IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i11p1945-d116553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interactive Knowledge Co-Production and Integration for Healthy Urban Development

Author

Listed:
  • Rehana Shrestha

    (Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands)

  • Heike Köckler

    (Department of Community Health, Hochshule für Gesundheit, University of Applied Sciences (hsg); Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801 Bochum, Germany)

  • Johannes Flacke

    (Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands)

  • Javier Martinez

    (Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands)

  • Martin Van Maarseveen

    (Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The transformation of cities towards healthy urban living environments for all is a challenge that needs to be addressed through collaboration of all relevant sectors in a transdisciplinary research processes. This paper reports on the design and showcase implementation of a methodological approach, named Interactive Spatial Understanding Support System (ISUSS), that is intended to support interactive knowledge co-production and integration among practitioners and researcher in a specific local context. The approach involves the combined use of interactive maps on a MapTable and a rich picture. The goal is to stimulate, articulate and map stakeholders’ knowledge on environmental health issues to come to a shared problem understanding. Drawing on the rich seam of data gathered over the reflexive engagement with the participants in Dortmund, Germany, we explored incidences of a transdisciplinary process. Findings suggest that the approach has the potential to encourage communication and social learning geared towards a shared understanding of the holistic problem situation. Whilst locally embedded spatial knowledge was shared using interactive maps on the MapTable, the rich picture elicited issues linked to wider geographical scale as well as non-spatial drivers. The paper concludes discussing research needs to further explore the approach among various other groups, including citizens.

Suggested Citation

  • Rehana Shrestha & Heike Köckler & Johannes Flacke & Javier Martinez & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2017. "Interactive Knowledge Co-Production and Integration for Healthy Urban Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:1945-:d:116553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/1945/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/1945/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosenfield, Patricia L., 1992. "The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1343-1357, December.
    2. Brett Baden & Douglas Noonan & Rama Mohana Turaga, 2007. "Scales of justice: Is there a geographic bias in environmental equity analysis?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 163-185.
    3. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    4. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    5. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Pieter M Schrijnen, 2010. "From Planning Support Systems to Mediated Planning Support: A Structured Dialogue to Overcome the Implementation Gap," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(1), pages 3-20, February.
    6. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    7. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    8. Beukers, Els & Bertolini, Luca & Te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2014. "Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: identifying interventions for improving communication and trust," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 61-72.
    9. Roland W. Scholz, 2017. "The Normative Dimension in Transdisciplinarity, Transition Management, and Transformation Sciences: New Roles of Science and Universities in Sustainable Transitioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-31, June.
    10. Peter Pelzer & Stan Geertman, 2014. "Planning support systems and interdisciplinary learning," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 527-542, December.
    11. Jason Corburn & Rajiv Bhatia, 2007. "Health impact assessment in San Francisco: Incorporating the social determinants of health into environmental planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(3), pages 323-341.
    12. Ackermann, Fran, 2012. "Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 652-658.
    13. Corburn, J., 2004. "Confronting the Challenges in Reconnecting Urban Planning and Public Health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(4), pages 541-546.
    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. Aulia Akbar & Johannes Flacke & Javier Martinez & Martin F.A.M. van Maarseveen, 2020. "Spatial Knowledge: A Potential to Enhance Public Participation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-30, 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. 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.
    2. Gomes, Sharlene L. & Hermans, Leon M. & Thissen, Wil A.H., 2018. "Extending community operational research to address institutional aspects of societal problems: Experiences from peri-urban Bangladesh," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 904-917.
    3. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    4. 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.
    5. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    6. David Lowe & Louise Martingale & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Guiding interventions in a multi-organisational context: combining the Viable System Model and Hierarchical Process Modelling for use as a Problem Structuring Method," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1481-1495, December.
    7. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    8. Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Montibeller, Gilberto & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2017. "Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1054-1071.
    9. Ana Guzmán Ruiz & Meredith Dobbie & Rebekah Brown, 2017. "Insights and future directions of transdisciplinary practice in the urban water sector," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(2), pages 251-263, June.
    10. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran & Walls, Lesley & Quigley, John & Houghton, Tom, 2017. "Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 70-81.
    11. Franco, L. Alberto & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Korzilius, Hubert, 2016. "Different paths to consensus? The impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 878-889.
    12. 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.
    13. Jian Xu & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Sinan Yang & Hongli Zhang & Chen Yu & Lin Sun, 2018. "Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 973-995, November.
    14. Pang, Jifang & Liang, Jiye, 2012. "Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 294-301.
    15. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    16. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    17. Koglin, Till, 2015. "Organisation does matter – planning for cycling in Stockholm and Copenhagen," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 55-62.
    18. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    19. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    20. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.

    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:2017:i:11:p:1945-:d:116553. 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.