IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v24y2015i6d10.1007_s10726-015-9429-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values

Author

Listed:
  • Tessa Eikelboom

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Ron Janssen

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abstract

Geodesign tools are increasingly used in collaborative planning. An important element in these tools is the communication of stakeholder values. As there are many ways to present these values it is important to know how these tools should be designed to communicate these values effectively. The objective of this study is to analyse how the design of the tool influences its effectiveness. To do this stakeholder values were included in four different geodesign tools, using different ways of ranking and aggregation. The communication performances of these tools were evaluated in an online survey to assess their ability to communicate information effectively. The survey assessed how complexity influence user performance. Performance was considered high if a user is able to complete an assignment correctly using the information presented. Knowledge on tool performance is important for selecting the right tool use and for tool design. The survey showed that tools should be as simple as possible. Adding ranking and aggregation steps makes the tools more difficult to understand and reduces performance. However, an increase in the amount of information to be processed by the user also has a negative effect on performance. Ranking and aggregation steps may be needed to limit this amount. This calls for careful tailoring of the tool to the task to be performed. For all tools it was found maybe the most important characteristic of the tools is that they allow for trial and error as this increases the opportunity for experimentation and learning by doing.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:24:y:2015:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9429-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9429-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-015-9429-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-015-9429-7?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. Henrik Gudmundsson, 2011. "Analysing Models as a Knowledge Technology in Transport Planning," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159.
    2. 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.
    3. Daniel Jonsson & Svante Berglund & Peter Almström & Staffan Algers, 2011. "The Usefulness of Transport Models in Swedish Planning Practice," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 251-265.
    4. Jonsson, Daniel & Berglund, Svante & Almström, Peter & Algers, Staffan, 2011. "The Usefulness of Transport Models in Swedish Planning Practice," Working papers in Transport Economics 2011:20, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI), revised 14 Dec 2011.
    5. Menno-Jan Kraak, 2004. "The role of the map in a Web-GIS environment," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 83-93, June.
    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. 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.
    2. Tessa Eikelboom & Ron Janssen, 2017. "Collaborative use of geodesign tools to support decision-making on adaptation to climate change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 247-266, February.
    3. Yexuan Gu & Brian Deal & Linda Larsen, 2018. "Geodesign Processes and Ecological Systems Thinking in a Coupled Human-Environment Context: An Integrated Framework for Landscape Architecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Xingyue Yang & Donna Delparte, 2022. "A Procedural Modeling Approach for Ecosystem Services and Geodesign Visualization in Old Town Pocatello, Idaho," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Lu Huang & Weining Xiang & Jianguo Wu & Christoph Traxler & Jingzhou Huang, 2019. "Integrating GeoDesign with Landscape Sustainability Science," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, 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. Moshe Givoni & Eda Beyazit & Yoram Shiftan, 2016. "The use of state-of-the-art transport models by policymakers – beauty in simplicity?," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 385-404, July.
    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. Johan Nilsson Sommar & Christer Johansson & Boel Lövenheim & Anders Markstedt & Magnus Strömgren & Bertil Forsberg, 2020. "Potential Effects on Travelers’ Air Pollution Exposure and Associated Mortality Estimated for a Mode Shift from Car to Bicycle Commuting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Nicolaisen, Morten Skou & Næss, Petter, 2015. "Roads to nowhere: The accuracy of travel demand forecasts for do-nothing alternatives," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 57-63.
    5. Almlöf, Erik & Nybacka, Mikael & Pernestål, Anna & Jenelius, Erik, 2022. "Will leisure trips be more affected than work trips by autonomous technology? Modelling self-driving public transport and cars in Stockholm, Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-19.
    6. Odeck, James, 2013. "How accurate are national road traffic growth-rate forecasts?—The case of Norway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 102-111.
    7. McLeod, Sam & Schapper, Jake H.M. & Curtis, Carey & Graham, Giles, 2019. "Conceptualizing freight generation for transport and land use planning: A review and synthesis of the literature," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 24-34.
    8. 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.
    9. Saujot, Mathieu & de Lapparent, Matthieu & Arnaud, Elise & Prados, Emmanuel, 2016. "Making land use – Transport models operational tools for planning: From a top-down to an end-user approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 20-29.
    10. Strömgren, Magnus & Schantz, Peter & Sommar, Johan Nilsson & Raza, Wasif & Markstedt, Anders & Forsberg, Bertil, 2020. "Modeling commuter modal shift from car trips to cycling: Scenario construction and outcomes for Stockholm, Sweden," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Romanika Okraszewska & Aleksandra Romanowska & Marcin Wołek & Jacek Oskarbski & Krystian Birr & Kazimierz Jamroz, 2018. "Integration of a Multilevel Transport System Model into Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    13. 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.
    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. Daniel Kaszubowski, 2019. "A Method for the Evaluation of Urban Freight Transport Models as a Tool for Improving the Delivery of Sustainable Urban Transport Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, March.
    17. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    18. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    19. Mengjie Zhou & Rui Wang & Jing Tian & Ning Ye & Shumin Mai, 2016. "A Map-Based Service Supporting Different Types of Geographic Knowledge for the Public," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:grdene:v:24:y:2015:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9429-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.