IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i18p4999-d266893.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analytic Approach to Understanding Process Dynamics in Geodesign Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara Cocco

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, University of Cagliari, via Marengo 2, 09123 Cagliari, Italy)

  • Piotr Jankowski

    (Geography Department, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4493, USA
    Institute of Geoecology and Geoinformation, Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. Bogumiła Krygowskiego 10, 61-680 Poznań, Poland)

  • Michele Campagna

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, University of Cagliari, via Marengo 2, 09123 Cagliari, Italy)

Abstract

Recent advances in planning support technologies has enabled interactive collaboration in design processes by multiple stakeholder groups. The available technologies collect and store information on both the evolution of design alternatives and the interactions of participants involved in the design process. However, making sense of available process log-data is still a challenge. This study focuses on process analytics in geodesign studies, where iterative collaboration between stakeholders generates design alternatives and consensus by negotiation. Early findings demonstrate how geodesign process analytics makes it possible to gain insights both in recurrent patterns in participant behavior and in the evolution of the design. The approach, based on the enhanced adaptive structuration theory framework, has been tested using data collected by the Geodesignhub web-based collaborative planning support systems in the Cagliari (Italy) geodesign study.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4999-:d:266893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4999/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4999/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Christian Albert & Christina Von Haaren & Juan Carlos Vargas-Moreno & Carl Steinitz, 2015. "Teaching Scenario-Based Planning for Sustainable Landscape Development: An Evaluation of Learning Effects in the Cagliari Studio Workshop," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    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. Chiara Cocco & Christian Rezende Freitas & Ana Clara Mourão Moura & Michele Campagna, 2019. "Geodesign Process Analytics: Focus on Design as a Process and Its Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Michele Campagna & Elisabetta Anna Di Cesare & Chiara Cocco, 2020. "Integrating Green-Infrastructures Design in Strategic Spatial Planning with Geodesign," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, February.
    3. Beniamino Murgante & Giuseppe Borruso & Ginevra Balletto & Paolo Castiglia & Marco Dettori, 2020. "Why Italy First? Health, Geographical and Planning Aspects of the COVID-19 Outbreak," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-44, 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. 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.
    3. Yanliu Lin & Kasper Benneker, 2022. "Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in The Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 391-410, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Cunha, Isabel & Silva, Cecília, 2023. "Assessing the equity impact of cycling infrastructure allocation: Implications for planning practice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 15-26.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2020. "Planning support science: Developments and challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1326-1342, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    11. Lorenz Probst, 2022. "Higher Education for Sustainability: A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence 2013–2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-24, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Christian Albert & Johannes Hermes & Felix Neuendorf & Christina Von Haaren & Michael Rode, 2016. "Assessing and Governing Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs in Agrarian Landscapes: The Case of Biogas," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, 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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4999-:d:266893. 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.