IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/sae/envira/v37y2005i5p909-924.html

Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as


Cited by:

  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. Jessica Page & Ulla Mörtberg & Georgia Destouni & Carla Ferreira & Helena Näsström & Zahra Kalantari, 2020. "Open-source planning support system for sustainable regional planning: A case study of Stockholm County, Sweden," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1508-1523, October.
  3. 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.
  4. van Kouwen, Frank & Dieperink, Carel & Schot, Paul P. & Wassen, Martin J., 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Natural Resources Management Working Papers 9555, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
  5. 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.
  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. 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.
  8. Kulawiak, Marcin & Lubniewski, Zbigniew, 2014. "SafeCity — A GIS-based tool profiled for supporting decision making in urban development and infrastructure protection," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 174-187.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Robert Goodspeed, 2016. "Sketching and learning: A planning support system field study," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(3), pages 444-463, May.
  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. Ilke Borowski & Matt Hare, 2007. "Exploring the Gap Between Water Managers and Researchers: Difficulties of Model-Based Tools to Support Practical Water Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(7), pages 1049-1074, July.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  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. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Soria-Lara, Julio A. & Aguilera-Benavente, Francisco & Arranz-López, Aldo, 2016. "Integrating land use and transport practice through spatial metrics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 330-345.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Verhetsel, Ann & Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Zijlstra, Toon & Blomme, Nele & Cant, Jeroen, 2015. "Location of logistics companies: a stated preference study to disentangle the impact of accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 110-121.
  26. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2007. "A SWOT Analysis of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(7), pages 1699-1714, July.
  27. 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.
  28. Ruth Potts & Alex Lord & John Sturzaker, 2024. "Automatic for the people? Problematising the potential of digital planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(12), pages 2435-2451, September.
  29. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
  30. te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Bertolini, Luca, 2008. "Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 251-259, July.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
  36. Robert Goodspeed & Cassie Hackel, 2019. "Lessons for developing a planning support system infrastructure: The case of Southern California's Scenario Planning Model," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(4), pages 777-796, May.
  37. 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 Scientific Publishing, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.
  38. Marco te Brommelstroet, 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.
  39. Frank van Kouwen & Carel Dieperink & Paul P. Schot & Martin J. Wassen, 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Working Papers 2007.52, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  40. Mikko V. Pohjola & Pasi Pohjola & Marko Tainio & Jouni T. Tuomisto, 2013. "Perspectives to Performance of Environment and Health Assessments and Models—From Outputs to Outcomes?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, June.
  41. Silva, Cecília & Bertolini, Luca & te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Milakis, Dimitris & Papa, Enrica, 2017. "Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 135-145.
  42. Britz, Wolfgang & Pérez-Dominguez, Ignacio & Narayanan, Gopalakrishnan Badri, . "Analyzing Results from Agricultural Large-scale Economic Simulation Models: Recent Progress and the Way Ahead," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(02).
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.