Planning support systems and interdisciplinary learning

References

• Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Jankowski, P., Keim, D., Kraak, M., MacEachren, A., & Wrobel, S. (2007). Geovisual analytics for spatial decision support: Setting the research agenda. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21, 839–857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arciniegas, G., & Janssen, R. (2012). Spatial decision support for collaborative land use planning workshops. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 332–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Oxford: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukers, E., Bertolini, L., & te Brömmelstroet, M. (2014). Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: Identifying interventions for improving communication and trust. Transport Policy, 31, 61–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brail, R. (Ed.). (2008). Planning support systems for cities and regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H. (1996). A social interactionist perspective on computer implementation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 99–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carton, L. (2007). Map making and map use in a multi-actor context: Spatial visualizations and frame conflicts in regional policymaking in The Netherlands. TU Delft: PhD thesis.
   Google Scholar
• Couclelis, H. (2005). “Where has the future gone?” Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1353–1371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roo, G., Visser, J., & Zuidema, C. (2012). Smart methods for environmental externalities. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Dias, E., Kuipers, M., Rafiee, A., Koomen, E., & Scholten, H. (2013). Beauty and brains: Integrating easy spatial design and advanced urban sustainability models. In S.Geertman, J.Stillwell, & F.Toppen (Eds.), Planning support for sustainable urban development (pp. 469–484). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. (2006). Potentials for planning support: A planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 863–880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. (2008). Planning support systems: A planner's perspective. In R.Brail (Ed.), Planning support systems for cities and regions (pp. 213–230). Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2009). Planning support systems: Best practices and new methods. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., Stillwell, J., & Toppen, F. (Eds.). (2013). Planning support systems for sustainable urban development. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, M., & Nowotny, H. (2001). The potential of transdisciplinarity. In J.Thompson Klein, W.Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R.Haberli, A.Bill, R. W.Scholz, & M.Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity (pp. 67–80). Birkhauser: Basel.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Colophon.
   Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. (2013). Planning Support Systems for Spatial Planning Through Social Learning. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Guhathakurta, S. (2002). Urban modeling as storytelling: Using simulation models as a narrative. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 895–911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63, 143–162.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, L. D., Ramanathan, R., & Pallathucheril, V. G. (2004). Interface for a sketch-planning workbench. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28, 653–666.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 52–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage. Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 9–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5, 419–436.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity. An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jankowski, P., & Nyerges, T. (2001). GIS-supported collaborative decision making: Results of an experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 48–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahila, M., & Kyttä, M. (2009). SoftGIS as a bridge-builder in collaborative urban planning. In S.Geertman & J.Stilwell (Eds.), Planning support systems: Best practices and new methods (pp. 389–412). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (1997). Planning support systems: A new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, 45–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieske, S., Coupal, R., Hamerlinck, J., McLeod, D., & Scofield, A. (2013). Planning support systems for fiscally sustainable planning. In S.Geertman, J.Stillwell, & F.Toppen (Eds.), Planning support for sustainable urban development (pp. 127–147). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• MacEachren, A. (2000). Progress reports, Cartography and GIS: Facilitating collaboration. Progress in Human Geography, 24, 445–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacEachren, A. M. (2001). Progress reports Cartography and GIS: Extending collaborative tools to support virtual teams. Progress in Human Geography, 25, 431–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCall, M. K., & Dunn, C. E. (2012). Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance?. Geoforum, 43, 81–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, T. (2008). Planning support systems: What are practicing planners looking for? In R.Brail (Ed.), Planning support systems for cities and regions (pp. 231–256). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Nijstad, B. (2009). Group performance. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., Arciniegas, G., Geertman, S., & de Kroes, J. (2013). Using MapTable® to learn about sustainable urban development. In S.Geertman, J.Stillwell, & F.Toppen (Eds.), Planning support for sustainable urban development (pp. 167–186). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., Geertman, S., van der Heijden, R. v. d., & Rouwette, E. (2014a). The added value of planning support systems: A practitioner's perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 48, 16–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., Klerkx, R., & Kolthof, B. (2014b). Workshop urban strategy Cartesiusdriehoek: Quantitative and qualitative findings from a workshop on March 11, 2014. CESAR Working document series 10. Available via: http://klimaatplanning.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/cesar-working-document-10/ (accessed September 3, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W., & Faludi, A. (2000). Three approaches to strategic spatial planning. In W.Salet & A.Faludi (Eds.), The revival of strategic spatial planning (pp. 1–11). Amsterdam and Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in Action. London: Temple Smith.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Steinitz, C. (2012). A framework for geodesign. Redlands, CA: ESRI press.
   Google Scholar
• Susskind, L., & Ozawa, C. (1984). Mediated negotiation in the public sector: The planner as mediator. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 4, 5–15.
   Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M. (2013). Performance of planning support systems: What is it, and how do we report on it?Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41, 299–308.
   Web of Science ®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. University of Amsterdam: PhD thesis.
   Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transport Policy, 15, 251–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M., & Schrijnen, P. M. (2010). From planning support systems to mediated planning support: A structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, 3–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Hoeven, E., van der Aarts, J., van der Klis, H., & Koomen, E. (2009). An integrated discussion support system for new dutch flood risk management strategies. In S.Geertman & J.Stillwell (Eds.), Planning support systems: Best practices and new methods (pp. 159–174). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vonk, G., Geertman, S., & Schot, P. (2007). New technologies stuck in old hierarchies: The diffusion of geo-information technologies in Dutch public organizations. Public Administration Review, 67, 745–756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyatt, R. (2004). The great divide: Differences in design style between architects and urban planners. Journal of Architectural & Planning Research, 21, 38–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar