Digital knowledge technologies in planning practice: from black boxes to media for collaborative inquiry

References

• Abbott, C. (1997). The Portland region: Where city and suburbs talk to each othe – and often agree. Housing Policy Debate, 8, 11–51.10.1080/10511482.1997.9521245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, E. (2001). INDEX: Software for community indicators. In R. Brail, & R. Klosterman (Eds.), Planning support systems: Integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools (pp. 229–261). Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, C. J. (2002). Humble analysis : The practice of joint fact-finding. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032
   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. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arciniegas, G., Janssen, R., & Rietveld, P. (2013). Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: Results of an experiment. Environmental Modelling & Software 39, 159–175. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, H. (1987). System and life-world in Habermas’stheory of communicative action. Theory and Society, 16, 39–86.10.1007/BF00162659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauregard, R. A. 2015. Planning matter: Acting with things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226297422.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Beimborn, E., & Kennedy, R. (2006). Inside the blackbox: Making transportation modeling work for liveable communities. Milwaukee, WI: Citizens for a Better Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Belt, Marjan. (2004). Mediated modeling : A system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Washington, DC: Island press.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The social construction of technological systems : New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society : Studies in sociotechnical change, Inside technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E.. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research (Spring 2002).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (1999). Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic: Pragmatism, social science, and the cognitive division of labor. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 590–607. doi:10.2307/2991808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brail, R. K. (2008). Planning support systems for cities and regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Brail, R. K., & Klosterman, R. E. (2001). Planning support systems: Integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
   Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M., Pelzer, P., Klerkx, R., & Schaminée, S. (2013). Do planning support systems improve planning? Testing the claim in a controlled experiment. Utrecht, Netherlands: Paper presented at Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Utrecht, Netherlands.
   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, 3–20.10.1068/b35019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy, inside technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Conder, S. (2000). Metroscope: The metro residential and nonresidential real estate models - general description and technical appendix. Conference on Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth, Cambridge, MA, March 30 - April 1, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Condon, P., Cavens, D., & Miller, N. (2009). Urban planning tools for climate change mitigation. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1985). The public and its problems. Chicago, IL: Swallow Press. ( Original work published 1927).
   Google Scholar
• Deyle, R. E. E., & Wiedenman, R. E. E. (2014). Collaborative planning by metropolitan planning organizations a test of causal theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34, 257–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond, W. J., & French, S. P. (2008). The future of GIS in planning: Converging technologies and diverging interests. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, 161–174.10.1080/01944360801982146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. S. (1993). Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 213–232). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822381815
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, P. N. (2003). Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In T. J. Misa, P. Brey, & A. Feenberg (Eds.), Modernity and technology (pp. 185–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrmann, J. R., & Stinson, B. L. (1999). Joint fact-finding and the use of technical experts. In L. E. Susskind, S. McKearnen, & J. Thomas-Lamar (Eds.), The consensus building handbook (pp. 375–399). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc..
   Google Scholar
• Elwood, S. A. (2002). GIS use in community planning: A multidimensional analysis of empowerment. Environment and Planning A, 34, 905–922.10.1068/a34117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. (1996). Marcuse or Habermas: Two critiques of technology. Inquiry, 39, 45–70. doi:10.1080/00201749608602407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foth, M. (2009). Handbook of research on urban informatics : The practice and promise of the real-time city. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.10.4018/978-1-60566-152-0
   Google Scholar
• Fregonese Associates. (2012). Envision tomorrow scenario builder user guide. Retrieved from http://envisiontomorrow.org/user-guide
   Google Scholar
• Fregonese Associates. (2013). Envision tomorrow. Retrieved from (http://frego.com/envision-tomorrow/)
   Google Scholar
• French, S. P., Barchers, C., & Zhang, W. (2015). How should urban planners be trained to handle big data? Paper presented at the NSF Workshop on Big Data and Urban Informatics, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• French, S. P., & Wiggins, L. L. (1990). California planning agency experiences with automated mapping and geographic information systems. Environment and Planning B, 17, 441–450.10.1068/b170441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Futrell, R. (2003). Technical adversarialism and participatory collaboration in the US chemical weapons disposal program. Science, Technology & Human Values, 28, 451–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertman, S. (2006). Potentials for planning support: A planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B, 33, 863–880.10.1068/b31129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., Ferreira, J. J. J., Goodspeed, R., & Stillwell, J. (2015). Planning support systems and smart cities. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. C. H. (2003). Planning support systems in practice. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-24795-1
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. C. H. (2009). Planning support systems best practice and new methods, The GeoJournal library. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-8952-7
   Google Scholar
• Geertman, S., Toppen, F., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2013). Planning support systems for sustainable urban development, lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Göçmen, Z. A., & Ventura, S. J. (2010). Barriers to GIS use in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 172–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, B. E. E. (2012). Collaborative resilience : Moving through crisis to opportunity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, B. E. E., & Butler, W. H. H. (2010). Expanding the scope and impact of collaborative planning: Combining multi-stakeholder collaboration and communities of practice in a learning network. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 238–249.10.1080/01944361003646463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. (2013). Planning support systems for spatial planning through social learning. Doctor of Philosophy in Urban and Regional Planning, Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. (2015). Sketching and learning: A planning support system field study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 43, 444–463. doi:10.1177/0265813515614665
   Google Scholar
• Gudmundsson, H. (2011). Analysing models as a knowledge technology in transport planning. Transport Reviews, 31, 145–159. doi:10.1080/01441647.2010.532884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guhathakurta, S. (1999). Urban modeling and contemporary planning theory: Is there a common ground? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 281–292.10.1177/0739456X9901800401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna, K. S. (2000). The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 389–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, B. (1989). Beyond geographic information systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55, 85–90.10.1080/01944368908975408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, B. (1994). The real issues concerning Lee’s “Requiem”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 31.10.1080/01944369408975548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, B., & Batty, M. (1993). Locational models, geographic information and planning support systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12, 184.10.1177/0739456X9301200302
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. In S. Campbell, & S. S. Fainstein (Eds.), Readings in planning theory, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (pp. 237–255).
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning : Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBC Press.10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2
   Google Scholar
• Hickman, L. (1992). John Dewey’s pragmatic technology. 1st Midland book ed, The Indiana series in the philosophy of technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hickman, L. A. A. (2000). Habermas’s unresolved dualism: Zweckrationalität as Idee fixe. In L. E. E. Hahn (Ed.), Perspectives on Habermas (pp. 501–513). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Hilde, T., & Paterson, R. (2014). Integrating ecosystem services analysis into scenario planning practice: Accounting for street tree benefits with i-Tree valuation in Central Texas. Journal of Environmental Management, 146, 524–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. J. (2007). Pragmatic communicative action theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 272–283. doi:10.1177/0739456x06295029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holway, J., Gabbe, C. J., Hebbert, F., Lally, J., Matthews, R., & Quay, R. (2012). Opening access to scenario planning tools. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society, 37, 281–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 52–63.10.1080/01944369808975956
   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, 9–26.10.1080/01944369908976031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kartez, J. D., & Casto, M. P. (2008). Information into action: Biodiversity data outreach and municipal land conservation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, 467–480.10.1080/01944360802378096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (1983). Fact and value in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 49, 216–225. doi:10.1080/01944368308977066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (1987). The politics of computer-aided planning. Town Planning Review, 58, 441.10.3828/tpr.58.4.l45wt05130416rn6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (1994). An introduction to the literature on large-scale urban models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 41.10.1080/01944369408975550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (1997). Planning support systems: A new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, 45–54.10.1177/0739456X9701700105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. (2001). The what if? Planning support system. In R. K. Brail, & R. Klosterman (Eds.), Planning support systems: Integrating geographic information systems, models and visualization tools (pp. 263–284). Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (2013). Lessons learned about planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 79, 161–169. doi:10.1080/01944363.2013.882647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laird, F. N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, technology & human values, 18, 341–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis, J. D. (2011). Urban growth models: State of the art and prospects. In E. L. Birch, & S. M. Wachter (Eds.), Global urbanization (pp. 126–150). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory, Clarendon lectures in management studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, D. B. (1973). Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 39, 163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. B. (1994). Retrospective on large-scale urban models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 35.10.1080/01944369408975549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieto, L., & Beauregard, R. A. (Eds.). (2016). Planning for a material world. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Margerum, R. D. (2011). Beyond consensus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262015813.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Metropolitan Area Planning Council. (2008). MetroFuture Regional Plan: Goals, Objectives, and Draft Implementation Steps. Retrieved from http://www.mapc.org/metrofuture/
   Google Scholar
• Minner, J. S. S. (2015). Recoding embedded assumptions: Adaptation of an open source tool to support sustainability, transparency and participatory governance. In S. Geertman, J. Ferreira, R. Goodspeed, & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning support systems and smart cities (pp. 409–425). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, T. (2008). Planning support systems: What are practicing planners looking for? In R. Brail (Ed.), Planning support systems for cities and region (pp. 231–256). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, R. K. (2005). More and better local planning: State-mandated local planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 55–71. doi:10.1080/01944360508976405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nostikasari, D. (2015). Representations of everyday travel experiences: Case study of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. Transport Policy, 44, 96–107. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, E. T. (2010). Projections, politics, and practice in regional planning: A case study of MetroFuture. Master in City Planning, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., & Geertman, S. (2014). Planning support systems and interdisciplinary learning. Planning Theory & Practice, 15, 527–542.
   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, 42, 638–651, doi:10.1068/b130040p
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., Goodspeed, R., & Brömmelstroet, M. (2015). Facilitating PSS workshops: A conceptual framework and findings from interviews with facilitators. In S. Geertman, J. J. J. Ferreira, R. Goodspeed, & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning support systems and smart cities (pp. 355–369). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, C., Klosterman, R. E., Nin-Ruiz, M., Widjaja, I., Russo, P., Tomko, M., Sinnott, R., & Stimson, R. (2013). The online what if? Planning support system. In S. Geertman, F. Toppen, & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning support systems for sustainable urban development (pp. 349–363). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Pippin, R. B. (1995). On the notion of technology as ideology. In A. Feenberg, & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge (pp. 43–61). Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosan, C. (2007). Metropolitan governance and local land use planning in Boston, Denver, and Portland. ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, J. D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2009). The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2090–2101.10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, P. J., & Schauer, B. A. (2006). HAZUS—Its development and its future. Natural Hazards Review, 7, 40–44.10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2006)7:2(40)
   Google Scholar
• Shiffer, M. J. (1992). Towards a collaborative planning system. Environment and Planning B, 19, 709–722.10.1068/b190709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96, 491–507.10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2003). Power, trust, and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 125–139. doi:10.1177/0739456x03258636
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-up GIS. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 279–294.10.1080/01944360008976107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1975–1989.10.1068/a301975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakuriah, P., Tilahun, N., & Zellner, M. (2015). Big data and urban informatics: Innovations and challenges to urban planning and knowledge discovery. Paper presented at the NSF Workshop on Big Data and Urban Informatics, Chicago, IL, August 11-12, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Tironi, M. (2013). Modes of technification: Expertise, urban controversies and the radicalness of radical planning. Planning Theory, 14, 70–89. doi:10.1177/1473095213513579
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• University of Utah Metropolitan Research Center, and Fregonese Associates. (2014). Envision tomorrow: A suite of urban and regional planning tools. Retrieved December 4, 2014. http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/
   Google Scholar
• Vennix, J. A. A. (1996). Group model building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Vonk, G., Geertman, S., & Schot, P. P. (2005). Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A, 37, 909–924.10.1068/a3712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wachs, M. (1989). When planners lie with numbers. American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55, 476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waddell, P. (2002). UrbanSim: Modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and environmental planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68, 297–314.10.1080/01944360208976274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, D., & Daniels, T. L. (2011). The planners guide to CommunityViz : The essential tool for a new generation of planning. Chicago, IL: Planners Press, American Planning Association.
   Google Scholar
• Wegener, M. (1994). Operational urban models state of the art. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 17–29.10.1080/01944369408975547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zellner, M. L., Lyons, L. B., Hoch, C. J., Weizeorick, J., Kunda, C., & Milz, D. C. (2012). Modeling, learning, and planning together: An application of participatory agent-based modeling to environmental planning. URISA Journal, 24, 77–92.
   Google Scholar