IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v46y2019i8p1387-1404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breaking down the silos through geodesign – Envisioning Sydney’s urban future

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J Pettit
  • Scott Hawken
  • Carmela Ticzon

    (University of New South Wales, Australia)

  • Simone Z Leao
  • Aida E Afrooz

    (University of New South Wales, Australia)

  • Scott N Lieske

    (University of Queensland, Australia)

  • Tess Canfield

    (Independent Researcher, UK)

  • Hrishi Ballal

    (University College London, USA)

  • Carl Steinitz

Abstract

One of the challenges in creating plans for sustainable urban futures is the ability to work across government agencies and to break down traditional barriers to truly collaborative planning. Typically, metropolitan planning has been carried out by different agencies that are separate in their mandate and planning strategies. This siloed approach to city planning means there are problems in the coordination and sequencing of critical projects. To address this problem, we investigate the use of the Steinitz geodesign framework and the GeodesignHub.com software for supporting collaborative and integrated negotiation-based geodesign. We hypothesised that by using the geodesign framework we can involve key government agencies and begin to break down the barriers between these agencies to create a single integrated strategic plan for the city. In this research we focus on South East Sydney, discussing the process in designing and implementing the geodesign framework with real world actors spanning several government agencies, municipalities, industry and academia for this study area. This being the first application of geodesign in the Australian context, we draw on feedback from participants on the strengths and weaknesses of the framework.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:46:y:2019:i:8:p:1387-1404
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808318812887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808318812887
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808318812887?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. Murray, Cameron K. & Frijters, Paul, 2016. "Clean money, dirty system: Connected landowners capture beneficial land rezoning," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 99-114.
    2. Boulange, Claire & Pettit, Chris & Gunn, Lucy Dubrelle & Giles-Corti, Billie & Badland, Hannah, 2018. "Improving planning analysis and decision making: The development and application of a Walkability Planning Support System," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 129-137.
    3. Michael Clay & Wade White & Paul Holley & Mark Curry, 2012. "Data Development for Implementing Integrated Land-use and Transportation Forecasting Models in Medium-sized Metropolitan Planning Organizations," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 263-274.
    4. 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.
    5. 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. Kaihang Zhou & Scott Hawken, 2023. "Climate-Related Sea Level Rise and Coastal Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure Futures: Landscape Planning Scenarios for Negotiating Risks and Opportunities in Australian Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Indrajit, Agung & van Loenen, Bastiaan & Suprajaka, & Jaya, Virgo Eresta & Ploeger, Hendrik & Lemmen, Christiaan & van Oosterom, Peter, 2021. "Implementation of the spatial plan information package for improving ease of doing business in Indonesian cities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. Parisa Zare & Christopher Pettit & Simone Leao & Ori Gudes & Balamurugan Soundararaj, 2022. "Geo-Design in Planning for Bicycling: An Evidence-Based Approach for Collaborative Bicycling Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Yaoxue Li & Youngmin Kim, 2022. "Analysis of Effects of Sponge City Projects Applying the Geodesign Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, March.

    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 & 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    10. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Shouying Liu & Fang Xia, 2020. "Property rights reform to support China’s rural ‐ urban integration: household‐level evidence from the Chengdu experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(1), pages 30-54, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Murray, Cameron & Gordon, Josh, 2021. "Land as airspace: How rezoning privatizes public space (and why governments should not give it away for free)," OSF Preprints v89fg, Center for Open Science.
    13. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    14. Korthals Altes, Willem K., 2019. "Planning initiative: Promoting development by the use of options in Amsterdam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 13-21.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Galletta, Sergio, 2017. "Law enforcement, municipal budgets and spillover effects: Evidence from a quasi-experiment in Italy," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 90-105.
    18. Paula Hooper & Julian Bolleter & Nicole Edwards, 2022. "Development of a planning support system to evaluate transit-oriented development masterplan concepts for optimal health outcomes," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(9), pages 2429-2450, November.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:46:y:2019:i:8:p:1387-1404. 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.