The presentation from my dissertation proposal defense.

1. Geographic Information Systems and Social
Learning in Participatory Spatial Planning
Robert Goodspeed Committee Members:
MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning • Prof. Joseph Ferreira, Jr. (chair)
Dissertation Colloquium • Prof. Brent Ryan
30 May 2012 • Prof. Annette M. Kim
Reviewer:
• Prof. Eran Ben-Joseph

2. Overview
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
3. Research Questions and Hypotheses
4. Previous Research
a) Spatial Planning
b) Computer Modeling for Planning
c) Social Learning in Policy and Planning
5. Case Selection and Research Design
6. Anticipated Challenges, Works Cited & Discussion
2

3. 1-Slide Dissertation Proposal
Planning Processes:
A B
How do participants‘ knowledge, views, and
attitudes change after participating in workshops
with/without the GIS tool, or different types of tools
and workshops?
Does the GIS tool, and the way it is used, affect
the type of discussion that happens in planning
workshops?
How can specific projects using GIS tools result
in knowledge that continues beyond the
process?
3

4. 1. Introduction

5. Spatial Planning Projects are Increasing
Source: Bartholomew (2007)
5

6. An Increasing Number use GIS Support Tools
Galveston, Texas South Holland, Netherlands
Cape Cod, Mass.
Meridian, Idaho Marshfield, Mass.
Medford, Mass.
Sources: Medford (MAPC), Marshfield (author), all
others from CommunityViz case studies 6

7. Maturing Research and Practice Around the Tools
2012 2011 2009 2008 2001
―Open Scenario Planning Tools Ecosystem‖ group working on
standards, interoperability, techniques
Professional technical assessment reports/memos:
• ICF/Montgomery County (Grant, Rooney, and Assasie 2010)
• UBC/Lincoln Institute (Condon, Cavens and Miller 2009)
• Portland Metro (Hoglund 2011)
Drivers
• Technology: desktop GIS, web-based geoprocessing, open source software
• Public Policy: HUD Sustainable Communities Initiative, Climate change/Calif. S.B. 375
• Urban Change: Shifting preferences, demographics, travel patterns, etc.
7

8. Tools
Retail Tools (ArcGIS Extensions)
• CommunityViz 1,2
• Index 1
• Envision Tomorrow 1,2
• What If?
Emerging (web-based)
• IPLACE3S 1
• MetroQuest
Proprietary/Prototypes (various)
• Urban Footprint/Rapid Fire (Calthorpe)
• Decision Commons 2
• Urban Vision/UrbanSim
1Assessed for Metropolitan Area Planning Council in
January 2011 (Goodspeed, R. MAPC Memorandum:
Software evaluation for local scenario planning project,
Part 1 and 2. January 2011.)
2 Used by proposed dissertation cases.
8

9. Diverse Modeling Systems …
Products Definition GIS Tool GIS Tool Examples in Examples in INDEX
Examples Examples CommunityViz
(technical) (content)
Instantiation Realization of - Specific model with Marshfield Specific INDEX Project
the artifact in data Buildout Analysis
the environment
Method Algorithm or Analysis Indicator estimation Set of ―wizards‖ Fixed methods associated
guideline functions Build-out analysis or methods for with indicators
ArcMap Functions common tasks
Model Relation Data model Land uses Flexible Fixed relations between
between composed of layers, allowable
constructs development/buildi manipulations
ng types
Constructs Domain-specific Data constructs Development/Land Flexible, some Required data layers,
conceptualizatio Use Types methods require fixed set of indicators
ns Development certain constructs
Attributes
• An ―indicator‖ can be a primitive data construct, or also the result of a specific
method of calculation or estimation.
• Ambiguity and conflict over constructs, methods, and models are partly the
explanation why these have resisted commercialization.
After March and Smith (1995) 9

10. … Used for Interaction and Representation
Source: MacEachren (1994)
10

11. … Used in Social Contexts
Individual
GIS Artifact
Social
Context
11

12. Characterizing the Tool for the Study
GIS-based modeling systems used for:
• Interactive Representation Used in specific sociocultural practices
• Rule Extrapolation (planning)
• Indicator Construction and Calculation
12

13. 2. Theoretical Framework

14. What scale and unit of analysis?
What is the practice?
Which theories of social learning?
14

15. Which scales?
Knowledge Infrastructure Macro
Longer Scales of Space & Time
Modeling System
Meso
Planning Process
Interacti Interacti
on on
Opportu Opportu Micro
nities nities
Individual interaction
After Edwards (2003)
15

16. What is the practice?
Strategic spatial planning is a ―public-sector-led sociospatial process
through which a vision, actions, and means for implementation are
produced that shape and frame what a place is and may become‖ that is
characterized by multiple forms of rationality:
• Value (design of alternative futures)
• Strategic (addressing power relationships)
• Communicative (understanding from deliberation)
• Instrumental (identifying optimal means for achieving goals)
Source: Albrecht (2004)
16

17. Spatial Planning is a ‗Wicked Problem‘ (Rittel and Webber 1973)
Decisions require Participant Solutions require
weighing value Many stakeholders preferences design and analysis
trade-offs involved poorly defined; (instrumental)
(value) (strategic) interests differ
(communicative)
Yet consensus(?) plans are produced.
Possible Explanations:
• Structured coercion (Peattie 1987; Arnstein 1969; McCullum et al 2004)
• Social choice or negotiation (Dutton and Kraemer 1985; Arrow 1965)
• Social learning (Healey 1998; Schon 1996; Wenger 1998)
17

18. What is (Social) Learning?
• Historical Views
• Behaviorism (Skinner 1974)
• Constructionism (Piaget 1963)
• Psychological Social Learning (Bandura 1977)
• Individual development in an environment (Vygotsky, from Rogoff 1990)
• Phylogenic – slowly changing species history (genes)
• Sociocultural – changing cultural history, artifacts & norms
• Ontogenetic – Changes in individuals over their life history, such as
childhood or educational experiences
• Microgenetic – ―moment-to-moment learning by individuals‖ built on
specific genetic and sociocultural backgrounds.
• ―Social‖ perspectives emphasize the importance of social context in
understanding individual development
18

19. Social Learning Theories
• Macro (Sociocultural)
• ―Knowledge Infrastructure‖ (Healey 1998)
• Civic Capacity (Stone 2001; Briggs 2008)
• Meso (Ontogenetic and collective)
• Organizational Learning (single/double loop) (Argyris and Schön 1978, 1996)
• Wenger (1998)
• Micro (Microgenetic)
• Wenger‘s ―social theory of learning‖ (1998)
• Three infrastructures for design: imagination, alignment, and engagement
• Design for learning:
• participation/reification
• designed/emergent
• local/global
• identification/negotiability
19

20. Framework Overview
Question Scale Description Primary Theories Alternative
Theories
Q4 Macro Infrastructure • Institutional Capital
• Institutional Social
Choice
Modeling • Organizational Learning
Q3 Meso
system • Sociotechnical Systems
• Hidden
Process
Q2 Meso Participation
design
• Social Learning (Hanna 2000)
(Wenger) • Social Choice
Q1 Micro Interactions • Structured
Coercion
20

21. Meso and Micro Social Learning Measures
Spatial Planning Practice
Forms of Rationality
Measures related to interactive representation, rule extrapolation,
indicator construction and calculation
21

22. Macro Social Learning Measures
• Institutional capacity (Healey 1998)
• Knowledge resources
• Data infrastructure
• Metropolitan indicators
• Tool capacity
• Relational resources
• Capacity for mobilization
22

23. 3. Research Questions

24. Question 1 – Workshop Design (micro)
Design variables (engagement, imagination, alignment) are associated with
different types of microgenetic learning (instrumental, strategic, etc), but also
represent trade-offs given time and resource constraints. In addition, Wenger
and the psychological theorists argue individual background is an important
intermediate variable.
24

25. Question 2 – Process Design (meso)
Source: Faga 2006
Models developed with participation (negotiation) are more effective. However,
it also speculates that choices for the nature of the model affects the learning
outcomes you get. Ways of addressing the tension in Wenger‘s learning
architecture: participation/reification, designed/emergent, local/global,
identification/negotiability.
25

26. Question 3 – Modeling System Design (meso)
System characteristics (modularity, robustness) will be linked to collective
learning outcomes (single or double loop learning).
26

27. Question 4 – Infrastructure Development (macro)
What are the characteristics of various paths to develop sociotechnical
infrastructures (data, indicators, tool capacity) for social learning in spatial
planning?
27

28. 4. Previous Research
• Spatial planning research and practice
• GIS modeling in participatory planning
• Social learning in policy and planning

29. Models of Professional Practice
• ―Land Use Planning‖
• In the Anglo-American planning tradition
• Internally problematic (Webber 1964), unitary projections, insufficient
topical scope
• Shift to alternate ―land use-transportation‖ or ―scenario‖ planning
• Both have strengths, but under-specify participation
• ―Spatial planning‖
• Euro-English invention to describe planning activities across cultures
• Used by various factions in different ways (An ―empty signifier‖?) (Inch
2012)
• Albrecht (2004) has proposed a theoretical framework
29

30. Spatial Planning
• Useful Priors
• Klosterman‘s economic ―arguments‖: public goods, externalities,
prisoner‘s dilemma conditions, distributional questions (1985)
• Wicked Problems – can be addressed but never ―solved‖ (Rittel and
Webber 1973)
• Spatial Planning (Albrechts 2004)
• Products
• Vision
• Short- and Long-term steps
• Contact with stakeholders
• Participation
• Rationality
• Value
• Communicative
• Instrumental
• Strategic
30

31. Spatial Planning Practice
Paradigm Value Strategic Instrumental Communicativ Example
Rationality Rationality Rationality e Rationality
Planning as Self-evident Implementation Plan of Chicago
Design Public Interest concern (1909)
Planning as Determined by Application of Kent
Expert Practice elected officials expert
knowledge
Planning As Informs Contributed by Source of value Davidoff,
Negotiation selection of planner or legitimacy Susskind
―stakeholders‖ consultant
Planning as Pluralism; Explicitly Expert Under-specified Schoemaker
Futures choices considered models/analysis
Analysis
31

32. Source: Albrecht (2004) 32

33. (GIS) Modeling in Planning
Large-scale models
can capture second-order effects, critiqued
for lack of practical usefulness
(Lee 1973; 1996)
Research Practice
Research Models Rule-based models with practical
• e.g., UrbanSim (Waddell 2002) focus
• See slide 8
Experimental Prototypes
• e.g., Ben-Joseph (2001) More sophisticated techniques in
domain-specific applications
Discussions about Role • e.g., transportation planning
• Planning support systems (Klosterman 1997)
• Shift to communicative rationality (Guhathakurta 1999)
• Utility of new web-based technology (Ferreira 2008)
Empirical Studies
• Emerging literature using experimental methods to investigate GIS planning
tools: Smith (2012), Salter (2009), Arciniegas (2012), Jankowski (2011).
• Perspectives: human-computer interaction, landscape
visualization, information systems
33

34. Recent Research
Study/Journal/Fram Research Design Assessment Results
ing
Arciniegas, Janssen Complete a multicriteria analysis: Perceived and observed Digital maps linked with higher
and Rietveld(2012) - on paper effectiveness: intensity of use (qualitative) and
[in press] in - qualitative on single digital map - Usefulness negotiation (quantitative)
Environmental (CommunityViz) - Clarity Paper maps had higher time using
Modeling & Software - quantitative on digital map - Impact tool and performance conflict
- Spatial decision Digital map had highest perceived
support systems Both individual and groups of three, effectiveness.
student subjects, n=30
Salter, Campbell, - Explore 3D visualizations and Before and after: Indicators and non-visual data rated
Journeay, and quantitative indicators (from - Level of knowledge as very helpful
Sheppard (2009) in community) for a draft plan by real- - Level of support
J. Environmental world stakeholders - Whether the plan will Limited participant time for discussion
Management result in sustainability and interactive exploration (21
- Landscape - Three site-scale proposals created. Video analysis methods minutes and 26 minutes)
visualization - Two 3-hour workshops, n=14.
Jankowski and Small group site selection problem, Convening, process, and Used maps for visualizing results and
Nyerges (2011) in n=100, 20 groups of 5, student outcome analytic-integrating phase
Annals of AAG participants.
- Enhanced Adaptive
Structuration Custom group decision software with
Theory/HCI a ArcMap-based GIS interface.
Smith, Bishop, Evaluation of forest management Interaction logs Differences in individual uses of the
Williams and scenarios using an interactive web- Usefulness of information interface and preferences for
Ford(2012) [in press] based interface. Preference rankings visual/nonvisual information
in Landscape and
Urban Planning Individual tasks, n=45
34
Landscape vis./HCI

35. Recent Research
Study/Journal/Fram Research Design Assessment Results
ing
Arciniegas, Janssen Complete a multicriteria analysis: Perceived and observed Digital maps linked with higher
and Rietveld(2012) - on paper effectiveness: intensity of use (qualitative) and
[in press] in - qualitative on single digital map - Usefulness negotiation (quantitative)
Environmental Take-Away:
(CommunityViz) - Clarity Paper maps had higher time using
Modeling & Software
- Spatial decision
• Recent studies analyze professional
- quantitative on digital map - Impact
techniques and performance conflict
tool
and
Digital map had highest perceived
support systems Both individual andexperimental methods
tools using groups of three, effectiveness.
• Focus on the micro scale
student subjects, n=30
Salter, Campbell, • - Generally opt to stay in laboratoryafter:
Explore 3D visualizations and Before and context, although and non-visual data rated
Indicators
Journeay, and quantitative indicators (from - Level of knowledge as very helpful
Sheppard (2009) in some links a draft plan by real- - Level(Salter 2009)
community) for to ‗natural‘ contexts of support
J. Environmental • Findings support my hypotheses, although often not
world stakeholders - Whether the plan will Limited participant time for discussion
Management result in sustainability and interactive exploration (21
- Landscape - directly designed to address them
Three site-scale proposals created. Video analysis methods minutes and 26 minutes)
visualization - Two 3-hour workshops, n=14.
Jankowski and • Small group site selection problem, these approaches, and: maps for visualizing results and
My research builds on Convening, process, and Used
Nyerges (2011) in n=100, 20 groups of 5, student outcome analytic-integrating phase
Annals of AAG • shifts to real-world contexts
participants.
- Enhanced Adaptive • a focus on for collective, higher-level cognition
Structuration Custom group decision software with
Theory/HCI • explicit links to
a ArcMap-based GIS interface. social theory
Smith, Bishop, Evaluation of forest management Interaction logs Differences in individual uses of the
Williams and scenarios using an interactive web- Usefulness of information interface and preferences for
Ford(2012) [in press] based interface. Preference rankings visual/nonvisual information
in Landscape and
Urban Planning Individual tasks, n=45
35
Landscape vis./HCI

36. Social Learning Theories
• Older Concepts
• Stimulus-response behaviors
• Container metaphor
• Innate cognitive skills (IQ)
• ‗Social‘ Perspective
• Knowledge acquired and utilized in social contexts
• Knowledge and skills not disconnected and ―cold‖ but ―situated‖ in
skilled cultural practices
• Specific mental skills, such as ability to memorize disconnected
facts, vary according to cultural contexts (Rogoff 1990)
• Theorists developed a set of ‗apprenticeship‘ models:
• Cognitive conflict between peers (Piaget 1963) – mental models
• The zone of proximal development (Vygotsky) – skills
• Legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) - skills
• Guided Participation (Rogoff 1990) – cultural variation
• Theory of skilled cultural (professional) practice involving artifacts and
an apprenticeship model (Wenger 1998)
36

37. Social Learning in Policy and Planning
Planning Natural Resources/Environment
Social learning as social change (Friedmann
1987). Holden (2008) describes several
approaches:
• Organizational learning
• Communicative action theory
• Pragmatism as planning theory
The ―Diversity, Interdependence, Authentic Dialogue‖
(DIAD) model presented in Innes and Booher (2010,
35)
Compound social learning model from literature
review (Muro and Jeffrey 2008) 37

38. 5. Case Selection and Research Design

39. Case Selection Factors
• Planning activity
• Standard steps
• Learn context
• Develop vision
• Design actions/scenarios
• Evaluate actions/scenarios
• Multiple forms of rationality
• Scale
• Character of GIS tool
• Interactive representation
• Rule extrapolation
• Indicator construction and calculation
• Planner-participant gap
• Projects sponsored by regional planning agencies
• Contextual factors
• Participant attitudes (Schön and Argyris 1996)
• Cultural variation in learning styles (Rogoff 1990)
39

40. Cases
Primary Cases Secondary Cases
Boston (MAPC) Kansas City Tacoma Singapore Others?
Macro Metro Boston Metro Kansas City
Marshfi
Meso eld
Hingha
Buildout New No
m Corridor 1 Corridor 2 Tacoma
and GIS
Master (GIS) (No GIS) Urban EIS
Alternati Project?
Plan
ve Singapore
Micro
Futures
Nature of CommunityViz and/or Decision
CommunityViz
Tool Envision Tomorrow Commons
40

41. Data Collection Plans
Primary Cases Secondary Cases
Context Context
Process/Case Process/Case Process-level data
collected through
structured interviews
and participant
Workshop observation
Workshop surveys
used to evaluate
specific
workshops, as well as
process
characteristics
41

42. Measurement and Data Analysis Techniques
• Question 1
• Paired pre- and post-surveys using Likert scales
• Difference of means or ANOVA
• Plan to develop and test survey this summer, starting with students or
MAPC employees
• Questions 2 and 3
• Observation and recording
• Develop personal instrument for observations, coding and analysis of
transcripts as well as observation data
• Case analysis methods: explanation building, pattern matching (Yin
2009)
• Question 4
• Interviews
• Case analysis methods: process tracing, historical analysis (Yin 2009)
• COUHES approval for semi-structured interviews 3/23/12 (#1203004956)
42

43. 6. Anticipated Challenges & Discussion

44. Anticipated Challenges
• Theoretical
• Wenger‘s theory too abstract
• Methodological
• Control over cases for experiment
• Obtaining valid natural control case/counterfactual
• Project timing
• Measurement construct validity
44

45. Empirical Challenges
Town Planner Planning Board
MAPC Staff
Citizens
Housing Partnership
Marshfield Town Hall
Planning Board Meeting
Marshfield Buildout and Alternative Futures Project 45
8:43 PM, May 14, 2012

46. Discussion and Questions
• Topic
• Professional context
• GIS tools
• Theoretical Framework
• Appropriate theories
• Alternative perspectives
• Research Design
• Case selection
• Data collection
• Analysis
Robert Goodspeed
MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Dissertation Colloquium
rgoodspe@mit.edu
202-321-2743
46

47. Works Cited (A-F)
Albrechts, L. 2004. Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment and Planning B 31:743-758.
Arciniegas, Gustavo, Ron Janssen, and Piet Rietveld. 2012. Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: Results of an
experiment. Environmental Modelling & Software (0).
Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schön. 1978. Organizational learning. 2 vols, Addison-Wesley OD series. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub.
Co.
———. 1996. Organizaitonal Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. 2 vols. Vol. 2, Addison-Wesley OD series. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley Pub. Co.
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4):216-224.
Arrow, Kenneth Joseph. 1951. Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.
Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Bartholomew, K. 2007. Land use-transportation scenario planning: promise and reality. Transportation 34 (4):397-412.
Ben-Joseph, E., H. Ishii, J. Underkoffler, B. Piper, and L. Yeung. 2001. Urban Simulation and the Luminous Planning Table. Journal of Planning
Education and Research 21 (2):196-203.
Brail, Richard K. 2008. Planning support systems for cities and regions. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Brail, Richard K., and Richard E. Klosterman. 2001. Planning support systems : integrating geographic information systems, models, and
visualization tools. Redlands, Calif.: ESRI Press.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2008. Democracy as problem solving : civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Burby, Raymond J. 2003. Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association
69 (1):33-49.
Condon, Patrick, Duncan Cavens, and Nicole Miller. 2009. Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation. In Policy Focus Report.
Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Dutton, William H., and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 1985. Modeling as negotiating : the political dynamics of computer models in the policy process,
Communication and information science. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.
Edwards, P.N. 2003. Infrastructure and modernity: force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In Modernity and
technology, edited by T. J. Misa, P. Brey and A. Feenberg. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Faga, Barbara. 2006. Designing public consensus : the civic theater of community participation for architects, landscape architects, planners,
and urban designers. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley.
Ferreira, Joseph. 2008. Comment on Drummond and French: GIS Evolution: Are We Messed Up by Mashups? Journal of the American
Planning Association 74 (2):177 - 179.
Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47

48. Works Cited (G-M)
Geertman, Stan, and John C. H. Stillwell. 2009. Planning support systems best practice and new methods, The GeoJournal library. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Grant, Michael, Kathleen Rooney, and Kojo Assasie. 2010. WA 4-55 Smart Growth and Climate Protection Policy Analysis, Task 3 -
Assessment of Tools. ICF International, for U.S. EPA.
Guhathakurta, S. 1999. Urban modeling and contemporary planning theory: Is there a common ground? Journal of Planning Education and
Research 18 (4):281-292.
Hanna, K.S. 2000. The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (4):389-
410.
Healey, P. 1998. Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A 30:1531-1546.
Hoglund, Mike. 2011. Memorandum to the Oregon Modeling Steering Committee on Climate Smart Communities Scnearios: Portland Metro
Greenhouse Gas Scenario Planning (House Bill 2001) - Requirements & Technical Approach. Portland, OR: Metro.
Holden, M. 2008. Social learning in planning: Seattle's sustainable development codebooks. Progress in Planning 69 (1):1-40.
Holway, Jim, C.J. Gabbe, Frank Hebbert, Jason Lally, Robert Matthews, and Ray Quay. 2012. Opening Access to Scenario Planning Tools. In
Policy Focus Report. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Inch, Andy. 2012. Deconstructing Spatial Planning: Re-interpreting the Articulation of a New Ethos for English Local Planning. European
Planning Studies:1-19.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London
and New York: Routledge.
Jankowski, Piotr, and Timothy Nyerges. 2001. GIS-Supported Collaborative Decision Making: Results of an Experiment. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 91 (1):48-70.
Klosterman, R. E. 1985. Arguments for and against Planning. Town Planning Review 56 (1):5-20.
Klosterman, Richard E. 1997. Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer-Aided Planning. Journal of Planning Education and
Research 17 (1):45-54.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation, Learning in doing. Cambridge England ; New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Douglass B. 1973. Requiem for Large-Scale Models. Journal of the American Planning Association 39 (3):163.
———. 1994. Retrospective on Large-Scale Urban Models. Journal of the American Planning Association 60 (1):35.
March, S. T., and G. F. Smith. 1995. Design and Natural-Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15 (4):251-
266.
McCullum, C., D. Pelletier, D. Barr, J. Wilkins, and J.P. Habicht. 2004. Mechanisms of power within a community-based food security planning
process. Health education & behavior 31 (2):206-222.
Muro, M., and P. Jeffrey. 2008. A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management
processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (3):325-344.
48

49. Works Cited (P-Y)
Peattie, Lisa Redfield. 1987. Planning: Rethinking Ciudad Guayana. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Piaget, Jean. 1963. The origins of intelligence in children, Norton library. New York: W.W. Norton.
Rittel, HWJ, and MM Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences 4 (2):155-169.
Rogoff, Barbara. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking : cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Salter, J.D., C. Campbell, M. Journeay, and S.R.J. Sheppard. 2009. The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive
visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of environmental management 90 (6):2090-2101.
Skinner, B. F. 1974. About behaviorism. [Book Club ed. New York: Knopf.
Smith, Eric Legge, Ian D. Bishop, Kathryn J. H. Williams, and Rebecca M. Ford. 2012. Scenario Chooser: An interactive approach to eliciting
public landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning (0).
Waddell, P. 2002. UrbanSim - Modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and environmental planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association 68 (3):297-314.
Walker, Doug, and Thomas L. Daniels. 2011. The planners guide to CommunityViz : the essential tool for a new generation of planning.
Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association.
Webber, Melvin M. 1964. Explorations into urban structure. Philadelphia,: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice : learning, meaning, and identity, Learning in doing. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, N.Y.:
Cambridge University Press.
Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case study research : design and methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
49