Planning Support Systems and Task-Technology Fit: a Comparative Case Study

Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 155-175

  Pelzer, Peter ^a   Arciniegas, Gustavo ^b   Geertman, Stan ^a   Lenferink, Sander ^c  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Geo Col GIS and collaborative planning   (Netherlands)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

CommunityViz; Comparative case study; Planning support systems; Task technology fit; Touch table; User experiences

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; PLANNING SYSTEM; SOFTWARE; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84933280318     PISSN: 1874463X     EISSN: 18744621     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12061-015-9135-5     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Arciniegas, G. A., Janssen, R., & Omtzigt, N. (2011). Map-based multicriteria analysis to support interactive land use allocation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 25(12), 1931–1947.
2. Arciniegas, G. A., Janssen, R., & Rietveld, P. (2013). Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: results of an experiment, environmental modelling & software. Environmental Modelling & Software, 39(2013), 159–175.
3. Batty, M. (1995) Planning support systems and the new logic of computation. Regional Development Dialogue, 16(1), 1–17
4. Brail, R. (2006) Planning Support Systems Evolving: When the Rubber Hits the Road. In J. Portugali (Eds.), Complex Artificial Environments, Simulation, Cognition and VR in the Study and Planning of Cities (pp.307-310). Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.
5. Claydon, J. (1996). Negotiations in planning. In C. Greer (Ed.), Implementing town planning (pp. 110–120). Harlow: Longman.
6. Claydon, J., & Smith, B. (1997). Negotiating gains through the British development control system. Urban Studies, 34(12), 2003–2022.
7. Couclelis, H. (2005). “Where has the future gone?” Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning’. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1353–1371.
8. Deal, B., Pallatucheril, V. (2009). A Use-Driven Approach to Large-Scale Urban Modelling and Planning Support. In S. Geertman, & J. Stillwell (Eds.) Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods (pp.29-52). Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
9. De Stentor. (2011a). Retrieved October 2013 from http://www.destentor.nl/regio/deventer/8963029/Marktkooplieden-voelen-zich-bekocht.ece.
10. De stentor. (2011b). Retrieved October 2013 from http://www.destentor.nl/regio/deventer/9078654/Wennen-aan-‘nieuwe’-markt.ece.
11. Demetriou, D., Stillwell, J., & See, L. (2013). LACONISS: a planning support system for land consolidation. In S. Geertman, J. Stillwell, & F. Toppen (Eds.), Planning support for sustainable urban development (pp. 73–90). Heidelberg: Springer.
12. Dennis, A., Wixom, B., & Vandenburg, R. (2002). Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 67–193.
13. Dias, E., Kuipers, M., Rafiee, A., Koomen, E., & Scholten, H. (2013). Beauty and brains: integrating easy spatial design and advanced urban sustainability models. In S. Geertman, J. Stillwell, & F. Toppen (Eds.), Planning support for sustainable urban development (pp. 469–484). Heidelberg: Springer.
14. Dishaw, M., & Strong, D. (1998). Assessing software maintenance tool utilization using task-technology fit and fitness-for-use models. Journal of Software Maintenance Research and Practice, 10(3), 151–179.
15. European Union. (2008). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions—20 20 by 2020—Europe’s climate change opportunity. Retrieved October 2013 from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0030:FIN:EN:PDF.
16. Furneaux, B. (2012). Task-Technology Fit Theory: A Survey and Synopsis of the Literature. In: Y. Dwivedi, M. Wade and S. Schneberger (2012, eds.) Information Systems Theory Integrated Series in Information Systems, 28,87–106.
17. Geertman, S. (2006). Potentials for planning support: a planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 863–880.
18. Geertman, S. (2008). Planning support systems: a planner’s perspective. In R. Brail (Ed.), Planning support systems for cities and regions (pp. 213–230). Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
19. Geertman, S. (2013). Planning support: from systems to science. Proceedings of the ICE: Urban Design and Planning, 166(1), 50–59.
20. Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2009). Planning support systems: best practices and new methods. Heidelberg: Springer.
21. Geertman, S., Stillwell, J., & Toppen, F. (Eds.). (2013). Planning support systems for sustainable urban development. Heidelberg: Springer.
22. Geneletti, D. (2008). Incorporating biodiversity assets in spatial planning: methodological proposal and development of a planning support system. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(3–4), 252–265.
23. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
24. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213–235.
25. Goodspeed, R. (2013). Planning Support Systems for Spatial Planning Through Social Learning. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
26. Guhathakurta, S. (1999) ‘Urban modeling and contemporary planning theory: Is there a common ground? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 281-292.
27. Harris, B. (1965). New tools for planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(2), 90–95.
28. Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63, 143–162.
29. Hopkins, L. (2001). Urban development: the logic of making plans. Washington DC: Island Press.
30. Innes, J.(1998) Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52-63.
31. Jankowski, P., & Nyerges, T. (2001). GIS-supported collaborative decision-making: results of an experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 48–70.
32. Klosterman, R. (1997). Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, 45–54.
33. Levinson, A. (1997). Why oppose TDRs?: Transferable development rights can increase overall development. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 27(3), 283–296.
34. MacEachren, A. M., & Brewer, I. (2004). Developing a conceptual framework for visually-enabled geocollaboration. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18(1), 1–34.
35. Pelzer, P., Arciniegas, G., Geertman, S., & de Kroes, J. (2013). Using MapTable® to learn about sustainable urban development. In S. Geertman et al. (Eds.), Planning support systems for sustainable urban development, lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography (pp. 167–186). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
36. Pelzer, P., Geertman, S., Van der Heijden, R., & Rouwette, E. (2014a). The added value of Planning Support Systems: a practitioner’s perspective. Computers Environments and Urban Systems, 48, 16–27.
37. Pelzer, P., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Geertman, S. (2014b). Geodesign in practice: what about the urban designers? In D. Lee, E. Dias, & H. Scholten (Eds.), Geodesign by integrating design and geospatial sciences (pp. 331–344). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
38. Raiffa, H. (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39. Ruming, K. J. (2009). Development configurations and planning negotiations: a case of fringe development in Sydney, Australia. Urban Studies, 46(7), 1461–1483.
40. Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Avebury: Aldershot.
41. Salet, W., & Faludi, A. (2000). The revival of strategic spatial planning. Amsterdam: KNAW.
42. Salter, J., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. (2006). The digital workshop: exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualization tools in participatory planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2090–2101.
43. Samsura, D. A. (2013). Games and the City: applying game- and theoretical approaches to land and property development analysis. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.
44. Smith, H., Wall, G., & Blackstock, K. (2013). The role of map-based environmental information in supporting integration between river basin planning and spatial planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 30, 81–89.
45. Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2010) Making Planning Support Systems Matter: Improving the use of Planning Support Systems for integrated land use and transport strategy-making. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
46. Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2013). Performance of planning support systems: what is it, and how do we report on it? Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41, 299–308.
47. Te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Developing land use and transport PSS: meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transport Policy, 15(4), 251–259.
48. Vonk G. (2006). Improving Planning Support. The use of Planning Support Systems for spatial planning. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University.
49. Walker, D., & Daniel, T. (2011). The planners guide to CommunityViz. The essential tool for a New generation of planning. Washington/ Middlebury: APA Planners Press and the Orton Family Foundation.
50. Zigurs I., Buckland B. (1998). A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, September, 1998.