLAN – Digital Plans and Plan Data in Switzerland. https://www.espon.eu/digiplan.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON DIGIPLAN. 2021c. DIGIPLAN – Digital Plans and Plan Data in Austria. https://www.espon.eu/digiplan.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON DIGIPLAN. 2021d. DIGIPLAN – Digital Plans and Plan Data in Germany. https://www.espon.eu/digiplan.
   Google Scholar
• Fertner, C., A. Aagaard Christensen, P. Andersen, A. Olafsson, S. Præstholm, O. Caspersen, and J. Grunfelder. 2019. “Emerging Digital Plan Data – New Research Perspectives on Planning Practice and Evaluation.” Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 119 (1): 6–16. doi:10.1080/00167223.2018.1528555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuertes, I. 2008. “Towards Harmonization or Standardization in Governmental Accounting? The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board Experience.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 10 (4): 327–345. doi:10.1080/13876980802468766.
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., and J. Stillwell. 2020. Handbook of Planning Support Science. Cheltenham, UK: Deward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Gruber, M., A. Kanonier, S. Pohn-Weidinger, and A. Schindelegger. 2018. Spatial Planning in Austria with References to Spatial Development and Regional Policy. Vienna: ÖROK. Vol. ÖROK publication series no. 202.
   Google Scholar
• Hersperger, A., and C. Fertner. 2021. “Digital Plans and Plan Data in Planning Support Science.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 48 (2): 212–215. doi:10.1177/2399808320983002.
   Google Scholar
• Horelli, L., J. Saad-Sulonen, S. Wallin, and A. Botero. 2015. “When Self-Organization Intersects with Urban Planning: Two Cases from Helsinki.” Planning Practice & Research 30 (3): 286–302. doi:10.1080/02697459.2015.1052941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., and S. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Indrajit, A., B. van Loenen, H. Ploeger, and P. van Oosterom. 2020. “Developing a Spatial Planning Information Package in ISO 19152 Land Administration Domain Model.” Land Use Policy 98: 104111. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R., T. Lauriault, and G. McArdle. 2015. “Knowing and Governing Cities Through Urban Indicators, City Benchmarking and Real-time Dashboards.” Regional Studies, Regional Science 2 (1): 6–28. doi:10.1080/21681376.2014.983149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kummitha, R., and N. Crutzen. 2017. “How Do We Understand Smart Cities? An Evolutionary Perspective.” Cities 67: 43–52. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marantz, N., and N. Ulibarri. 2019. “The Tensions of Transparency in Urban and Environmental Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X19827638. doi:10.1177/0739456X19827638.
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, A., and M. Bolívar. 2015. “Governing the Smart City: a Review of the Literature on Smart Urban Governance.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (2): 392–408. doi:10.1177/0020852314564308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukhopadhyay, C. 2016. “Transparency in Planning Practice: Contemporary Urban Reform in India.” Italian Journal of Planning Practice 7 (1): 213–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., and D. Stead. 2008. “European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning.” disP – The Planning Review 44 (172): 35–47. doi:10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001.
   Google Scholar
• Nam, T., and T. Pardo. 2014. “The Changing Face of a City Government: A Case Study of Philly311.” Government Information Quarterly 31: S1–S9. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nassehi, A. 2019. Muster: Theorie der digitalen Gesellschaft. Ulm: C.H: Beck.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2016. Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public Services in the Welfare Areas. Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate. Paris: https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/Digital-Government-Strategies-Welfare-Service.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2017. Land-use Planning Systems in the OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Othengrafen, F., and M. Levin-Keite. 2019. “Planners Between the Chairs: How Planners (Do Not) Adapt to Transformative Practices.” Urban Planning 4 (4): 111–125. doi:10.17645/up.v4i4.2237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl-Weber, E., and D. Henckel. eds. 2008. The Planning System and Planning Terms in Germany: A Glossary. Vol. 7. Hannover, Germany: ARL –Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Polívka, J., and C. Reicher. 2019. “The Role of Transparency in Urban Planning Processes.” In Contested Transparencies, Social Movements and the Public Sphere, edited by S. Berger, and D. Owetschkin, 233–251. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Potts, R. 2020. “Is a New ‘Planning 3.0’ Paradigm Emerging? Exploring the Relationship Between Digital Technologies and Planning Theory and Practice.” Planning Theory & Practice 21 (2): 272–289. doi:10.1080/14649357.2020.1748699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2017. The New Urban Agenda. New York: United Nations. https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/
   Google Scholar
• Van den Broeck, J. 2013. “Balancing Strategic and Institutional Planning: The Search for a Pro-Active Planning Instrument.” disP – The Planning Review 49 (3): 43–47. doi:10.1080/02513625.2013.859007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oosterom, P., R. Bennett, M. Koeva, and C. Lemmen. 2020. “3D Land Administration for 3D Land Uses.” Land Use Policy 98: 104665. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, I. 2019. “Rigour and Rigour Mortis? Planning, Calculative Rationality, and Forces of Stability and Change.” Urban Studies 57 (14): 2885–2900. doi:10.1177/0042098019886764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, A., M. Tewdwr-Jones, and R. Comber. 2017. “Urban Planning, Public Participation and Digital Technology: App Development as a Method of Generating Citizen Involvement in Local Planning Processes.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46 (2): 286–302. doi:10.1177/2399808317712515.
   Google Scholar
• Witte, P., E. Punt, and S. Geertman. 2020. “Smart Governance in the Making: Integrating “Smart” in Local Spatial Planning.” In Handbook of Planning Support Science, edited by S. Geeertman, and J. Stillwell, 226–237. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar