Recoding embedded assumptions: Adaptation of an open source tool to support sustainability, transparency and participatory governance

Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography

Volumn 213, Issue , 2015, Pages 409-425

  Minner, Jennifer S ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLANNING; TRANSPARENCY; URBAN GROWTH; URBAN PLANNING;

ANALYTICAL PROCESS; METROPOLITAN REGIONS; OPEN SOURCE TOOLS; PLANNING SUPPORT TOOLS; PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS; SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS; SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES; UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84937392800     PISSN: 18632351     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_22     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Bartholomew, K. (2007). Land use-transportation scenario planning: Promise and reality. Transportation, 34(4), 397–412.
2. Beauregard, R. A. (2012). Planning with things. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32 (2), 182–190.
3. Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–263.
4. Caliskan, K., & Callon, M. (2009). Economization, part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society, 38(3), 369–398.
5. Calthorpe Associates. (undated). Scenario planning tools: RapidFire and UrbanFootprint. http://www.calthorpe.com/scenario_modeling_tools. Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
6. Capital Area Council of Governments. (2012). Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.sustainableplacesproject.com/node/2. Accessed 1 Jan 2015.
7. Chakraborty, Arnab. (2011). Enhancing the role of participatory scenario planning processes: Lessons from reality check exercises. Futures, 43(4), 387–399.
8. City of Austin. (2011). CATS demonstration site application: City of Austin proposal urban rail system. (Central Austin and Mueller Activity Centers) http://austin.sustainableplacesproject.com/sites/sustainableplacesproject.com/files/files/Austin%20Application.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
9. City of Austin. (2012). Imagine Austin comprehensive plan. Austin, Texas: City of Austin
10. Drummond, W., & French, S. (2008). The future of GIS in planning: Converging technologies and diverging interests. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(2), 161–174.
11. Envisiontomorrow.org. (2014). Envision tomorrow—welcome to envision tomorrow.http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/. Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
12. Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internetbased participation tools. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 397–408.
13. Ganapati, S. (2010). Using geographic information systems to increase citizen engagement. IBM Center for the Business of Government website. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/GanapatiReport.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2012.
14. Göçmen, Z. A., & Ventura, S. J. (2010). Barriers to GIS use in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 172–183.
15. Goodspeed, R. (2013). Planning support systems for spatial planning through social learning. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
16. Hilde, T., & Paterson, R. (2014). Integrating ecosystem services analysis into scenario planning practice: Accounting for street tree benefits with i-Tree valuation in Central Texas. Journal of Environmental Management, 146(15), 524–534.
17. Holway, J., Gabbe, C. J., Hebbert, F., Lally, J., Matthews, R., & Quay, R. (2012). Opening access to scenario planning tools. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
18. Jackson, D. E.. (2013). Fiscal impacts of land use planning decisions: Sprawl, sustainable development, and simulation in public process. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
19. Koekoek, A., van Lammeren, R., & Vonk, G. A. (2009). The potential of integrating eparticipation in planning support systems. URISA Journal, 21(2), 39–47.
20. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
21. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Macmillan, B. (2009) ANT in Westboro: An examination of the applicability of actor-network theory in gentrification studies. Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.
23. Mueller, E., & Torrado, M. (2013). Redevelopment and displacement manual. Document from email correspondence.
24. Nelson, A., Eskic, D., Kittrell, K. (2012). Return on investment (ROI) model: Envision tomorrow (ET+). Accessed at http://www.arch.utah.edu/cgi-bin/wordpress-etplus/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Return-on-Investment_7-1-12.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2014.
25. Oden, M., Mueller, E., Jackson, D. E.. (2014). The big picture: Using scenario based planning to achieve environmental and social sustainability. Unpublished Working Paper. Document from e-mail correspondence. 6 Aug 2014.
26. Open Planning Tools Group. (undated). About. http://www.openplanningtoolsgroup.org/about/,Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
27. Partnership for Sustainable Communities. (2014). Partnership grants, assistance, and programs. http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/partnership-resources, Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
28. PlaceMatters (undated). Place/Matters. http://placematters.org/, Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
29. Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18.
30. Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
31. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2010). Notice of funding availability (NOFA) for HUD’s fiscal year 2010 sustainable communities regional planning grant program.
32. Wittenmore, A. (2013). Finding sustainability in conservative contexts: Topics for conversation between American conservative elites, planners and the conservative base. Urban Studies, 51 (12), 2460–2477.