IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v104y2017icp84-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Usefulness of planning support systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical illustration

Author

Listed:
  • Pelzer, Peter

Abstract

Planning support systems (PSS) are digital instruments to support planning. Comparatively little attention has been paid to understanding the usefulness of PSS for planning practice and studying its application in real-world planning situations. This paper aims to address this omission. Conceptually, usefulness is subdivided in seven dimensions, and explained by the usability and utility of the PSS. This framework is applied to a case study with Urban Strategy – a PSS based on combined environmental and traffic models. A workshop with this PSS was studied using a questionnaire, interviews and observations. The findings indicate that in addition to the more commonly used concept of usability, utility (understood as task–technology fit) is helpful to understand the usefulness of a PSS application. This concept, for instance, helps to indicate when a PSS has a negative effect on planning tasks. Moreover, in addition to usability and utility, context turned out to be critical to understand the usefulness of a PSS application.

Suggested Citation

  • Pelzer, Peter, 2017. "Usefulness of planning support systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical illustration," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 84-95.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:84-95
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416305687
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Couclelis, 2005. "“Where has the Future Gone?†Rethinking the Role of Integrated Land-Use Models in Spatial Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(8), pages 1353-1371, August.
    2. Peter Pelzer & Stan Geertman, 2014. "Planning support systems and interdisciplinary learning," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 527-542, December.
    3. Thomas Straatemeier & Luca Bertolini & Marco te Brömmelstroet & Perry Hoetjes, 2010. "An Experiential Approach to Research in Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(4), pages 578-591, August.
    4. Peter Pelzer & Stan Geertman & Rob van der Heijden, 2015. "Knowledge in communicative planning practice: a different perspective for planning support systems," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 42(4), pages 638-651, July.
    5. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2005. "Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 909-924, May.
    6. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2003. "Planning Support Systems: An Introduction," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Stan Geertman & John Stillwell (ed.), Planning Support Systems in Practice, chapter 1, pages 3-22, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Patrick Witte, 2020. "Avoiding the planning support system pitfalls? What smart governance can learn from the planning support system implementation gap," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1343-1360, October.
    3. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Patrick Witte, 2021. "Smartening urban governance: An evidence‐based perspective," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 744-758, June.
    4. Carissa J Champlin & Johannes Flacke & Geert PMR Dewulf, 2022. "A game co-design method to elicit knowledge for the contextualization of spatial models," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(3), pages 1074-1090, March.
    5. Yanliu Lin & Kasper Benneker, 2022. "Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in The Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 391-410, February.
    6. Claire Daniel & Christopher Pettit, 2022. "Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: Results of a citation network analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(7), pages 1875-1892, September.
    7. Talbot, Joseph & Lucas-Smith, Martin & Speakman, Andrew & Streb, Megan & Nuttall, Simon & Carlino, Dustin & Johansson, Patrick & Sheehan, Nathanael & Groot, Nikée & Lovelace, Robin, 2021. "Active Travel Oriented Development: Assessing the suitability of sites for new homes," OSF Preprints 7fuq5, Center for Open Science.
    8. Freke Caset & Filipe M Teixeira, 2022. "Visualizing the potential for transit-oriented development: Insights from an open and interactive planning support tool in Flanders, Belgium," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 411-426, February.
    9. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Hao Zhang & Shangyi Zhou, 2023. "Factors influencing the performance of virtual reality in urban planning: Evidence from a View corridor Virtual Reality project, Beijing," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(3), pages 814-830, March.
    10. Kinigadner, Julia & Büttner, Benjamin, 2021. "How accessibility instruments contribute to a low carbon mobility transition: Lessons from planning practice in the Munich region," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 157-167.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    2. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "PSS are more user-friendly, but are they also increasingly useful?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 96-107.
    3. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    4. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    5. Papa, Enrica & Coppola, Pierluigi & Angiello, Gennaro & Carpentieri, Gerardo, 2017. "The learning process of accessibility instrument developers: Testing the tools in planning practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 108-120.
    6. Yoonshin Kwak & Brian Deal & Grant Mosey, 2021. "Landscape Design toward Urban Resilience: Bridging Science and Physical Design Coupling Sociohydrological Modeling and Design Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Gerber, Pierre J. & Carsjens, Gerrit J. & Pak-uthai, Thanee & Robinson, Timothy P., 2008. "Decision support for spatially targeted livestock policies: Diverse examples from Uganda and Thailand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 37-51, March.
    8. te Brommelstroet, Marco, 2010. "Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 25-41.
    9. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2007. "A SWOT Analysis of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(7), pages 1699-1714, July.
    10. te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Bertolini, Luca, 2008. "Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 251-259, July.
    11. Silva, Cecília & Bertolini, Luca & te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Milakis, Dimitris & Papa, Enrica, 2017. "Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 135-145.
    12. Sofia Eckersten & Berit Balfors & Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling, 2021. "Challenges and Opportunities in Early Stage Planning of Transport Infrastructure Projects: Environmental Aspects in the Strategic Choice of Measures Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2020. "Planning support science: Developments and challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1326-1342, October.
    14. Chiara Cocco & Piotr Jankowski & Michele Campagna, 2019. "An Analytic Approach to Understanding Process Dynamics in Geodesign Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-21, September.
    15. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    16. Stephen M McCauley & John Rogan & James T Murphy & Billie L Turner & Samuel Ratick, 2015. "Modeling the Sociospatial Constraints on Land-Use Change: The Case of Periurban Sprawl in the Greater Boston Region," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 42(2), pages 221-241, April.
    17. James Derbyshire, 2020. "Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(4), pages 710-727, June.
    18. Silva, Cecília & Teixeira, João & Proença, Ana & Bicalho, Tamara & Cunha, Isabel & Aguiar, Ana, 2019. "Revealing the cycling potential of starter cycling cities: Usefulness for planning practice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 138-147.
    19. Tessa Eikelboom & Ron Janssen, 2015. "Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1065-1087, November.
    20. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:84-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.