IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2016i1p13-d85974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discerning and Addressing Environmental Failures in Policy Scenarios Using Planning Support System (PSS) Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Deal

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820, USA)

  • Haozhi Pan

    (Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820, USA)

Abstract

The environmental consequences of planning decisions are often undervalued. This can result from a number of potential causes: (a) there might be a lack of adequate information to correctly assess environmental consequences; (b) stakeholders might discount the spatial and temporal impacts; (c) a failure to understand the dynamic interactions between socio-ecological systems including secondary and tertiary response mechanisms; or (d) the gravity of the status quo, i.e., blindly following a traditional discourse. In this paper, we argue that a Planning Support System (PSS) that enhances an assessment of environmental impacts and is integral to a community or regional planning process can help reveal the true environmental implications of scenario planning decisions, and thus improve communal planning and decision-making. We demonstrate our ideas through our experiences developing and deploying one such PSS—the Land-use Evolution and impact Assessment Model (LEAM) Planning Support System. University of Illinois researchers have worked directly with government planning officials and community stakeholders to analyze alternate future development scenarios and improve the planning process through a participatory, iterative process of visioning, model tuning, simulation, and discussion. The resulting information enables an evaluation of alternative policy or investment choices and their potential environmental implications that can change the way communities both generate and use plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Deal & Haozhi Pan, 2016. "Discerning and Addressing Environmental Failures in Policy Scenarios Using Planning Support System (PSS) Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2016:i:1:p:13-:d:85974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/13/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/13/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian Deal & Jae Hong Kim & Geoffrey J. D. Hewings & Yong Wook Kim, 2013. "Complex Urban Systems Integration: The LEAM Experiences in Coupling Economic, Land Use, and Transportation Models in Chicago, IL," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Francesca Pagliara & Michiel de Bok & David Simmonds & Alan Wilson (ed.), Employment Location in Cities and Regions, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 107-131, Springer.
    2. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    3. El Hadji Fall, 2006. "The Worst-Case Scenario and Discounting the Very Long Term," Post-Print halshs-00084074, HAL.
    4. El Hadji Fall, 2006. "The Worst-Case Scenario and Discounting the Very Long Term," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00084074, HAL.
    5. Jan K. Brueckner, 2000. "Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 160-171, April.
    6. Francesca Pagliara & Michiel de Bok & David Simmonds & Alan Wilson (ed.), 2013. "Employment Location in Cities and Regions," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-31779-8, Fall.
    7. Deal, Brian & Schunk, Daniel, 2004. "Spatial dynamic modeling and urban land use transformation: a simulation approach to assessing the costs of urban sprawl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 79-95, November.
    8. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    9. Stan Geertman, 2002. "Participatory Planning and GIS: A PSS to Bridge the Gap," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 29(1), pages 21-35, February.
    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. Kwak, Yoonshin & Deal, Brian & Heavisides, Tom, 2021. "A large scale multi criteria suitability analysis for identifying solar development potential: A decision support approach for the state of Illinois, USA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 554-567.
    2. Tianren Yang, 2020. "Understanding commuting patterns and changes: Counterfactual analysis in a planning support framework," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1440-1455, October.
    3. Songtang He & Daojie Wang & Yong Li & Peng Zhao, 2018. "Land Use Changes and Their Driving Forces in a Debris Flow Active Area of Gansu Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Omaid Najmuddin & Xiangzheng Deng & Ruchira Bhattacharya, 2018. "The Dynamics of Land Use/Cover and the Statistical Assessment of Cropland Change Drivers in the Kabul River Basin, Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.

    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. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    2. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "Competitiveness and ecological impacts of green energy technologies: firm-level evidence for the DACH region," KOF Working papers 16-420, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    3. Thomas Elliot & Javier Babí Almenar & Samuel Niza & Vânia Proença & Benedetto Rugani, 2019. "Pathways to Modelling Ecosystem Services within an Urban Metabolism Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Fabio Antoniou & Roland Strausz, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Taxation and Feed-in Tariffs," CESifo Working Paper Series 4788, CESifo.
    5. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    6. Feser, Daniel & Runst, Petrik, 2015. "Energy efficiency consultants as change agents? Examining the reasons for EECs’ limited success," ifh Working Papers 1 (2015), Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).
    7. Patrice Bougette & Christophe Charlier, 2019. "Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in the EU Biofuel Industry: A Welfare Analysis," Post-Print halshs-02306022, HAL.
    8. Hille, Erik & Althammer, Wilhelm & Diederich, Henning, 2020. "Environmental regulation and innovation in renewable energy technologies: Does the policy instrument matter?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    9. Gollier, Christian, 2002. "Time Horizon and the Discount Rate," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 463-473, December.
    10. Vitaliy Roud & Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2018. "The Influence of State‐Ownership on Eco‐Innovations in Russian Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1227, October.
    11. Emanuele Massetti & Lea Nicita, 2010. "The Optimal Climate Policy Portfolio when Knowledge Spills across Sectors," CESifo Working Paper Series 2988, CESifo.
    12. Giancarlo Giudici & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2019. "The creation of cleantech startups at the local level: the role of knowledge availability and environmental awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 815-830, April.
    13. Giuseppe Di Liddo, 2015. "Urban sprawl and regional growth: empirical evidence from Italian Regions," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2141-2160.
    14. Hoel, Michael & Sterner, Thomas, 2006. "Discounting and relative prices in assessing future environmental damages," Working Papers in Economics 199, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    16. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.
    17. Söderholm, Patrik & Pettersson, Maria, 2011. "Offshore wind power policy and planning in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 518-525, February.
    18. Francesco Vona & Francesco Nicolli & Lionel Nesta, 2012. "Determinants of renewable energy innovation: environmental policies vs. market regulation," Sciences Po publications 2012-05, Sciences Po.
    19. Xiding Chen & Qinghua Huang & Weilun Huang & Xue Li, 2018. "The Impact of Sustainable Development Technology on a Small Economy—The Case of Energy-Saving Technology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    20. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).

    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:9:y:2016:i:1:p:13-:d:85974. 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.