IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v47y2020i8p1508-1523.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open-source planning support system for sustainable regional planning: A case study of Stockholm County, Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Page

    (Stockholm University, Sweden)

  • Ulla Mörtberg

    (7655KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm)

  • Georgia Destouni

    (Stockholm University, Sweden)

  • Carla Ferreira

    (112015Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Portugal)

  • Helena Näsström

    (Growth and Regional Planning Management, Region Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Zahra Kalantari

Abstract

Population increases and environmental degradation are challenges for urban sustainability. Planning support systems are available to assist local authorities in developing strategies toward sustainability and resilience of urban areas, but are not always used in practice. We adapted an open-source planning support system to the case of Stockholm County, Sweden, where there is a productive working relationship between researchers, city planners, and regional planners. We employed a collaborative approach in extending and updating the planning support system and analyzed the outcomes, in order to both improve the planning support system and to investigate the process of planner engagement in planning support system development. The approach involved systematic interactions with local planning authorities and e.g. additional data processing, integrating scientific knowledge, policy, and engagement by planners in the complex process of planning for sustainable urban development. This made the planning support system more user-friendly for local planners, facilitating adoption by planning authorities through overcoming common quality and acceptance barriers to the use of planning support system in practice. Involving planners in planning support system development thus increases (i) planning support system quality, producing relevant and up-to-date outputs, and (ii) acceptance for planning support system by regional planners. Further assessment is required to determine whether planners can operate the adapted planning support system unaided.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Page & Ulla Mörtberg & Georgia Destouni & Carla Ferreira & Helena Näsström & Zahra Kalantari, 2020. "Open-source planning support system for sustainable regional planning: A case study of Stockholm County, Sweden," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1508-1523, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:47:y:2020:i:8:p:1508-1523
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808320919769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808320919769
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808320919769?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mörtberg, Ulla & Goldenberg, Romain & Kalantari, Zahra & Kordas, Olga & Deal, Brian & Balfors, Berit & Cvetkovic, Vladimir, 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services in the assessment of urban energy trajectories – A study of the Stockholm Region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 338-349.
    3. 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.
    4. Ian Babelon & Alexander Ståhle & Berit Balfors, 2017. "Toward Cyborg PPGIS: exploring socio-technical requirements for the use of web-based PPGIS in two municipal planning cases, Stockholm region, Sweden," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(8), pages 1366-1390, August.
    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. Filippo Carlo Pavesi & Anna Richiedei & Michele Pezzagno, 2021. "Advanced Modelling Tools to Support Planning for Sand/Gravel Quarries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Marc Escamilla Nacher & Carla Sofia Santos Ferreira & Michael Jones & Zahra Kalantari, 2021. "Application of the Adaptive Cycle and Panarchy in La Marjaleria Social-Ecological System: Reflections for Operability," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Gianluca Egidi & Ilaria Zambon & Ilaria Tombolin & Luca Salvati & Sirio Cividino & Samaneh Seifollahi-Aghmiuni & Zahra Kalantari, 2020. "Unraveling Latent Aspects of Urban Expansion: Desertification Risk Reveals More," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-15, June.

    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    9. Erik Glaas & Mattias Hjerpe & Martin Karlson & Tina-Simone Neset, 2020. "Visualization for Citizen Participation: User Perceptions on a Mainstreamed Online Participatory Tool and Its Usefulness for Climate Change Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Chévez, Pedro Joaquín & Martini, Irene & Discoli, Carlos, 2019. "Methodology developed for the construction of an urban-energy diagnosis aimed to assess alternative scenarios: An intra-urban approach to foster cities’ sustainability," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 751-778.
    11. Haozhi Pan & Stan Geertman & Brian Deal, 2020. "What does urban informatics add to planning support technology?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1317-1325, October.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Silva, Cecília & Patatas, Tiago & Amante, Ana, 2017. "Evaluating the usefulness of the structural accessibility layer for planning practice – Planning practitioners’ perception," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 137-149.
    16. Britz, Wolfgang & Pérez-Dominguez, Ignacio & Narayanan, Gopalakrishnan Badri, 2015. "Analyzing Results from Agricultural Large-scale Economic Simulation Models: Recent Progress and the Way Ahead," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(02), June.
    17. 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.
    18. Francisco Javier Moreno Marimbaldo & Miguel-Ángel Manso-Callejo & Ramon Alcarria, 2018. "A Methodological Approach to Using Geodesign in Transmission Line Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-30, August.
    19. Kotzebue, Julia R., 2022. "Integrated urban transport infrastructure development: The role of digital social geo-communication in Hamburg's TEN-T improvement," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Pilvi Nummi & Viktorija Prilenska & Kristi Grisakov & Henna Fabritius & Laugren Ilves & Petri Kangassalo & Aija Staffans & Xunran Tan, 2022. "Narrowing the Implementation Gap: User-Centered Design of New E-Planning Tools," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.

    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:sae:envirb:v:47:y:2020:i:8:p:1508-1523. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.