Negotiating Planning Support System Development: An exercise in complexity reduction through sociotechnical model development

Transcription

1 12 th Meeting AESOP Confronting Urban Planning and Design with Complexity January 2014, Manchester, UK Negotiating Planning Support System Development: An exercise in complexity reduction through sociotechnical model development Carissa J. Champlin VISICO Center Dept. of Construction Management and Engineering University of Twente Enschede, the Netherlands

2 1. Complexity in Spatial Planning Wicked problems that are ill-defined [5] Complex social systems according to Niklas Luhmann [3] 1. Agents communicate about (not with) environment components 2. There exist more options than can be realized 3. Contingency, reduction of undifferentiated chaos 4. Structured complexity- methods for creating and selecting options

3 2. Research Problem Planning Support Systems (PSSs) Geo-information technologies that support planners in specific planning tasks [1] [2] [4] [6] Examples: CommunityViz, What if?, UrbanSim Problem solving [9] Solutions that satisfy criteria Tasks: Spatial analysis, data modelling, scenario assessment Problem formulation Structuring of problem & defining criteria for solution Tasks: stakeholder analysis, objective setting, scenario development

4 3. Sociotechnical PSS development Process- vs. technology- driven approach Involvement of user in PSS model development [7] [8] Aim: Structure the option creation and selection process by introducing sociotechnical development of PSS model

5 4. Sociotechnical PSS Development Workshop Interventions Collaborative design team (CDT) to negotiate PSS model Process-driven PSS development: Step 1: Stakeholder analysis Step 2: Stakeholder objectives and component spatial relations Step 3: Scenario development Step 4: Scenario assessment indicators Step 5: Scenario assessment outcomes

6 5. Case Study: Cross-border Industrial Terrain Expansion Germany Netherlands

7 6. System Complexity Analysis Based on 6 Planner Interviews planning team 6 stakeholders 16 bi-national actors 6 instruments 17 process 6 goals 13 policy artifacts 14 issues 26 physical resources 14 TOTAL 118

8 7. Option Creation and Selection through PSS Model Development Step 2: Stakeholder objectives and component spatial relations Strategic objectives of project: Knowledge exchange between companies Cross-border market opportunities Sustainability Accessibility Activated components provide a forecast for indicator and scenario development Categories Active Components Contingent Components Planning team 4 planners 2 planners Stakeholders Business associations (2) Companies occupying terrain Renewable energy provider Municipal offices (2) 10 including: Town councils Citizens Farmers Bi-national actors Investors Revitaplan 4 including: EUREGIO Instruments Goals Process Issues Policy artifacts Physical resources Stakeholder analysis In-person negotiation Own expertise Visualization tools Maps Project meetings Business development Internationalize economy Attract young and educated Enter Dutch/German market (2) Create sustainable economy Incremental development Scenario development Local planning autonomy Green energy grid Business synergy Commerce Economic activity multiplier Expansion Competitive advantage Local economy Flächennutzungsplan RPB Achterhoek Vision document 2010 Chancen Atlas Usable land Border Protected landscape Existing industrial terrain 11 including: Projection models Documentation Knowledge/data storage Stakeholder workshops Chemistry 7 including: Awareness building Demand-driven construction Networking terrains Accessibility Delays/duration Polderen Early project phase 19 including: Funding Work culture Municipal profit model Public interest Collaboration Risk 10 including: Bestimmingsplan Memorandum of understanding Regional structural plan 10 including: City E-W road connection Transport & infrastructure TOTAL out of

9 8. Findings & Conclusions PSS negotiation did not lead to adoption Sociotechnical approach structured option creation and selection Developers more aware of planning context Contingency introduces structure while allowing flexibility for unforeseable change Suggested research: Co-creation of planning and PSS development processes

10

11 THANK YOU References: Carissa J. Champlin University of Twente 1] Brail, R. K., & Klosterman, R. E. (2001). Planning Support Systems: Integrating geographical information systems, models and visualization tools. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press. 2] Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (2004). Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(4), doi: 3] Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on Self-Reliance. New York: Columbia University Press. 4] Harris, B. (1989). Beyond Geographic Information Systems. Journal of the American Planning Association. 5] Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, ] te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Developing Land Use and Transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transport Policy, 15, ] Te Brömmelstroet, M., & Schrijnen, P. M. (2010). From Planning Support Systems to Mediated Planning Support: A structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 37, ] Vonk, G., & Ligtenberg, A. (2010). Socio-technical PSS development to improve functionality and usability Sketch planning using a Maptable. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3 4), doi: /j.landurbplan ] Zamenopoulus, T., & Alexiou, K. (2012). A Complexity Theoretic View of Cities as Artefacts of Design Intentionality. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk & E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An overview with implications to urban planning and design. Heidelberg: Springer. Funded in part by: