IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9073-d870680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Shlomit Flint Ashery

    (The Department of Geography and Environment, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel)

  • Carl Steinitz

    (Graduate School of Design, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA)

Abstract

Research regarding the complex issues in planning negotiation is sparse. This article aims to shed light on the characteristics of “the negotiation issue” in planning and how to deal with negotiation-related complexity towards planning implementation. It conceptualizes processes of negotiation that are represented/implemented via graphic and geographic elements, where the topology is a crucial factor. Our case study of the CAMKOX corridor at UCL’s geodesign workshop provides new insights into the potential of digital negotiations for assessing the characteristics of planning negotiation issues and their associated complexity drivers to enhance the quality of spatiality. The findings provide a detailed description of issue-based planning complexity. A shift of focus away from the products of planning to the negotiation process—as the most important consideration in planning—opens the possibility of implementing “shared” interventions on which there is consensus.

Suggested Citation

  • Shlomit Flint Ashery & Carl Steinitz, 2022. "Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9073-:d:870680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9073/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9073/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Pettit & Y Shi & H Han & M Rittenbruch & M Foth & S Lieske & R van den Nouwelant & P Mitchell & S Leao & B Christensen & M Jamal, 2020. "A new toolkit for land value analysis and scenario planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1490-1507, October.
    2. Naquin, Charles E., 2003. "The agony of opportunity in negotiation: Number of negotiable issues, counterfactual thinking, and feelings of satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 97-107, May.
    3. Stephen E. Weiss, 2012. "Negotiators’ Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 255-290, May.
    4. Jaekyung Lee & Galen Newman & Changyeon Lee, 2022. "Predicting Detached Housing Vacancy: A Multilevel Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Amelie Ewert & Mascha Brost & Christine Eisenmann & Sylvia Stieler, 2020. "Small and Light Electric Vehicles: An Analysis of Feasible Transport Impacts and Opportunities for Improved Urban Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Heather Campbell & John Henneberry, 2005. "Planning obligations, the market orientation of planning and planning professionalism," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 37-59, September.
    7. Geerlings, Harry & Stead, Dominic, 2003. "The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 187-196, July.
    8. Sebenius, James K., 1983. "Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 281-316, April.
    9. Shlomit Flint-Ashery, 2015. "Public welfare or sectarianism: A new challenge for planning," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 299-318, September.
    10. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    11. Marlijn Baarveld & Marnix Smit & Geert Dewulf, 2015. "Negotiation processes in urban redevelopment projects: Dealing with conflicts by balancing integrative and distributive approaches," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 363-384, September.
    12. Kristian Ruming, 2012. "Negotiating Within the Context of Planning Reform: Public and Private Reflections from New South Wales, Australia," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 397-418.
    13. Ana Isabel Rodríguez-Aguilera & Juan Domingo-Santos, 2022. "Cartography and Landscape of Agrarian Colonisation Villages in Spain during the 20th Century: Graphic Recording and Reconstruction of the Productive Territory, the Case of El Chaparral (Granada)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-25, April.
    14. Christoph Laubert & Ingmar Geiger, 2018. "Disentangling complexity: how negotiators identify and handle issue-based complexity in business-to-business negotiation," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(9), pages 1061-1103, December.
    15. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    16. Galen Newman & Garett T. Sansom & Siyu Yu & Katie R. Kirsch & Dongying Li & Youjung Kim & Jennifer A. Horney & Gunwoo Kim & Saima Musharrat, 2022. "A Framework for Evaluating the Effects of Green Infrastructure in Mitigating Pollutant Transferal and Flood Events in Sunnyside, Houston, TX," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Christoph Laubert & Ingmar Geiger, 2018. "Disentangling complexity: how negotiators identify and handle issue-based complexity in business-to-business negotiation," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(9), pages 1061-1103, December.
    2. Oliver Lock & Michael Bain & Christopher Pettit, 2021. "Towards the collaborative development of machine learning techniques in planning support systems – a Sydney example," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(3), pages 484-502, March.
    3. Stephen E. Weiss, 2012. "Negotiators’ Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 255-290, May.
    4. Marleau Donais, Francis & Abi-Zeid, Irène & Waygood, E. Owen D. & Lavoie, Roxane, 2022. "Municipal decision-making for sustainable transportation: Towards improving current practices for street rejuvenation in Canada," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 152-170.
    5. Oliveira, Eduardo & Hersperger, Anna M., 2018. "Governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and power configurations in current practices of strategic spatial plan implementation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 623-633.
    6. Olga Stepanova & Magdalena Romanov, 2021. "Urban Planning as a Strategy to Implement Social Sustainability Policy Goals? The Case of Temporary Housing for Immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    7. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    8. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    11. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    13. Keaton Jenner & Peter Tulip, 2020. "The Apartment Shortage," RBA Research Discussion Papers rdp2020-04, Reserve Bank of Australia.
    14. Rye, Tom & Welsch, Janina & Plevnik, Aljaz & de Tommasi, Roberto, 2011. "First steps towards cross-national transfer in integrating mobility management and land use planning in the EU and Switzerland," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 533-543, May.
    15. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    17. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.
    18. Jongwng Ju & Jaecheol Kim, 2023. "Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    19. repec:lib:000cis:v:5:y:2017:i:1:p:26-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Peter Wilshusen, 2009. "Social process as everyday practice: the micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 137-162, May.
    21. David Brain, 2005. "From Good Neighborhoods to Sustainable Cities: Social Science and the Social Agenda of the New Urbanism," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 217-238, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9073-:d:870680. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.