IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i9p1408-d1469634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Diversified Geo-Information Technologies in Urban Governance: A Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Li

    (Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518052, China)

  • Yani Lai

    (Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518052, China)

  • Yanliu Lin

    (Department of Human Geography and Planning, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Global urbanization has made urban governance a crucial aspect of sustainable urban development. While geo-information technologies have emerged as indispensable tools for effective urban governance, a comprehensive analysis of their application in this context remains lacking. This study seeks to review and assess the pivotal role of geo-information technologies in the field of urban governance. A total of 219 related studies were used for bibliometric analysis and key content analysis. Planning Support Systems (PSSs), Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGISs), Building Information Modeling (BIM), and City Information Modeling (CIM) are identified as the main information technologies progressively employed across diverse stages of urban planning and construction over recent decades. These advancements have propelled the digital and intelligent management of urban areas, yielding significant benefits such as enhanced visualization, informed decision-making, and increased opportunities for citizen participation. However, a noticeable disparity between supply and demand during the application process arises from a lack of transdisciplinary cooperation. This study sheds light on the existing literature and offers policy implications and recommendations for more effective utilization of geo-information technologies in future spatial governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Li & Yani Lai & Yanliu Lin, 2024. "The Role of Diversified Geo-Information Technologies in Urban Governance: A Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:9:p:1408-:d:1469634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/9/1408/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/9/1408/
    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. 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. 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.
    4. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Patrick Witte, 2022. "Planning First, Tools Second: Evaluating the Evolving Roles of Planning Support Systems in Urban Planning," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 55-77, April.
    5. Binjin Chen & Shaohua Jiang & Ligang Qi & Yawu Su & Yufeng Mao & Meng Wang & Hee Sung Cha, 2022. "Design and Implementation of Quantity Calculation Method Based on BIM Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Tooran Alizadeh, 2017. "Urban Digital Strategies: Planning in the Face of Information Technology?," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 35-49, April.
    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. Jingzhe Wang & Yangyi Wu & Yinghui Zhang & Ivan Lizaga & Zipeng Zhang, 2025. "Advancing Multi-Scale Geographic Environmental Monitoring: A Synthesis of Cutting-Edge Research and Scalable Solutions," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-7, May.

    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. 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.
    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. Keaton Jenner & Peter Tulip, 2020. "The Apartment Shortage," RBA Research Discussion Papers rdp2020-04, Reserve Bank of Australia.
    4. 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.
    5. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Anassaya Chawviang & Supaporn Kiattisin, 2022. "Sustainable Development: Smart Co-Operative Management Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-25, March.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Haozhi Pan & Si Chen & Yizhao Gao & Brian Deal & Jinfang Liu, 2020. "An urban informatics approach to understanding residential mobility in Metro Chicago," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1456-1473, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Christopher J Pettit & Scott Hawken & Carmela Ticzon & Simone Z Leao & Aida E Afrooz & Scott N Lieske & Tess Canfield & Hrishi Ballal & Carl Steinitz, 2019. "Breaking down the silos through geodesign – Envisioning Sydney’s urban future," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(8), pages 1387-1404, 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:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:9:p:1408-:d:1469634. 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.