Spatial Planning Judgments and Computer Supported Collaborative Planning

References

• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words: Second Edition. (J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balazs, C. L., & Lubell, M. (2014). Social learning in an environmental justice context: A case study of integrated regional water management. Water Policy, 16(2014), 97–120.
   Google Scholar
• Beauregard, R. A. (2012). Planning with things. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 182–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauregard, R. A. (2015). Planning matter: Acting with things (1 ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolan, R. S. (2017). Urban planning’s philosophical entanglements: The rugged, dialectical path from knowledge to action (1 ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1996). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 19–46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, W. H., & Goldstein, B. E. (2010). The US fire learning network: Springing a rigidity trap through multi-scalar collaborative networks. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cape Cod Commission. (2013). Area-wide 208 water quality management plan update: Program work plan. Barnstable, MA: Barnstable County Government.
   Google Scholar
• Cape Cod Commission. (2014). 208 plan: Cape cod area wide water quality management plan update (DRAFT). Barnstable, MA: Barnstable County Government.
   Google Scholar
• Cape Cod Commission. (2015). 208 plan: Cape cod area wide water quality management plan update. Barnstable, MA: Barnstable County Government.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Convertino, G., & Ganoe, C. H. (2006). Awareness and teamwork in computer-supported collaborations. Interacting with Computers, 18(1), 21–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., … Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26265993
   Web of Science ®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), 2207–2224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, A., & McCarthy, J. (2015). Reviewing rescaling: Strengthening the case for environmental considerations. Progress in Human Geography, 39(1), 3–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conservation Law Foundation v. Lisa P. Jackson. (2014). United States District Court, District of Massachusetts.
   Google Scholar
• Cumbler, J. T. (2014). Cape Cod: An environmental history of a fragile ecosystem. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deyle, R., & Schively Slotterback, C. (2009). Group learning in participatory planning processes: An exploratory quasiexperimental analysis of local mitigation planning in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(1), 23–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bios/ucal051/88040241html http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/ucal041/88040241.html
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2012). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory. doi:10.1177/1473095212448750
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2015). What kind of research might help us become better planners? Planning Theory & Practice, 16(2), 145–148.
   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). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   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. (2004). Planning support systems: An inventory of current practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(4), 291–310.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, B. E. (2010). Epistemic mediation: Aligning expertise across boundaries within an endangered species habitat conservation plan. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(4), 523–547.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, B. E., & Butler, W. H. (2010). The U.S. fire learning network: Providing a narrative framework for restoring ecosystems, professions, and institutions. Society & Natural Resources, 23(10), 935–951.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, B. E., Wessells, A. T., Lejano, R., & Butler, W. (2013). Narrating resilience: Transforming urban systems through collaborative storytelling. Urban Studies. doi:10.1177/0042098013505653
   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), 285–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. (2015a). Sketching and learning: A planning support system field study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. doi: 10.1177/0265813515614665
   Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. (2015b). Smart cities: Moving beyond urban cybernetics to tackle wicked problems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 79–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R. (2016). Digital knowledge technologies in planning practice: From black boxes to media for collaborative inquiry. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(4), 577–600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodspeed, R., Pelzer, P., & Pettit, C. (2017). Planning our future cities: The role computer technologies can play. In T. W. Sanchez (Ed.), Planning knowledge and research (1 ed.) (pp. 210–225). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative governance: Policy making in the age of mediatization (1 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, B. (1960). Plan or projection: An examination of the use of models in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 26(4), 265–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, B. (1965). New tools for planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(2), 90–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, F., & Chrisman, N. (1998). Boundary objects and the social construction of GIS technology. Environment and Planning A, 30(9), 1683–1694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143.
   Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. J. (1994). What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. Chicago, IL: Planners Press American Planning Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. J., Zellner, M., Milz, D., Radinsky, J. R., & Lyons, L. (2015). Seeing is not believing: Cognitive bias and modelling in collaborative planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(3), 319–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy (Vol. xvi, pp. 237). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Simpson, D. M. (1993). Implementing GIS for planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(2), 230.
   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), 15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy0705/2006042040.html
   Google Scholar
• Kimmell, K. (2013). 208 Water Quality Management Plan Update Directive. Boston, MA: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. E. (1999). New perspectives on planning support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(3), 317–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laws, D., Hogendoorn, D., & Karl, H. (2014). Hot adaptation: What conflict can contribute to collaborative natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 19(2). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. B. (1973). Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39(3), 163–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. B. (1994). Retrospective on large-scale urban models. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(1), 35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2018). Environmental officials issue first-of-its-kind watershed permit for pleasant bay communities on Cape Cod. Boston, MA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning: multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 5–18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
   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
• Milz, D. 2018. The hidden benefits of facilitated dialogue. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/SfQXvdeg4sIxtXQADfty/full
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Milz, D., Zellner, M., Hoch, C., Radinsky, J., Pudlock, K., & Lyons, L. 2017. Reconsidering scale: Using geographic information systems to support spatial planning conversations. Planning Practice & Research. Retrieved from http://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2017.1378979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelzer, P., & Geertman, S. (2014). Planning support systems and interdisciplinary learning. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(4), 527–542.
   Google Scholar
• Pineda-Zumaran, J. (2016). Spatial data usage, spatial thinking and spatial knowledge generation: The case of planning practitioners in Arequipa, Peru. Planning Practice & Research, 31(3), 270–91. doi:10.1080/02697459.2016.1158460..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quick, K., & Feldman, M. (2014). Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work for building efficient resilience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 673–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quick, K., & Sandfort, J. (2014). Learning to facilitate deliberation: Practicing the art of hosting. Critical Policy Studies, 8(3), 300–322.
   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), 1296–1323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y., & Ellis, J. (1994). Distributed cognition: An alternative framework for analysing and explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology, 9(2), 119. Routledge, Ltd.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo, P., Lanzilotti, R., Costabile, M. F., & Pettit, C. J. (2018). Adoption and use of software in land use planning practice: A multiple-country study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(1), 57–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. Ø. (2013). Reviving critical planning theory: Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning (1 ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from Publisher description http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/cam025/92041220.html Table of contents http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam026/92041220.html
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Slotterback, C. S. (2011). Planners’ perspectives on using technology in participatory processes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(3), 468–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spalding, H. C. (2015). Approval of Cape Cod water quality management plan update and acceptance of waste management agencies. Boston, MA: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0642/2006007793-d.html http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0642/2006007793-t.html http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0733/2006007793-b.html
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, K., & Hall, R. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18(1–2), 65–93.
   Google Scholar
• Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2015). A critical reflection on the experimental method for planning research: Testing the added value of PSS in a controlled environment. Planning Practice & Research, 30(2), 179–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te Brömmelstroet, M., Pelzer, P., & Geertman, S. (2014). Forty years after Lee’s Requiem: Are we beyond the seven sins? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(3), 381–387.
   Google Scholar
• Throgmorton, J. A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago’s electric future. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   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), 157–181.
   Web of Science ®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), 24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes, 5291, 157.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from Publisher description http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/cam029/98202423.html Table of contents http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/cam026/98202423.html
   Google Scholar
• Whittemore, A. H. (2015). Practitioners theorize, too: Reaffirming planning theory in a survey of practitioners’ theories. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(1), 76–85.
   Web of Science ®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), 77.
   Google Scholar
• Zellner, M., Lyons, L., Milz, D., Shelley, J., Hoch, C. J., & Radinsky, J. R. (Forthcoming). Participatory complex systems modeling for environmental planning: Opportunities and barriers to learning and policy innovation. In M. McNall (Ed.), Innovations in collaborative modelling. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
   Google Scholar