Cesar working document 5 a planner's perspective of pss

CESAR
WORKING
DOCUMENT
SERIES

Working
document
no.5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

New insights about the role of knowledge and the planning context.

Peter
Pelzer

13
April
2014

This
working
document
series
is
a
joint
initiative
of
the
University
of
Amsterdam,

Utrecht
University,
Wageningen
University
and

Research
centre
and
TNO

The
research
that
is
presented
in
this
series
is
financed
by
the
NWO
program
on
Sustainable
Accessibility
of
the
Randstad:

http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/nwoa_79vlym_eng

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
4

Instrumenten
in
het
Planproces

Abstract:

This
paper
gains
insight
into
the
improvement
of
knowledge
use
in
spatial
planning
through
the
application
of
Planning

Support
Systems
(PSS).
It
starts
from
the
observation
that
several
geo-‐ICT
tools
have
been
developed
for
this
purpose,
but

its
use
is
lagging
behind.
Studies
aiming
to
explain
this
underutilization
point
at
the
importance
to
take
a
planners’

perspective
rather
than
an
instrumental
perspective,
but
use
generic
models
of
technology
acceptance,
mutual
learning

and
knowledge
diffusion.
This
paper
fills
this
omission
by
focusing
explicitly
on
the
role
of
knowledge
in
spatial
planning.

In
doing
so,
the
paper
will
first
outline
a
conceptual
framework
describing
the
debate
about
PSS
and
knowledge
in

planning.
A
distinction
is
made
between
two
knowledge
characteristics
(forms,
claims)
and
four
knowledge
uses

(instrumental,
symbolic,
conceptual,
interactive).
The
framework
is
empirically
analyzed
through
a
literature
review
of
a

set
of
recent
PSS
case
studies.
It
is
found
that
most
PSS
applications
still
strongly
focus
on
instrumental
knowledge
use,

conceptual
knowledge
use
is
gaining
more
and
more
attention,
symbolic
knowledge
use
is
hardly
observed,
and

interactive
knowledge
use
only
occurs
within
expert
settings.
The
findings
indicate
that
there
is
much
more
potential
for

PSS
to
improve
knowledge
use.
For
instance,
by
aiding
‘storytelling’,
being
more
sensitive
to
the
background
of
actors

involved,
and
more
explicitly
making
learning
and
enlightenment
an
aim
of
the
planning
process.
More
research
is

needed,
however,
particular
into
PSS
use
in
existing
planning
situations.

1.Introduction

Since
the
‘communicative
turn’
in
spatial
planning,
strong
emphasis
has
been
placed
on
the

collaborative,
interactive,
communicative
and
participatory
nature
of
spatial
planning
(e.g.
Healey,

1992;
2007;
Innes,
1998;
Innes
and
Booher,
2010).
Post-‐modernist
approaches
dominate
the

debate;
a
‘new
orthodoxy
[that]
clusters
around
the
idea
that
the
core
of
planning
should
be
an

engagement
with
a
range
of
stakeholders,
giving
them
voice
and
seeking
to
achieve
a
planning

consensus.’
(Rydin,
2007,
p.54).
However,
this
approach
has
also
lead
to
relativism
and
appreciation

of
any
statement
relating
to
a
planning
topic.
In
the
words
of
geinformation-‐researchers
Deal
and

Pallathucheril
(2008,
p.61):
‘In
recent
years,
community
visioning
exercises
have
been
increasingly

used
(…)
but
those
activities
are
rarely
grounded
in
data
or
deep
analysis;
sometimes
they
amount

to
little
more
than
wishful
thinking.’

From
this
perspective,
scientific
knowledge
about
for
instance
land
use,
the
environment

and
regional
economics
is
underutilized,
leading
to
possible
sub-‐optimal
planning
interventions.

This
paper
argues
that
knowledge
should
play
a
more
dominant
role
in
spatial
planning.
It
is
argued

that
dedicated
‘knowledge
technologies’
(Gudmundsson,
2011),
could
play
a
role
in
this

development.
It
is
hypothesized
that
particularly
geo-‐ICT
tools
specifically
designed
for
spatial

planning,
often
captured
under
the
header
of
Planning
Support
Systems
(from
now
on:
PSS),
could

play
a
crucial
role
in
bridging
modernist
and
post-‐modernist
approaches
to
planning
by
including

analytical
and
process-‐oriented
approaches.

PSS
are
‘…geoinformation
technology-‐based
instruments
that
incorporate
a
suite
of

components
that
collectively
support
some
specific
parts
of
a
unique
professional
planning
task’

(Geertman
2008,
p.217).
Despite
enormous
technological
advancements
and
the
specific
focus
on

supporting
planning
activities,
its
use
in
planning
practice
has
been
lagging
behind
(Vonk,
2006,
te

Brömmelstroet,
2010),
arguably
due
to
a
lack
of
technological
acceptance
in
planning
(Vonk,
2006)

and
an
overly
scientific
and
instrumental
focus
(Te
Brömmelstroet,
2010).
What
has
hardly
been

done,
however,
is
to
start
from
a
planning
perspective
to
analyze
the
potential
of
PSS
(for
notable

exceptions
see
Carton
2007;
Geertman,
2006;
te
Brömmelstroet
2010).

This
paper
starts
from
the
debate
about
knowledge
use
in
spatial
planning
to
evaluate
the

potential
of
PSS
in
practice.
The
key
strength
of
PSS
is
its
sensitivity
to
both
the
process
of
planning

(by
specifically
supporting
tasks)
and
the
content
(by
providing
scientifically
sound
insights).

Moreover,
recent
developments
in
participatory
GIS
(Geertman,
2002;
Kahila
and
Kyttä,
2009)

show
that
PSS
also
have
the
potential
to
align
with
the
proposed
collaborative
and
bottom-‐up

nature
of
planning
which
has
became
increasingly
popular
over
the
last
decaded
(Healey,
2007;

Innes,
1998).

The
implications
for
spatial
planning
are
sketched
by
Klosterman
(2009,
iv):‘(….)
the

development
of
PSS
can
be
seen
as
part
of
a
larger
effort
to
return
the
planning
profession
to
its

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
3

traditional
concern
with
using
information
and
analysis
to
more
effectively
engage
the
future’.
This

paper
builds
upon
this
remark
and
argues
that
PSS
could
function
as
a
bridge
between
varying

practical
and
theoretical
approaches
to
planning.
Hence,
it
aims
to
answer
the
following
question:

What
are
the
potentials
of
PSS
to
improve
the
use
of
knowledge
in
planning?

In
answering
this
question,
the
paper
is
structured
as
follows.
Section
two
will
briefly

review
the
PSS
literature,
focusing
in
particular
on
the
planning
context
in
which
the
tool
is

embedded.
Subsequently,
section
three
will
develop
a
theoretical
framework
in
which
the
most

important
components
of
the
debate
about
knowledge
in
planning
will
be
outlined.
This
section
will

describe
the
characteristics
of
knowledge
in
planning
and
the
different
ways
in
which
knowledge

can
be
used.
In
section
four
the
conceptual
framework
from
section
two
and
three
will
be
used
to

analyze
the
state
of
the
art
in
PSS.
It
will
be
evaluated
to
what
extent
different
characteristics
and

uses
can
be
found
in
PSS
case
studies
and
how
this
can
be
understood.
Based
on
these
findings,

section
five
will
relate
these
findings
to
the
contingencies
of
the
planning
context
and
deduce
a
set

of
potentials
to
improve
knowledge
use
through
PSS.
The
paper
will
end
with
a
set
of
conclusions

and
reflections.

2.
PSS
in
planning
practice

With
lessons
learned
from
Lee’s
(1973,
also
Lee
1994)
devastating
critique
on
urban
models
in
the

1970s
and
accompanied
by
the
growing
use
and
possibilities
of
Geographic
Information
Systems

(GIS),
in
the
1990s
a
set
of
knowledge
technologies
specifically
suited
for
spatial
planning
which

become
later
known
as
PSS
were
developed
(Stillwell
et
al.,
1999).
In
several
edited
volumes
(Brail

and
Klosterman,
2001;
Brail,
2008;
Geertman
and
Stillwell,
2003;
2009)
the
characteristics,

application
and
alleged
virtues
of
a
range
of
PSS
such
as
WhatIf?
(Klosterman
1997;
2008),
LEAM

(Deal
and
Pallatucheril,
2008;
2009),
UrbanSim
(Waddell
et
al.,
2008,
2011),
CommunityViz
(Janes

and
Kwartler,
2008),
and
the
Land
Use
Scanner
(Koomen
and
Borsboom-‐van
Beurden,
2011;
Van

der
Hoeven
et
al.,
2009)
were
sketched.
However,
while
the
instrumental
capacities
from
most
PSS

are
impressive,
use
in
practice
is
lagging
behind.
Therefore,
a
set
of
recent
studies
have
shifted

their
focus
to
the
question
why
PSS
are
so
infrequently
used
in
planning
practice
and
how
this
could

be
improved
(te
Brömmelstroet,
2010;
Geertman,
2008;
Vonk,
2006).

Vonk
(2006)
focused
on
the
extent
to
which
organizations
accept
and
adapt
to
a
technology

like
PSS.
The
use
of
PSS
in
practice
should
be
addressed
as
a
diffusion
process
for
which
several

bottlenecks
such
as
a
lack
of
awareness
and
recognition
of
the
value
of
PSS
have
to
be
taken
away

in
order
to
increase
PSS
use.
Vonk’s
(2006)
study
shed
important
new
light
on
possibilities
to

increase
the
use
of
PSS,
which
is
not
just
about
improving
instrumental
characteristics,
but
also

about
organizational
adoption
and
carefully
tailoring
to
the
needs
of
varying
planning
actors.

Geertman
(2006)
complemented
these
insights
by
providing
an
overview
of
the
contingent

factors
that
influence
the
potential
role
of
information,
knowledge
and
instruments
in
planning

practice
(see
Figure
1).
As
among
others
te
Brömmelstroet
(2010)
has
shown,
the
users
or
actors

involved
steer
the
role
of
PSS.
Spatial
planners
and
transport
planners,
for
instance,
tend
to
have

very
different
working
habits,
skills
and
perceptions,
making
universal
application
of
PSS

problematic
(te
Brömmelstroet,
2010).
A
barrier
that
is
related
to
the
educational
background
and

prior
experience
with
technology
of
the
actors
involved
(Vonk,
2006).
The
same
argument
goes

when
local
and
expert
knowledge
are
combined,
for
instance
through
the
application
of

Participatory
GIS
(Dunn,
2007;
Geertman,
2002;
McCall,
2003;
McCall
and
Dunn,
2012).

The
involvement
of
local
stakeholders
is
dependent
on
the
extent
to
which
the
planning

process
is
participatory.
The
position
of
planning
situations
on
Arnstein’s
(1969)
famous
ladder

varies
hugely
across
institutional
contexts
and
planning
issues.
Moreover,
both
the
role
of

participation
and
the
dynamics
of
knowledge
in
planning
are
dependent
upon
the
timing
of
the

planning
process
(e.g.
Teisman
1998).
In
early
phases
and
under
little
pressure
there
is
more
time

for
exploration
and
learning
process
through
PSS,
than
in
later
phases
under
high
time
pressure
in

which
political
involvement
becomes
stronger.

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
4

The
extent
to
which
politics
interferes
in
the
planning
process,
can
be
considered
as
part
of

the
institutional
context.
This
includes
the
dominant
planning
style,
the
political
context
and
the

policy
model
(Geertman,
2006).
In
the
traditional
approaches
after
the
Second
World
War,
for

instance,
planning
was
seen
as
a
rational
and
scientific
endeavor
(Geertman,
2006;
Salet
and
Faludi,

2000),
whereas
in
the
1990s
communication
and
collaboration
became
increasingly
emphasized

(Healey,
1992),
and
planning
became
to
be
seen
as
an
inherently
politicized
and
power-‐driven

process
(Forester,
1989;
Flyvbjerg
1998).
The
institutional
context,
however,
is
not
only
time-‐
dependent,
but
also
place-‐dependent
as
several
comparative
case
studies
on
metropolitan

governance
have
shown
(e.g.
Bontje
et
al.,
2011;
Salet
et
al.
2003).
Hence,
the
application
of
PSS

should
be
carefully
tailored
to
the
institutional
context.
For
instance,
in
the
literature
about
the

liberal
and
decentralised
American
planning
context,
there
is
a
stronger
emphasis
on
participation

and
collaboration
of
local
actors
(Innes
and
Booher,
1999;
2010)
than
in
the
centralized
and

strongly
regulated
Dutch
planning
context
(Faludi
and
Van
der
Valk,
1994;
Healey
2007).

A
point

which
has
not
seemed
to
gathered
to
much
attention
in
PSS
literature
(see
overviews
in
Brail,
2008;

Geertman
and
Stillwell,
2009).

Moreover,
the
role
of
PSS
is
intrinsically
related
to
the
content
of
the
planning
issue.

Transport
planning
issues,
for
instance,
tends
to
be
strongly
expert-‐oriented
and
relies
on
models,

whereas
in
neighborhood
revitalization
local
knowledge
and
participation
plays
a
much
more

dominant
role.
On
the
one
hand
this
difference
is
related
to
the
aforementioned
actors
involved,

sub-‐disciplines
within
the
wide
field
of
spatial
planning
tend
to
have
their
own
habits
regarding
the

role
of
knowledge
and
technology
(Geertman,
2006).
On
the
other
hand
planning
topics
also
place

restrictions
and
demands
on
the
possibilities
of
PSS,
which
is
also
related
to
the
scale
op
the

planning
issue.
Or
as
Alexander
(2008,
p.
210)
puts
it:

As
the
level
of
governance
rises
and
planning
moves
from
more
general-‐comprehensive
approaches
into
sectoral
or

specialized
domains,
appreciative
knowledge
loses
more
of
its
value
and
is
replaced
by
increasing
demand
for
systematic-‐
scientific
knowledge:
professional
and
substantive
expertise.

In
more
abstract
terms,
these
aspects
are
part
of
the
extent
to
which
a
planning
problem
is
‘wicked’

(Rittel
and
Webber,
1973;
Hartmann
2012).
Klinke
and
Renn
(2002)
discern
three
challenges
that

are
related
to
the
‘wickedness’
of
a
planning
problem:
complexity,
uncertainty,
and
ambiguity.

Complexity
refers
to
the
difficulty
to
understand
causal
linkages,
because
of
their
multiplicity
and

the
many
feedback
loops
involved
(Byrne,
1998;
O’Sullivan,
2004;
for
planning:
De
Roo
and
Silva

2010).
Uncertainty
is
about
the
extent
to
which
the
future
can
be
predicted,
something
which
is

dependent
on
the
specific
issue
and
the
information
available
(Klinke
and
Renn,
2002).
Ambiguity,

finally,
is
about
conflicting
interpretations
that
can
arise
within
in
planning.
This
challenge
has
been

particularly
scrutinized
by
collaborative
and
interactive
approaches
to
planning
(Innes
and
Booher

2010,
Healey,
2007;
Rydin,
2007).

For
PSS
these
three
challenges
are
related
to
the
knowledge
involved
in
planning.
A
central

challenge
for
PSS
is
to
handle
and
create
knowledge
and
facilitate
learning
processes
(te

Brömmelstroet,
2010).
The
challenge
of
ambiguity
reveals
that
a
modernist
conception
of

knowledge
does
not
suffice
for
understanding
planning
processes
(cf.
Rydin,
2007)
For
PSS
this

implicates
that
a
more
thorough
and
holistic
understanding
of
knowledge
is
necessary.

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
5

Figure
1:
Explanatory
framework
of
the
potential
planning
support
role
of
dedicated
information,
knowledge
and
instruments
in

planning
practice

Based
on
Geertman
(2006)

3.
Knowledge
use

3.1.Knowledge
and
planning

Following Friedmann (1987), planning is essentially about turning knowledge into action. Implicitly
or explicitly, most work dealing with information and knowledge applies the knowledge pyramid
consisting of Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom (DIKW) developed by Ackoff (1989, also
Rowley 2007). This categorization is based on a hierarchical order, in which meaning is added with
each step up the pyramid. Data can be seen as raw elements, describing a specific part of reality.
Information is adapted to describe the ‘what’ and ‘where’ of reality, whereas wisdom is about
fundamentally understanding a phenomenon. Knowledge is about ‘how’ phenomena work (Ackoff
1989, Rowley 2007). Knowledge will be framed here as an interpretation of an order or pattern out
of information. Or as Couclelis puts it prosaically with regards to GIS and knowledge:
[There are] ‘two types of information-processing system: the type that is capable of converting the information it receives into
knowledge and the type that is not’. (…) The first kind of information-processing system, the kind capable of converting
information into knowledge, is we; the GIS is of the second kind. (Couclelis, 2003, p.165)
While this focus on interpretation is useful for distinguishing knowledge from information and data,
it does not reveal why knowledge has been used so differently in varying planning approaches and
situations. To an important extent this diversion can be explained by the fact that the status of
knowledge differs among the two most important approaches to planning: modernist approaches
with a perception of knowledge rooted in positivism and post-modernist approaches with a
conception of knowledge rooted in social-constructionism (Alexander, 2000; Allmendinger, 2002;
Van Buuren, 2006; Rydin 2007). For modernist approaches to planning, knowledge is a reflection of
(spatial) reality; Scientific analysis is seen as the most appropriate way to explain spatial phenomena
and provide input for rational decision-making (Salet and Faludi, 2000). Knowledge about the
content of a planning problem functions as a starting point for spatial planning. This approach is still
important in practice, for instance in the field of environmental and transportation planning. It has,
however, received sharp criticisms by proponents of what is often called the ‘communicative turn’ in
planning (e.g. Healey 1992, Innes 1998, Sandercock 1998). The central point of critique is that
knowledge is no objective entity ‘out there’, but a result of an interactive process among a range of
actors.
These accounts can be captured under the broad header of the post-modernist approach to
planning. Related to the conception of knowledge as an outcome of social processes rather than a
reflection of reality, strong emphasis is placed on planning as collaboration, consensus seeking, story
telling and participation (e.g. Hajer et al. 2010, Healey 1992, 1997, 2007, Innes and Booher 1999;
2010). The critique on this approach focuses on the risk of relativism and the lack of engagement
with spatial phenomena (Deal and Pallathucheril 2009, Rydin 2007).
3.2 Characteristics of knowledge in planning
The ongoing debate between modernist and post-modernist perspectives of knowledge is a very
interesting academic endeavor, but of little help to planning practitioners. Therefore, this paper will
explicitly seek for concepts and heuristics that have a practical value for planning, assuming that
both modernist and post-modernist approaches have its specific worth and that a plurality of
perspectives on the role of knowledge should be allowed (Van Buuren 2006). Based on the work of

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
6

Healey (2007; 2008) and Rydin (2007), we argue that knowledge in planning has two characteristics
which need to be taken into account when exploring possibilities to improve knowledge use:
knowledge forms and knowledge claims.
Healey
(2007,
p.245)
emphasizes
the
multiplicity
of
knowledge
in
planning:
‘What
we
know

exists
in
many
forms,
from
systematized
accounts
and
analyses,
and
practical
manuals,
to
stories

exchanged
in
the
flow
of
life,
and
skills
exercised
in
doing
practical
work’.
She
proposes
to
limit
the

possible
forms
of
knowledge
in
planning
to
four,
based
on
the
dimensions
explicitness
and

systematization.
In
figure
2
the
four
resulting
forms
are
depicted.
The
different
forms
relate
to

varying
approaches
to
planning;
the
modernist
approaches
to
analysis,
logic
and
evidence
in
the

upper
left
corner
and
post-‐modernist
approaches
to
local
and
embodied
knowledge
in
the
lower

right
corner.

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
7

Figure
2:
Forms
of
knowledge
based
on
explicitness
and
systematization

Source:
Healey
(2007,
Ch.8)

This
typology
of
knowledge
forms
is
very
useful
since
it
provides
insight
into
the
praxis
of
actors

involved
in
the
planning
process.
It
has,
however,
no
specific
relation
to
spatial
planning.

Consequently,
a
second
characteristic
of
knowledge
is
introduced,
which
is
specifically
suited
for

planning.
Inspired
by
the
work
of
Rydin
(2007),
these
are
four
knowledge
claims
(the
usage
of
the

term
‘claim’
implies
that
multiple
knowledges
can
co-‐exist),
which
are
debated
and
discussed
in

planning:
empirical,
process,
predictive
and
normative.
Empirical

knowledge
claims
are
about
the

socio-‐economic
and
environmental
situation
at
a
specific
moment
in
time.
Process
knowledge

claims
refer
to
the
dynamics
of
planning.
It
refers
both
to
how
societal
processes
work
and
how

they
conjunct
with
planning
interventions.
Predictive
knowledge
claims
deal,
according
to
Rydin

(2007,
p.60),
with
‘prediction
of
scenario
under
trend
condition’,
which
in
this
regard
could
be

extended
to
all
kind
of
context-‐scenarios.
Normative
knowledge
claims
are
about
understanding

what
the
results
will
be
of
a
future
planning
intervention.
Note,
that
this
is
not
the
same
as
a

normative
claim
(Rydin,
2007),
although
also
of
crucial
importance
of
less
importance
for
the

particular
purpose
of
this
paper.

Combining
the
characteristics
form
and
claim
results
in
a
set
of
typical
applications
of
knowledge

in
planning
(see
table
1
for
examples),
whereby
it
should
be
noted
that
in
the
messy
reality
of

actual
planning
situations,
one
would
find
combinations
of
forms
and
claims,
rather
than
neatly

defined
ideal
types.
These
characteristics
are
useful,
however,
to
understand
the
use
of
knowledge

in
planning

Table
1:
Characteristics
of
knowledge
in
spatial
planning:
examples
of
the
combination
of
knowledge
form
and

knowledge
claim
in
spatial
planning.

Claim

Form

Empirical
Process
Predictive
Normative

Explicit
and

Systematized

Scientific
report
Analysis
of
causal
chains
with

help
of
computer
software

Evolutionary
urban

models

Multi
Criteria
Analysis

Explicit
and

Experience-‐based

Local
website
about

neighbourhood

Best
practices
and
‘how-‐to’
books
Context
scenarios

Visions
of
urban

designers

Implicit
and

Systematized

Environmental
indicators
Guidelines
about
stages
in

planning
process

Traditional
urban

models

Rules
of
thumb

Implicit
and

Experience
based

Residents’
feeling
of
safety

in
certain
neighbourhoods

Phronesis
of
planners
Popular
wisdom.

Intuition
of
planners

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
8

3.3
Knowledge
use

While
some
insightful
recent
accounts
have
re-‐addressed
the
topic
of
knowledge
use
in
planning

(Healey,
2008;
Gudmundsson,
2011),
the
debate
about
knowledge
use
dates
back
to
the
1970s
and

early
1980s.
Several
scholars
realized
that
the
traditional
instrumental
view
of
knowledge
use
did

not
entirely
capture
the
complex
ways
in
which
(scientific)
knowledge
influences
practice.
The

central
question
in
these
studies
was
not
so
much
what
knowledge
entails
–
since
various
accounts

apply
related
terms
like
‘research’,
‘evaluation’
and
‘information’
(e.g.
Weiss
1977;
Van
der
Heijden,

1986)
–
but
what
it
means
to
use
knowledge.
Amara
et
al.
(2004)
empirically
show
that
three

dominant
types
of
how
knowledge
is
used
in
policy
exist:
instrumental,
symbolic
and
conceptual.

• Instrumental
use
of
knowledge
refers
to
direct
application
of
knowledge
into
planning
practice.

It
has
a
modernistic
perspective
of
the
contributing
role
of
knowledge
in
general,
and
the

endeavour
of
spatial
planning
in
particular.
Planning
rests
upon
scientific
knowledge,
which
is

considered
a
reflection
of
reality.
This
approach
is
found
in
modernist
approaches
in
which

science
precedes
practice
(‘survey
before
the
plan’)
and
in
situations
where
the
planning

problem
is
well-‐defined
and
agreed
upon.
It
rests
on
a
belief
that
following
the
right
arguments,

procedures
and
techniques
will
result
in
an
optimal
planning
situation,
a
view
that
has
proved

very
attractive
for
developers
of
a
variety
of
quantitative
models
ranging
from
land
use
to

traffic
behavior.
This
type
of
knowledge
use
relies
strongly
on
codified
knowledge
forms,
and

has
traditionally
focused
on
empirically
understanding
the
current
situations,
predicting
the

future
and
providing
scientifically
sound
future
visions.
This
view
has
been
criticized
by
planner

scholars
specialized
in
power
analytics
(Flyvbjerg,
1998;
Flyvbjerg
and
Richardson,
2002),
for

being
naïve
and
not
acknowledging
the
power
relations
determining
rationality.

• Symbolic
knowledge
use
acknowledges
the
latter
by
describing
the
use
of
knowledge
in

instances
in
which
knowledge
is
not
used
so
much
to
gain
new
insights
or
solve
problems
but
as

a
way
to
sustain
predetermined
positions
or
interests
(Amara
et
al.
2004).
It
has
no
fixed

relation
with
specific
knowledge
form;
depending
on
the
situation
the
predetermined
position

can
either
be
sustained
by
a
local
narrative
or
a
model
output.
However,
the
most
well-‐known

examples
are
based
on
codified
knowledge
forms
(e.g.
Gudmundsson,
2012;
Flyvbjerg
1998).

Depending
on
the
planning
context,
this
type
of
use
could
be
applied
to
any
knowledge
claim.

• The
central
premise
of
conceptual
knowledge
use
is
that
knowledge
is
used
in
indirect,

unexpected
and
implicit
ways
(Amara
et
al.,
2004;
Innes
1998).
Knowledge
is
not
used
for
direct

problem
solving,
but
for
general
enlightenment
and
understanding,
occurring
in
a
non-‐linear

way.
It
is
hereby
crucial
to
relate
to
the
tacit
knowledge
of
actors
(Polanyi,
1966;
Te

Brömmelstroet
2010),
which
is
necessarily
implicit,
central
in
learning
processes.
Whereas
tacit

knowledge
is
uncontested
for
conceptual
knowledge
use,
it
can
be
applied
in
relation
to
several

other
forms,
depending
on
the
actor.

These
three
knowledge
uses
do
insufficiently
right
to
the
participatory
and
interactive
nature
of

spatial
planning,
which
is
characterized
by
debate,
deliberation
and
consensus
seeking
(e.g.

Forester,
1999;
Innes
and
Booher
1998)
Therefore,
the
tripartite
distinction
by
Amara
et
al.
(2004)

should
be
complemented
by
a
fourth
type:
interactive
knowledge
use.

• Interactive
knowledge
use
starts
from
the
perspective
that
knowledge
use
is
a
social
process
in

which
all
stakeholders
should
be
involved
and
different
knowledge
claims
are
tested
(Rydin

2007).
Knowledge
use
is
addressed
here
as
generating
output,
rather
than
handling
input.
Both

collaboration
and
participation
are
central
in
this
type,
which
resonates
strongly
with

Habermas’
premise
of
communicative
rationality
(Habermas
1983,
for
spatial
planning
see

Healey
1992,
Innes
1998,
Innes
and
Booher
2010).
While
interactive
knowledge
use
could
in

principle
take
place
in
all
planning
situations,
most
examples
from
the
planning
literature
focus

on
local
engagement
and
participation
(e.g.
Innes
and
Booher,
2010).

4.
PSS
and
Knowledge

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
9

4.1
Methodological
approach

To
test
the
value
of
this
framework
in
the
field
PSS,
a
literature
review
of
recent
PSS
applications
is

conducted.
It
is
evaluated
to
what
extent
the
different
uses
and
characteristics
are
found
in
PSS

case
studies
and
how
this
can
be
evaluated.
In
doing
so,
three
recent
edited
volumes
of
PSS

applications
in
practice
were
reviewed,
edited
by
Brail
(2008),
Geertman
and
Stillwell
(2009)
and

Pettit
et
al.
(2008).
Additionally,
recent
studies
by
Alexander
et
al.
(2012),
Pfaffenbichler
(2011)
and

Timmermans
and
Arentze
(2011),
te
Brömmelstroet
(2010),
Boroushaki
and
Malczewski
(2010),

were
included.
Three
criteria
are
defined
in
selecting
the
articles:
they
have
to
be
recent
(>2008),

they
have
to
include
some
kind
of
geo-‐information
component,
and
the
inclusion
of
actual
planners

in
the
application
of
the
tool
(i.e.
no
model
description).
The
latter
proves
a
challenge
in
most

studies,
generally
resulting
only
in
minor
roles
for
planners.
Nonetheless,
51
articles
were
included

in
the
analysis,
which
vary
hugely
in
focus,
scale
and
planning
issue.
It
was
not
possible
to
assess

whether
PSS
has
value
at
all,
since
all
case
studies
included
a
PSS.

4.2
Instrumental
knowledge
use

Instrumental
knowledge
use
was
seen
as
the
traditional
role
for
knowledge
technologies
in

planning.
Following
a
devastating
critique
by
Lee
(1973)
and
the
rise
of
communicative
and

collaborative
approaches
(Friedmann,
1987;
Forester
1989)
to
planning,
PSS
were
developed
that

are
more
modest
in
their
ambitions
and
start
from
the
perspective
that
knowledge
use
is
non-‐linear

and
interactive.
Nontheless,
it
could
be
argued
that
in
all
but
a
few
exceptions
(e.g.
Carver
et
al.,

2009;
Kahila
and
Kyttä,
2009),
instrumental
knowledge
use
played
a
substantial
role
in
the

application
of
PSS.
While
almost
all
authors
realize
that
the
scientific
analytical
approach
to
spatial

planning
has
waned,
the
implicit
assumption
of
technology
as
a
provider
of
objectified
knowledge
is

still
dominant.

Only
a
few
case
studies,
however,
explicitly
describe

instrumental
knowledge
use.

This
situation
is
found
in
situations
with
clearly
defined
problems,
were
the
solution
is

straightforward
(e.g.
Levine,
2009;
Pelizaro
et
al.,
2009).

These
examples
are
mainly
found
in
situations
where
there
was
only
one
sector
or
aspect
of

planning
involved.
Examples
include
green
space
planning
(Pelizaro
et
al.,
2009),
traffic
safety

planning
(Levine,
2009)
and
pollution
emissions
(Van
Esch
et
al.,
2009).
This
is
related
to
the
fact

that
these
are
specialized
expert
tasks
asking
for
a
relatively
unambiguous
solution.
Most
authors

do
realize,
however,
that
their
PSS
only
describes
one
aspect
of
planning
and
the
generated

knowledge
only
provides
a
partial
explanation.

Moreover,
instrumental
knowledge
use
has
an
almost
intrinsic
relation
with
systematized

knowledge
(e.g.
Levine,
2009;
Pelizaro
et
al.,
2009).
Additionally,

the
rise
of
scale
of
the
content
of

a
planning
issue
a
PSS
has
to
cope
with
and
the
use
of
systematized
knowledge
forms
are
positively

associated
(e.g.
Alexander,
2008,
cf.
Van
Delden
and
Hagen-‐Zanker,
2009).
More
relevant
for
the

purpose
of
these
paper
is
to
see
how
the
other
knowledge
uses
play
a
role.

4.3
Symbolic
knowledge
use

Symbolic
knowledge
use
is
hardly
mentioned
in
almost
all
of
the
PSS
case
studies.
Some
PSS

emphasized
the
function
of
PSS
to
communicate
knowledge
to
a
wider
audience
(e.g.
Gibin
et
al.,

2009).
However,
the
political
context
and
power
relations
that
determine
the
role
of
knowledge

(Flyvbjerg
1998,
for
technology
in
planning
Gudmundsson
et
al.,
2012;
Naess,
2011)
are
almost

absent.
One
of
the
explanations
could
be
because
that
the
researchers
paid
no
explicit
attention
to

this
issue,
but
it
could
also
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
most
PSS
applications
are
conducted
in

initial
phases
and
detail
about
implementation
issues,
rather
than
the
role
of
knowledge
in
a
web
of

politics
and
power
relations.
Nonetheless,
it
could
be
argued
that
every
PSS
implicitly
facilitates

symbolic
knowledge
use,
since
the
models
include
assumptions
,
which
are
not
always
discussed
by

planners
and
sometimes
function
as
a
black
box
(Hajer,
1996).
In
a
case
study
by
Lieske
et
al.

(2009),
for
instance,
strong
emphasis
is
put
on
public
engagement.
The
specific
topics
to
be

discussed,
‘landscape
sensitivity’
and
‘growth
efficiency’
are
fixed,
however.
Hence,
the
PSS

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
10

functions
to
communicate
predetermined
positions
about
criteria
which
function
as
knowledge

input
the
planning
process.
It
is
for
this
reason
that
Te
Brömmelstroet
(2010)
calls
for
‘Mediated

Planning
Support’
instead
of
Planning
Support
Systems,
focusing
on
transparency
and
co-‐
construction
of
the
tools
involved
in
planning.

One
study
that
is
sensitive
to
symbolic
knowledge
use
is
a
case
study
about
the
Greater

Houston
motor
vehicle
safety
PSS
by
Levine
(2009).
While
the
author
has
a
strongly
instrumental

perspective
of
knowledge
use,
he
is
also
very
much
aware
of
the
political
context
in
which
the
PSS

is
used.
Hence,
the
knowledge
and
information
provided
by
his
PSS
can
also
be
used
symbolically:

(…)
creating
a
high
visibility
advisory
body
with
specialists
from
a
variety
of
fields
(especially
from
medicine
and
law)
can

provide
credibility
and
support
for
tough
actions
that
need
to
be
taken
to
reduce
the
number
and
severity
of
motor
vehicle

crashes.
(...)In
this
effort,
creating
a
safety
planning
support
system,
such
as
the
Greater
Houston
motor
vehicle
safety
PSS,

can
be
an
important
tool
in
providing
information
that
allows
an
advisory
body
to
make
recommendations
based
on

knowledge
and
information.
(Levine,
2009,
pp.107)

Similarly,
De
Nijs
(2009)
mentions
that
the
findings
of
the
Environmental
Explorer
were
used
in
the

political
debate
by
stakeholder
groups:

The
conclusions
were
quoted
by
various
stakeholder
groups
in
the
Netherlands.
One
of
these,
the
Netherlands
Society
for

Nature
and
Environment
(SNM
2005),
published
an
article
in
its
newsletter
calling
on
the
Dutch
population
to
stop
further

urbanization.
(De
Nijs,
2009,
p.65)

These
case
studies,
however,
are
exceptions.
Much
more
attention
was
paid
to
conceptual

knowledge
use.

4.4
Conceptual
knowledge
use

The
term
conceptual
knowledge
use
is
only
explicitly
mentioned
in
the
study
by
te
Brömmelstroet

(2010),
but
seems
to
be
applicable
to
most
of
the
scrutinized
case
studies
that
handle
more

complex
and
strategic
planning
issues
(e.g.
Deal
and
Pallatucheril,
2009;
Van
der
Hoeven,
2009,

Klosterman,
2008)
Te
Brömmelstroet
(2010)
argues
that
different
knowledge
forms
need
to
be

combined:
‘a
PSS
which
also
aims
to
generate
new
knowledge
[i.e.
learning]
has
to
be
able
to

effectively
interact
with
the
tacit
knowledge
of
the
planning
actors’
(te
Brömmelstroet,
2010,
p.47).

An
interesting
example
of
this
approach
is
given
by
a
case
study
by
Pettit
and
Wu
(2008),
who
apply

several
visualization
and
simulation
(‘virtual
worlds’)
tools
to
let
users
learn
about
natural

phenomena
like
biodiversity,
climate
and
soil
health.

The
PSS
which
focused
on
gaining
a
better
insight
into
local
knowledge
and
fostering

participation
(e.g.
Carver
et
al.
2009,
Kahila
and
Kyttäa,
2009)
are
still
in
its
pioneering
phase.

Including
local
knowledge
in
planning
is
still
very
much
a
learning
process
(e.g.
conceptual

knowledge
use),
both
in
terms
of
methodologies
and
content.
The
two
quotes
below
aptly
describe

the
focus
on
understanding
and
learning
of
participatory
PSS:

(…)
planners
have
to
acquire
not
only
new
skills
and
professional
roles
(Forester
1989;
Puustinen
2006),
but
also
develop
more

usable
and
effective
participation
methods,
as
well
as
a
deeper
understanding
of
the
knowledge
hidden
in
the
experiences
of

the
inhabitants.
(…)
SoftGIS
aims
to
support
urban
planning
by
gathering
experiential
knowledge
systematically
and
allowing

the
urban
planners
to
take
part
in
the
development
of
softGISapplications.
(…)
we
are
keen
to
study
how
the
knowledge
of

every
day
life
can
be
assimilated
in
planning
practices
and
decision
making.
(Kahila
and
Kyttä,
2009,
p.389,
398
and
409)

(…)
a
new
planning
support
system
aimed
at
collecting
spatial
and
contextual
information
about
public
perceptions
of

landscapes
with
an
emphasis
on
developing
better
understandings
of
place-‐based
values
and
associated
meanings.
(Carver
et

al.,
2009,
p.444).

Interestingly,
these
participatory
PSS
focus
on
gathering
and
including
local
knowledge,
rather
than

facilitating
debate
and
interaction.
Van
der
Hoeven
et
al.

(2009)
show
in
a
context
with
only
expert

planners
(the
Land
use
Scanner
in
the
Netherlands),
that
there
is
a
thin
line
between
learning
and

interaction:

The
system
is
developed
to
support
the
discussion
on
the
long-‐term
adaptability
of
the
Netherlands
to
flood
risk.
It
aims
to

facilitate
the
learning
of
the
user
on
the
subject,
instead
of
giving
unambiguous
answers
on
what
management
strategy
is

preferable.
This
is
a
significant
difference
with
the
more
traditional
decision
support
systems.
(Van
der
Hoeven
et
al.,
2009,

p.162,
emphasis
in
original)

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
11

Hereby
it
is
important
to
note
that
this
discussion
only
involves
a
limited
number
of
stakeholders,

an
observation
that
was
found
throughout
the
cases.

4.5 Interactive
knowledge
use

As
in
the
case
study
by
Van
der
Hoeven
et
al.
(2009),
in
several
other
PSS
applications
(e.g.
Deal
and

Pallatucheril,
2009;
Hahn
et
al.,
2009;
Pettit
and
Wyatt,
2009)
the
findings
and
assumptions
of
the

PSS
were
discussed
by
a
group
of
expert
stakeholders.
While
this
process
leads
to
learning
and

enlightenment
among
stakeholders,
it
also
is
a
way
to
create
new
knowledge
as
an
outcome
of

interactive
knowledge
use.
In
most
case
studies,
knowledge
is
perceived
as
a
fixed
entity,
which
a

PSS
helps
to
expand,
a
notion
which
strongly
relates
to
a
modernist
conception
of
knowledge.
In

some
approaches,
however,
participation
and
interaction
were
combined
to
come
to
a
shared

knowledge
base:

In
our
experimentation,
participation
is
used
to
constitute
a
knowledge
base
that
supports
decision
making
and
consensus

building.
The
process
results
in
better
knowledge
for
all
participants
and
in
a
strong
consensus
about
the
diagnosis
of
the

actual
situation
and
about
the
strategic
objectives
for
the
local
development.
(Soutter
and
Repeti,

2009,
p.386)

This
case
study
is
an
exception
in
the
sense
that
it
combines
participation
with
coping
with

knowledge
claims.
In
other
PSS
applications
focusing
on
participation
(also
PGIS,
see
Dunn,
2007;

McCall
and
Dunn,
2012)
the
focus
is
either
on
gathering
local
knowledge
or
including
values
and

normative
claims
to
reach
consensus.
The
former
is
already
discussed
in
the
previous
paragraph

about
conceptual
knowledge
use,
whereas
the
integration
of
(local)
values
with
expert
knowledge

was
found
in
several
PSS
(e.g.
Alexander
et
al.,
2012;
Boroushaki
and
Malczwewski,
2010;
Lieske
et

al.,
2009).
Boroushaki
and
Malczwewski
(2010)
aim
for
a
tool
that:

(…)
provides
a
mechanism
for
expressing
the
preferences
and
objectives
of
the
participants
and
for
generating
a

compromise
solution
that
takes
into
account
the
individual
participants’
evaluations.
It
offers
users
a
structured
environment

for
investigating
the
sources
of
conflicts,
and
the
intensity
of
such
conflicts,
among
different
participants
(Boroushaki
and

Malczwewski,
2010,
p.
323)

In
a
similar
vein,
Lieske
et
al.
(2009,
p.295)
state:
(…)
a
planning
support
system
(PSS)
is
used
to

integrate
public
values
in
the
development
of
a
concept
plan
which
becomes
the
basis
of
the

comprehensive
plan’.

The
only
instance
in
which
different
forms
of
knowledge
were
explicitly
confronted
is
a
case

study
by
Van
Delden
and
Hagen-‐Zanker
(2009),
who
combine
qualitative
storylines
with

quantitative
modelling.
The
study
only
includes
expert
stakeholders,
making
it
more
of
a
learning

exercise
than
a
confrontation
of
knowledge
claims
which
vary
in
form.
The
study
is,
however,

innovative
in
the
sense
that
it
combines
different
forms
of
knowledge.

4.6 Knowledge
characteristics

Unlike
the
study
of
Van
Delden
and
Hagen-‐Zanker
(2009),
most
PSS
studies
focus
on
one

characteristic
of
knowledge,
either
by
providing
input
in
the
planning
process
through
systematized

and
explicit
knowledge
forms
(e.g.
Clarke,
2008;
Van
Esch
et
al.,
2009;
Pelizaro
et
al.,
2009)
or

capturing
local
knowledge
forms
through
a
PSS
(e.g.
Carver
et
al.,
2009;
Kahila
and
Kyttä,
2009).
All

four
knowledge
claims
were
found
in
the
case
studies,
whereby
most
PSS
handle
more
than
one

type
of
claim.
An
overview
is
given
in
Table
2.
Whereby
it
should
be
noted
that
Healey’s
(2007)

distinction
in
explicit
and
implicit
practical
engagement
is
hard
to
find
in
PSS
applications,
since

techniques
do
not
function
as
a
somewhat
opaque
exogenous
force,
but
are
the
central
topic
of

inquiry.
Moreover,
for
widely
applied
tools
like
CommunityViz,
the
knowledge
characteristics
can

vary
across
its
applications
(for
CommunityViz
see
e.g.
Alexander,
2012;
Janes
and
Kwartler,
2008).

The
characteristic
‘implicit
and
experience-‐based’
is
completely
absent,
since
this
is
the
tacit

knowledge
held
by
planning
actors,
rather
than
the
knowledge
handled
by
a
PSS.

Table
2:
Characteristics
of
knowledge
and
examples
of
PSS

Claim

Empirical
Process
Predictive
Normative

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
12

Form

Explicit
and

Systematized

Greater
Houston

motor
vehicle
safety

PSS
(Levine,
2009)

LEAM
(Deal
and

Pallathuceril
2008,
2009)

SLEUTH
(Clarke,
2008)
GRAS
(Pelizaro
et
al.,

2009)

Explicit
and

Experience-‐based

SoftGIS
(Kahila
and

Kyttä,
2009)

Combination
of
tools

(Miller
et
al.,
2009)

METRONOMICA
(Van
Delden

and
Hagen-‐Zanker,
2009)

n/a

Implicit
and

Systematized

n/a
n/a
Land
Use
Scanner
(Van
der

Hoeven
et
al.,
2009)

CommunityViz

(Alexander
et
al.,
2012)

Implicit
and

Experience-‐based

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

Empirical
knowledge
claims
function
in
two
important
ways.
Firstly,
most
participatory
PSS
(e.g.

Carver
et
al.,
2009;
Kahila
and
Kyttä,
2009)
describe
empirical
knowledge
claims,
aiming
to
better

understand
the
local
perspective
of
the
current
situation.
In
PSS
focusing
on
regional
or
national

land
use
empirical
knowledge
claims
are
a
starting
point
for
follow-‐up
analyses,
which
focus
on

knowledge
claims
with
a
future
orientation.
Providing
predictive
knowledge
claims
is
traditionally
a

core
function
of
for
models
in
urban
planning.
These
claims
are
hardly
instrumentally
used,

however,
but
function
more
as
a
learning
process
or
a
starting
point
for
discussion.
There
are

different
ways
PSS
deal
with
predictive
knowledge
claims.
SLEUTH
(Clarke,
2008)
provides

predictions
based
on
past
evolutionary
processes,
whereas
scenarios
are
used
by
PSS
like
the
Land

Use
Scanner
(Van
der
Hoeven
et
al.,
2009)
LEAM
(Deal
and
Pallutuhceril
2008;
2009)
and

Metronomica
(Van
Delden
and
Hagen-‐Zanker,
2009).
A
common
approach
in
planning
practice
is
to

discuss
the
input
and
output
from
modelling
exercises
aiming
at
prediction.
Richard
Klosterman
is

explicit,
his
PSS
What
If?™

is
‘(…)
not
attempting
to
predict
precisely
an
unknowable
future.

Instead,
it
is
an
explicitly
policy-‐oriented
model
that
suggest
what
might
happen
in
the
future
if

clearly
specified
public
policies
are
adopted
and
assumptions
about
the
future
are
correct’

(Klosterman,
2008,
p.90
–
emphasis
in
original).

As
the
latter
quote
reveals,
the
distinction
between
predictive
and
normative
knowledge

claims
in
PSS
applications
is
not
always
clear
(see
for
instance
the
different
ways
in
which
the
term

‘scenario’
is
used).
Nonetheless,
based
on
this
literature
review,
it
could
be
argued
that
the
core

function
of
contemporary
PSS
is
to
facilitate
and
generate
normative
knowledge
claims.
A
PSS
helps

to
understand
the
implications
of
interventions
in
the
regulatory
or
spatial
domain.
A
range
of
PSS

include
impact
analysis
with
regards
to
for
instance
land
values
and
travel
times
(Waddell
et
al.,

2008)
and
air
pollution
(Allen,
2008).
This
function
is
sometimes
accompanied
be
a
normative

judgement
(i.e.
weighing
of
the
impacts).
In
this
regard,
Pelizaro
et
al.
(2009)
argue
that
their
GRAS

PSS
provides
an
optimal
way
to
evaluate
the
design
of
green
space,
based
on
costs
and
perceived

appreciation
by
stakeholders.
However,
when
the
planning
issue
becomes
more
complex
and

holistic,
it
becomes
very
difficult
to
include
strict
judgement
in
a
PSS.

5.
Potentials
of
PSS
to
support
knowledge
use

5.1
Planning
Contingencies

The
uses
and
characteristics
of
knowledge
handled
by
a
PSS
are
dependent
on
a
set
of
contingent

factors
(Geertman,
2006).
The
importance
of
instrumental
characteristics
has
been
extensively

outlined
elsewhere
(Vonk,
2006;
te
Brömmelstroet,
2010)
and
will
not
be
repeated
here.
Instead

the
focus
will
be
on
four
factors:
the
planning
actors,
the
planning
process,
the
content
of
the

planning
issue,
and
the
institutional
context.

The
importance
of
the
role
of
actors
is
gaining
more
attention
in
the
PSS
literature.
Hahn
et

al.
(2009)
stress
the
importance
of
a
‘DSS
architect’;
a
linking
pin
between
the
more
technical

oriented
model
builders
and
the
more
content
oriented
policy
makers.
Actor
characteristics
which

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
13

pop
up
during
later
phases
of
the
PSS
application,
such
as
the
differences
between
spatial
planners

and
transport
planners
(te
Brömmelstroet,
2010),
and
the
varying
frames
about
maps
of
process

oriented
policy
makers,
urban
designers
and
scientific-‐analytic
oriented
planners
(Carton,
2007)

only
receive
limited
attention
;
for
instance
reflected
by
the
lack
of
attention
to
symbolic

knowledge
use.
While
it
is
well-‐known
that
the
use
and
characteristics
of
knowledge
gathered

through
participation,
requires
a
different
treatment
than
expert
knowledge
(see
the
developments

in
Participatory
GIS
en
Participatory
PSS),
the
differentiation
among
actors
involved
in
the

professional
circle
of
policy
makers
(landscape
architects,
transport
planners
etc.)
is
only
in
a
few

PSS
applications
explicitly
taken
into
account.

To
a
certain
extent
this
is
related
to
the
focus
on
developmental
and
early
stages
of
the

planning
process
in
most
case
studies.
The
political
dimension
becomes
more
visible
when
the

planning
process
gets
closer
to
the
decision
stage
(cf.
Teisman,
1998).
Conversely,
PSS
studies

provide
only
limited
insight
into
the
influence
knowledge
has
had
(Gudmundsson,
2011).
However,

since
many
PSS
have
matured
(e.g.
WhatIf?™,
UrbanSim
and
CommunityViz)
it
is
likely
that
this

aspect
will
get
more
attention
in
the
future.

Much
more
attention
is
paid
to
the
complexity
of
spatial
phenomena
a
PSS
has
to
cope
with

(e.g.
Batty,
2007),
part
of
the
factor
content
of
the
planning
issue.
A
range
of
methods,
such
as

activity-‐based
modelling
(Timmermans
and
Arentze,
2011),
cellular
automata
(de
Nijs,
2009)
and

evolutionary
modelling
(Clarke,
2008)
have
been
developed
to
capture
the
complexity
of
cities
and

regions.
Hereby
it
is
more
and
more
acknowledged
that
the
future
is
inherently
uncertain,
a
PSS

functions
to
help
to
understand
spatial
phenomena
and
the
implications
(i.e.
conceptual
knowledge

use),
rather
than
providing
a
‘royal
road
to
truth’
(Sayer
2000,
p.17).
The
most
problematic
for
PSS

is
the
final
challenge
of
‘wicked
planning
issues’,
ambiguity
(Renn
and
Klinke,
2002).This
challenges

presumes
the
presence
of
co-‐existing
and
conflicting
knowledge
claims,
often
taking
different

forms.
In
some
instances
the
form
of
knowledge
is
a
result
of
the
scale
of
analysis.
While
most

planning
issues
are
inherently
multi-‐scale
in
nature,
there
is
a
lacuna
in
PSS
studies
which

specifically
address
this
topic
(for
a
notable
exception
see
Miller
et
al.,
2009).

From
a
governance
perspective,
the
relevant
levels
of
scale
differ
across
the
countries
in

which
a
PSS
is
applied,
the
institutional
context.
In
Geertman
and
Stillwell
(2009)
for
instance,
it

seems
that
PSS
in
the
US
(e.g.
Deal
and
Pallathucheril,
2009,
Levine
2009)
operate
in
a
relatively

empty
institutional
space,
whereas
in
the
cases
from
the
Netherlands,
the
multiplicity
of

governmental
layers
involved
in
spatial
planning
becomes
apparent
(e.g.
De
Nijs,
2009;
Van
der

Hoeven
et
al.,
2009).
These
differences,
however,
are
not
made
very
explicit,
which
makes

comparison
difficult.
The
latter
would
be
very
fruitful,
since
more
and
more
a
PSS
like

CommunityViz
is
applied
widely
across
the
world.
Carefully
tailoring
its
application
to
the
use
and

characteristics
of
knowledge
in
a
particular
country
or
region
would
likely
result
in
a
more

successful
role
for
PSS.
This
brings
us
to
the
potentials
for
PSS
to
improve
knowledge
use.

5.2
Potentials:
contributions
to
planning
tasks

Having
analyzed
a
whole
range
of
different
PSS,
it
is
time
to
turn
to
the
central
question
of
this

paper:
What
are
the
potentials
of
PSS
to
support
the
use
of
knowledge
in
planning?
Obviously,

there
is
no
clear
cut
answer
to
these
question.
Nonetheless,
a
set
of
potentials
could
be
distilled

related
to
the
type
of
knowledge
use,
the
knowledge
characteristics
and
the
planning
context.

These
potentials
will,
in
line
with
Geertman’s
(2008)
definition
of
PSS,
be
framed
as
contributions
to

planning
tasks.

A
first
important
underutilized
potential
is
to
pay
more
attention
to
the
background
of
the

planning
actors
involved.
The
task
a
PSS
supports
is
dependent
on
the
background
and
institutional

reference
of
the
actors
involved.
For
a
planner
with
a
strong
research
oriented
function,

instrumental
knowledge
use
might
be
the
dominant
function
of
a
PSS,
whereas
for
policy
makers

closely
aligned
to
the
political
process,
symbolic
knowledge
use
plays
a
much
more
dominant
role.

Or
as
Timms
(2008,
p.410)
puts
it
with
regard
to
transport
models:
‘(…)
moves
should
be
made
to

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
14

adopt
a
communicative
approach
to
transport
modelling
which
views
models
as
being
tools
in

communicative
planning
processes’.
An
actor-‐oriented
perspective
has
implications
for
both
the

process
(how
is
the
PSS
embedded
in
planning)
and
the
instrumental
characteristics
(what

knowledge
use
is
the
PSS
supporting).
While
some
recent
studies
(Carton,
2007;
te
Brömmelstroet,

2010)
have
provided
preliminary
answers,
more
research
into
the
relation
between
actors
and

knowledge
in
the
context
of
PSS
is
needed.

Secondly,
the
notion
of
planning
as
learning
(May,
1992)
is
a
fruitful
endeavour
for
PSS

application.
In
several
case
studies,
conceptual
knowledge
use
was
–implicitly
or
explicitly-‐

mentioned
as
a
core
aim
of
PSS.
This
purpose
could
be
made
more
explicit,
by
carefully
relating
to

experiential
knowledge
(e.g.
tacit
knowledge)
and
stimulate
a
continuous
learning
process

facilitated
by
a
PSS.
Participation
of
local
actors
is
an
important
component
of
this
learning
process,

since
local
knowledge
is
complementary
to
expert
knowledge.
However,
in
some
instances
conflict

could
also
arise.

Hence,
as
a
third
potential
PSS
could
handle
this
conflict
by
facilitating
the
‘testing
of

knowledge
claims’
(Rydin,
2007).
While
it
is
not
always
easy
to
distil
mere
opinions
from

knowledge,
a
PSS
is
a
means
to
get
a
debate
based
on
arguments.
It
should
be
noted
that
it
is

hereby
important
to
be
very
careful
to
integrate
experiential
knowledge
forms.
Systematized

knowledge
forms
are
the
natural
liaison
of
a
knowledge
technology
like
PSS
and
could
easily
be

privileged
resulting
in
a
strongly
modernist
bias.
Moreover,
as
several
case
studies
revealed,
PSS
are

not
only
a
platform
for
knowledge
claims,
but
also
for
other
claims
like
attitudes,
values
and

interests.
Hence,
PSS
could
support
not
only
negotiation,
but
also
contribute
to
create
a
narrative

about
a
region;
planning
as
storytelling.
Or
as
Hajer
et
al.
(2010,
p.22-‐23)
put
it:
‘Good
regional

planning
is
like
a
tribunal,
at
which
all
claims
–
knowledge,
position,
interests
–
are
confronted
with

each
other
with
aim
of
arriving
at
a
final
verdict,
a
cohesive
story’.

Couclelis
(2005)
also
pointed
at
the
potential
of
PSS
to
support
storytelling
in
planning.
In

recent
PSS
applications
this
task
was
overlooked,
whereas
the
visual
potential
(3D
visualization,

simulation)
is
overwhelming
and
could
bridge
barriers
between
systematized
knowledge
forms

(‘numbers’)
and
experience-‐based
knowledge
forms
(‘stories’).
This
is
crucial,
since
knowledge
does

not
‘add
up’
(Innes,
1998;
Rydin,
2007),
but
is
an
outcome
of
co-‐constructivism.

6. Conclusions
and
Reflections

This
paper
has
attempted
to
provide
a
new
perspective
on
the
role
of
Planning
Support
Systems
in

spatial
planning.
In
doing
so
it
has
bridged
insights
from
the
PSS
literature
and
knowledge,
and

subsequently
applied
this
conceptual
lens
to
a
set
of
recent
PSS
case
studies.
A
starting
point
was

that
the
answer
to
an
improvement
of
knowledge
use
through
PSS
should
be
found
in
a

combination
of
modernist
and
post-‐modernist
approaches
to
planning.
This
endeavour
has
resulted

in
a
set
of
potentials
to
improve
knowledge
use
through
PSS.
When
interpreting
these
findings
a

couple
of
caveats
should
be
kept
in
mind.

This
paper
was
based
on
a
secondary
literature
review,
not
on
a
collection
of
primary
data.

The
latter
would
probably
have
resulted
in
an
even
more
precise
understanding
of
the
dynamics
of

knowledge.
As
was
pointed
out
before,
PSS
researchers
are
in
their
description
not
always
aware
of

the
nuances
of
knowledge
and
planning
that
are
considered
in
this
paper.
Nonetheless,
some

obvious
patterns
emerged
from
the
literature
review.
Instrumental
knowledge
use
still
permeates

many
PSS
applications,
whereas
conceptual
knowledge
use
is
starting
to
get
more
and
more

attention
and
is
likely
to
be
more
firmly
on
the
agenda
in
future
PSS
research,
such
as
in
the
study

by
te
Brömmelstroet
(2010).
Symbolic
knowledge
use
is
surprisingly
absent
in
the
case,
in
contrast

with
critical
studies
about
knowledge
and
technology
(Flyvbjerg,
1998;
Gudmundsson
et
al.,
2012;

Naess
2011).
Further
research
should
make
clear
whether
this
absence
is
an
inherent
characteristic

of
PSS,
or
related
to
the
instrumental
focus
and
interest
(most
authors
describe
their
‘own’
PSS)
of

the
researchers.
Interactive
knowledge
use
is
a
challenge
for
PSS,
because
it
faces
the
ambiguities

involved
in
handling
different
forms
of
knowledge.
Nonetheless,
some
interesting
examples
were

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
15

found
of
interactive
knowledge
use
within
a
professional
circle.
It
would
be
very
interesting
to

extend
these
approaches
to
participatory
GIS
and
participatory
PSS.
An
interesting
link
could
also

be
made
with
the
emerging
paradigm
of
‘storytelling’
in
spatial
planning
(Couclelis,
2005;
Hajer
et

al.,
2010).

This
paper
has
deliberately
set
aside
the
normative
question
of
what
constitutes
‘good’

knowledge
use.
From
a
post-‐modernist
perspective
the
answer
would
always
be
time
and
space

dependent.
A
participatory
process
in
which
all
actors
are
heard
is
a
key
component
of
good

knowledge
use.
From
a
modernist
perspective,
the
object
of
knowledge
plays
a
central
role.
Put

bluntly:
including
more
(instrumental)
use
of
scientific
knowledge
is
better.
The
latter
position
is

arguably
also
the
reason
PSS
evolved
in
the
1990s.
All
of
the
four
knowledge
uses
(instrumental,

symbolic,
conceptual,
interactive)
have
their
advantages
and
disadvantages
in
spatial
planning.

Future
research
should
provide
empirical
insights
about
instances
of
what
types
of
knowledge
use

have
benefits
in
what
situations.
Only
then
could
PSS
become
widespread
phenomena
in
practice,

rather
than
a
rather
marginal
and
diffuse
academic
paradigm.

Acknowledgements

The
author
wishes
to
thank
Dr.
Stan
Geertman
and
Professor
Rob
van
der
Heijden
for
their
invaluable
comments.
The

research
has
been
carried
out
in
the
Sustainable
Accessibility
of
the
Randstad
program
of
the
Dutch
Science
Board

(NWO).

References

ACKOFF,
R.
(1989)
‘From
Data
to
Wisdom.’
Journal
of
Applied
Systems
Analysis,
16
(1),
p.3-‐9.

ALEXANDER,
K.,
R.
JANSSEN,
G.
ARCINIEGAS,
T.
O’HIGGINS,
T.
EIKELBOOM
&
T.
WILDING
(2012)
‘Interactive
Marine
Spatial

Planning:
Siting
Tidal
Energy
Arrays
around
the
Mull
of
Kintyre’.
PLoS
One,
7
(1),
pp.1-‐9.

ALEXANDER,
E.
(2008)
‘The
role
of
knowledge
in
planning’.
Planning
Theory,
7
(2),
207-‐210.

ALEXANDER,
E.
(2000)
‘Rationality
Revisited:
Planning
Paradigms
in
a
Post-‐Postmodernist
Perspective’.
Journal
of
Planning

Education
and
Research,
19
(3),
pp.242-‐256.

ALLEN,
E.
(2008)
‘Clicking
toward
better
outcomes:
Experiences
with
INDEX,
1994
to
2006.’
In:
BRAIL.
R.
(2008,
ed.)

Planning
Support
Systems
for
Cities
and
Regions.
Cambridge
MA:
Lincoln
Institute
for
Land
Policy.
Pp.139-‐166.

ALLMENDINGER,
P.
(2002)
‘Towards
a
post-‐positivist
typology
of
planning
theory.
Planning
Theory,
1
(1),
pp.77-‐99

ARNSTEIN,
S.
(1969)
‘A
Ladder
of
Citizen
Participation’.
Journal
of
the
American
Institute
of
Planners,
Vol.
35,
No.
4,
pp.

216-‐224.

BONTJE,
M.,
S.
MUSTERD
&
P.
PELZER
(2011)
Inventive
City-‐Regions,
Path
Dependence
and
Creative
Knowledge
Strategies.

Farnham:
Ashgate.

BOROUSHAKI,
S.
&

J.
MALCZEWSKI
(2010)
‘Measuring
consensus
for
collaborative
decision-‐making:
A
GIS-‐based

approach.
CEUS,
vol.
32,
pp.322-‐332.

BRAIL,
R.
(2008,
ed.)
Planning
Support
Systems
for
Cities
and
Regions.
Cambridge
MA:
Lincoln
Institute
for
Land
Policy.

BRAIL,
R.
&
R.
KLOSTERMAN
(2001,
eds.).
Planning
support
systems:
integrating
Geographical
Information
Systems,

models
and
visualization
tools.
Redlands,
CA:
ESRI
Press.

BYRNE,
D.
(1998)
Complexity
Theory
and
the
Social
Sciences.
London:
Routledge.

CARTON,
L.(2007)
Map
making
and
map
use
in
a
multi-‐actor
context:
spatial
visualizations
and
frame
conflicst
in
regional

policymaking
in
the
Netherlands.
Delft
University
of
Technology:
PhD-‐thesis.

CARVER,
S.,
A.
WATSON,
T.
WATERS,
R.
MATT,
K.
GUNDERSON
&
B.
DAVIS
(2009)
‘Developing
Computer-‐Based

Participatory
Approaches
to
Mapping
Landscape
Values
for
Landscape
and
Resource
Management’.
In:
GEERTMAN,
S.
&
J.

STILLWELL
(2009)
Planning
Support
Systems:
Best
Practices
and
New
Methods.
Springer/GeoJournal
Library
95,
pp.431-‐
448.

CLARKE,
K.
(2008)
‘A
Decade
if
Cellular
Urban
Modelling
with
SLEUTH:
Unresolved
Issues
and
Problems’.
In:
BRAIL.
R.

(2008,
ed.)
Planning
Support
Systems
for
Cities
and
Regions.
Cambridge
MA:
Lincoln
Institute
for
Land
Policy.
Pp.
47-‐60.

COUCLELIS,
H
(2005)
‘
“Where
has
the
future
gone?”
Rethinking
the
role
of
integrated
land-‐use
models
in
spatial

planning’.
Environment
and
Planning
A,
37,
pp.1353-‐1371.

COUCLELIS,
H.
(2003)
‘The
certainty
of
uncertainty:
GIS
and
the
limits
of
geographical
knowledge.
Transactions
in
GIS,
7

(2),
pp.
165-‐175.

CESAR
Working
Document
Series
no.
5

A
Planner’s
perspective
of
PSS

Page
16

DE
NIJS,
T.
(2009)
‘Future
Land-‐use
in
The
Netherlands:
Evaluation
of
the
National
Spatial
Strategy’.
In:
GEERTMAN,
S.
&
J.

STILLWELL
(2009)
Planning
Support
Systems:
Best
Practices
and
New
Methods.
Springer/GeoJournal
Library
95,
pp.53-‐68.

DE

ROO
G.
&
E.
SILVA
(2010,
eds)
A
planner’s
encounter
with
complexity.
Farnham,
Surrey:
Ashgate

DEAL,
B.
&
V.
PALLATUCHERIL
(2009)
‘A
Use-‐Driven
Approach
to
Large-‐Scale
Urban
Modelling
and
Planning
Support’.
In:

GEERTMAN,
S.
&
J.
STILLWELL
(2009)
Planning
Support
Systems:
Best
Practices
and
New
Methods.
Springer/GeoJournal

Library
95,
pp.29-‐52.

DEAL,
B.
&
V.
PALLATUCHERIL
(2008)
‘Simulating
Regional
Futures:
The
Land-‐use
Evolution
and
Impacts
Assessment

Model
(LEAM)’.
In:
BRAIL.
R.
(2008,
ed.)
Planning
Support
Systems
for
Cities
and
Regions.
Cambridge
MA:
Lincoln
Institute

for
Land
Policy.
Pp.61-‐84.

DUNN,
C.
(2007)
‘Participatory
GIS
–
a
People’s
GIS?’.
Progress
in
Human
Geography,
vol.
31,
no.5,
pp.
616-‐637.

FALUDI,
A.
&

A.
VAN
DER
VALK
(1994)
Rule
and
Order:
Dutch
Planning
Doctrine
in
the
Twentieth
Century.
Dordrecht:

Kluwer
Academic
Publishers.

FLYVBJERG,
B.
(1998)
Rationality
and
Power:
Democracy
in
Practice.
London:
University
of
Chicago
Press.

FLYVBJERG,
B.
&
T.
RICHARDSON
(2002),
Planning
and
Foucault:
:
in
search
of
the
dark
side
of
planning
theory.
In

Allmendinger,
P.
&
M.
Tewdewr
Jones
(2002,
eds.)
Planning
futures:
new
directions
for
planning
theory,
pp.44–63.

FORESTER,
J.
(1989)
Planning
in
the
Face
of
Power.
Berkely,
CA:
University
of
California
Press.

FRIEDMANN,
J.
(1987)
Planning
in
the
Public
Domain:
From
Knowledge
to
Action.
Princeton,
NY:
Princeton
University

Press.

GEERTMAN,
S.
&
J.
STILLWELL
(2009)
Planning
Support
Systems:
Best
Practices
and
New
Methods.
Springer/GeoJournal

Library
95.

GEERTMAN,
S.
&
J.
STILLWELL
(2003)
Planning
Support
Systems
in
Practice.
Berlin/Heidelberg/New
York:
Springer.

GEERTMAN,
S.
(2008)
Planning
Support
Systems:
A
Planner’s
Perspective.

In:
Brail
(2008,
ed.)
Planning
Support
Systems

For
Cities
and
Regions.
Cambridge,
MA:
Lincoln
Institute
of
Land
Use
Policy,
pp.213-‐230.

GEERTMAN,
S.
(2006)
‘Potentials
for
planning
support:
a
planning-‐conceptual
approach.
Environment
and
Planning
B:

Planning
and
Design.
33,
pp.
863-‐880.

GEERTMAN,
S.
(2002)
‘Participatory
planning
and
GIS:
a
PSS
to
bridge
the
gap’.
Environment
and
Planning
B:
Planning
and

Design,
29,
pp.21-‐35.

GIBIN,
M.,
P.
MATEOS,
J.
PETERSON
&
P.
ATKINSON
(2009)
‘Google
Maps
Mashups
for
Local
Public
Health
Service

Planning’.
In:
GEERTMAN,
S.
&
J.
STILLWELL
(2009)
Planning
Support
Systems:
Best
Practices
and
New
Methods.

Springer/GeoJournal
Library
95,
pp.227.

GUDMUNDSSON,
H.
(2011)
‘Analysing
models
as
a
knowledge
technology
in
Transport
Planning.’
Transport
Reviews,
31

(2),
pp.145-‐159.

GUDMUNDSSON,
H.,
E.
ERICSSON,
M.
TIGHT,
M.
LAWLER,
P.
ENVALL,
M.
FIGURUEROA
&
K.
EVANTH
(2012)
‘The
Role
of

Decision
Support
in
the
Implementation
of
“Sustainable
Transport”
Plans’.
European
Planning
Studies,
20
(2),
p.171-‐191.

HABERMAS,
J.
(1983)
The
Theory
of
Communicative
Action
Volume
1.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.

HAJER,
M.,
S.
VAN
‘T
KLOOSTER
&
J.
GRIJZEN
(2010)
Strong
Stories.
How
the
Dutch
are
reinventing
spatial
planning.

Rotterdam:
010
Publishers.

HAJER,
M.
(1995)
The
Politics
of
Environmental
Discourse.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press.

HAHN,
B.,
S.
KOFALK,
J.
DE
KOK,
J.
BERLEKAMP
&
M.
EVERS
(2009)
‘Elbe
DSS:
a
Planning
Support
System
for
Strategic
River

Basin
Planning’.
In:
GEERTMAN,
S.
&
J.
STILLWELL
(2009)
Planning
Support
Systems:
Best
Practices
and
New
Methods.

Springer/GeoJournal
Library
95,
pp.92-‐112.

HARTMANN,
T.
(2012)
‘Wicked
problems
and
clumsy
solutions:
Planning
as
expectationmanagement.
Planning
Theory,

Online
version,
accessible
via:
http://plt.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/15/1473095212440427

HEALEY,
P.
(2008)
‘Knowledge
flows,
spatial
strategy
making
and
the
roles
of
academics’.
Environment
and
Planning
C:

Government
and
Policy,
26,
pp.
861-‐881.

HEALEY,
P.
(2007)
Urban
Complexity
and
Spatial
Strategies.
Towards
a
relational
planning
for
our
times.
Routledge:
Oxon

(UK)/New
York
(US).

HEALEY,
P.
(1997)
Collaborative
Places.
Shaping
places
in
fragmented
societies.
Vancouver,
BC:
UBC
Press.

HEALEY,
P.
(1992)
‘Planning
through
debate.
The
communicative
turn
in
planning
theory.
Town
Planning
Review,
(63)
2,

pp.143-‐162.

INNES,
J.
&
D.
Booher
(2010)
Planning
with
Complexity.
An
introduction
to
collaborative
rationality
for
public
policy.
Oxon:

Routledge.

INNES,
J.
&
D.
Booher
(1999)
‘Consensus
building
as
role
playing
and
bricolage.’
Journal
of
the
American
Planning

Association,
61
(1),
pp.9-‐25.

Cesar working document 5 a planner's perspective of pss

Cesar working document 5 a planner's perspective of pss

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (10)

Similaire à Cesar working document 5 a planner's perspective of pss

Similaire à Cesar working document 5 a planner's perspective of pss (20)

Plus de Marco

Plus de Marco (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Cesar working document 5 a planner's perspective of pss