1 IntroductionOver the course of many years, professional spatial planners have used a plethora ofmethods and tools to support their various planning activities. Nevertheless, it can beargued that spatial-planning practitioners have never fully embraced the diversity of theavailable methods, techniques, and models developed in the research laboratories toanalyse spatial problems, to evaluate future options, or to project alternative scenarios(for example, see Couclelis, 1989; Harris, 1960; Klosterman, 1994; Rubenstein-Montano,2000; Webster, 1993; 1994; Worrall, 1994). As stated by Harris (1999), planners anddesigners have remained at best distrustful, or at worst downright antagonistic,towards computer-based models of support.

This neglect or even antipathy is remarkable for at least two reasons. First of all,planning-support instruments are increasingly finding their way from the scientificlaboratories into the marketplace. A recent inventory by Geertman and Stillwell(2003) has concluded that quite a large part of a subset of the present generation ofplanning support instrumentsöthe so-called planning support systems (PSS)öcan beconsidered as `off-the-shelf' products that can be purchased on the market at a reason-able price. Second, planning tasks characterise themselves increasingly by their growingcomplexity: an increasing number of fields of policy must be taken into account andintegrated in order to produce balanced planning proposals, more and more peoplewith divergent interests and agendas are closely involved in participatory planningprocesses, and the involvement of participants is taking place at a much earlier stagein the planning process. In sum, there are plenty of reasons for professional plannersto actively embrace all kinds of assistance, including planning-support instruments, toenlighten and improve their practice.

Before an elaboration on the research question, workable definitions of `planningsupport', `planning-support instruments', and a subset of this last category, the PSS, arerequired. Planning support is defined here as all the professional help in the form of

Potentials for planning support: a planning-conceptualapproach

Stan GeertmanFaculty of Geographical Sciences, Urban Research Center Utrecht (URU), Netherlands Centerfor Geographical Information (NexpRI), Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3508 TC Utrecht,The Netherlands; e-mail: s.geertman@geo.uu.nlReceived 29 October 2004; in revised form 8 November 2005

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2006, volume 33, pages 863 ^ 880

Abstract. Over the course of many years, professional planners have used a plethora of methods andtools to support their planning activities. Nevertheless, it can be argued that planning practionershave never fully embraced the much wider diversity of available methods, techniques, and modelsdeveloped in the research laboratories. On the basis of this observation, this study poses severalquestions about why there is an apparent mismatch in planning practice between supply, demand,and applications of planning-support instruments (including `planning support systems') and theiroutcomes (dedicated information and knowledge), and how this mismatch can be solved. In order toarrive at an answer, a conceptual framework is constructed, which constitutes crucial factors thatinfluence the potential planning support roles of information, knowledge, and instruments. With thehelp of this framework, a developmental overview is interpreted of the theoretical planning traditionsthat exerted an influence on planning practice during the last half millennium in the Western world.From this interpretation, some lessons can be learned about the improvement of the planning-supportrole in factual planning practice, and moreover, it opens up some new questions and discussion points.

DOI:10.1068/b31129

dedicated information, knowledge, and instruments that people actively involvedwithin formal spatial-planning practices can receive to enlighten (that is, make faster,improve quality, increase ease of performance, etc) their planning tasks and activities.Note that according to this definition planning support is not restricted by definitionto professional planners but can also include actively involved laypersons or otherstakeholders. A way to realise planning support is to apply planning-support instru-ments, which refer in particular to computer-based tools, dedicated to the support ofspecific professional spatial-planning tasks such as problem diagnosis, data collection,spatial and trend analysis, geodata modelling, spatial scenario building, visualisationand display, plan formulation, enhancing participation, and collaborative decisionmak-ing. Third, a specific subset of these planning-support instruments, the PSS, can beunderstood as geoinformation-technology-based instruments that incorporate a suiteof components (theories, data, information, knowledge, methods, tools) which collec-tively support all or some part of a unique professional planning task (based on: BrailandKlosterman, 2001;Geertman and Stillwell, 2003;Harris and Batty,1993; Klosterman,1998). These PSS aid the planning process by providing integrated environmentsusually based on multiple technologies and a common interface. More precisely,a PSS forms the framework in which three sets of components are combined: thespecification of the planning tasks and problems at hand, including the assemblyof data; the system models and methods that inform the planning process throughanalysis, prediction, and prescription; and the transformation of basic data into infor-mation which in turn provides the driving force for modelling and design (through acyclic process). For overviews of the intentions and functions, potentials and short-comings, backgrounds and examples of planning-support instruments in general andPSS in particular, please refer to Brail andKlosterman (2001) andGeertman and Stillwell(2003).(1)

Let us return to the formulation of the research question, which can now bedefined as:

Why is there an apparent mismatch in planning practice between supply, demand,and application of planning support instruments (including PSS) and their out-comes (dedicated information and knowledge), and how can this mismatch besolved by taking a planning-conceptual approach as its point of departure?

This first part of the question is not new, to be sure (for example, see Batty, 2004; Vonket al, 2005). However, the `road to the answer' differs from preceding studies, in whicha largely practical approach (factual planning practice) was taken as a starting point.In this study I adopt a more planning-conceptual approach (theoretical planningnotions) as a point of departure. This more abstract approach is here preferred fortwo main reasons. First, although the answers derived from the practical approach arevaluable, they fail to show the full picture. By taking anotheröcomplementaryöapproach, I hope to add new insights to existing answers. Second, I believe that byabstracting from the day-to-day handlings of planners, it might become easier todiscover the real key issues at hand, by avoiding the common problem of not seeingthe woods for the trees.

In short, the ultimate goal of this paper is to improve the support function ofdedicated information, knowledge, and instruments in factual planning practicethrough the application of a planning-conceptual approach as its point of departure.

(1) For examples of PSS, please refer to the following URLs:http://www.placematters.com; http://www.lic.wusc.edu/shapingdane/;http://www.communityviz.com; http://www.k2vi.com/;http://www.netcoast.nl/tools/rikz/WADBOS.htm; http://www.what-if-pss.com/;http://www.urbansim.org/; http://www.riks.nl/projects/LOV

864 S Geertman

In this, the paper is structured along the following lines. First of all, some generalnotions concerning planning support and planning-support instruments within factualplanning practice will be presented (section 2). On this basis, a conceptual frameworkconcerning planning support will be constructed and elaborated upon (section 3).The prime purpose of this conceptual framework is to provide a model with whichdevelopments in the concept of planning support can be detected and interpreted.Subsequently, in section 4, this framework is used to confront and interpret past andongoing developments in planning and planning support as seen from a planning-conceptual standpoint. In section 5 some findings are presented, on the basis ofthese confrontations and interpretations. Finally, in section 6 some discussions arebegun concerning the consequences of the findings and the (new) questions whicharose out of this study.

2 Planning support instruments: a practical overviewAfter Batty and Densham (1996), it can be stated that planning-support instrumentsand their application have changed substantially over time. In the 1960s and 1970sthese instruments, including the early generations of geographical information systems(GIS) and (spatial) decision support systems, were used primarily for data manage-ment, but also for modelling and strategic planning support. Although the systems andmodels offered huge opportunities to support various aspects of the planning process,the profession did not adopt them as permanent instruments. Lee (1973) summarised thereasons for the failure of various large-scale models developed during these decades;the most important among them were their complicated nature and their `data hungri-ness'. In response, the 1980s witnessed a change in emphasis towards the application ofplanning support instruments to more routine functions, such as data management andthe graphical display of spatial datasets. Whole generations of GIS with their extensivedatabase management and display capabilities corresponded to these developments,with the neglect of more sophisticated analysis, simulation, and modelling functional-ities. It is from this one-sidedness that, more recently, a new generation of so-calledPSS have been emerging (for example, see Brail and Klosterman, 2001; Geertman andStillwell, 2003).

This particularly negative picture, evident in recent history, coincides with state-ments of various authors involved in the application of planning-support instrumentsin planning practice (for example, Geertman, 1999; Harris, 1960; Hopkins, 1998;Nedovic-Budic, 1998). Harris and Batty (1993), for example, conclude that the currentgeneration of GIS fails to incorporate the kinds of functions which planning in factrequires, such as analytical and design functions. Klosterman (1998) suggests thatinstruments for planning support are no better developed now than they were ten yearsago. He is equally pessimistic about the adoption of new instruments and computerapplications in planning practice in the near future. Stillwell et al (1999) provide anassessment of planning practice at the beginning of the 21st century and conclude thatthe adoption of planning-support instruments is far from widespread and that theyare still a long way from being effectively integrated into the planning process. In fact,it is still the case that the proportion of planners who consider planning-supportinstruments as intrinsic and indispensable instruments for performing their job properly(as financial experts consider their use of spreadsheet software, and medical specialiststheir electrocardiogram technology) remains remarkably low (Geertman, 2002).

The reasons given for this apparently continuous backward situation are quitevaried. One is that most planning-support instruments of the last decade do not readilyfit the changing needs of the planning profession in that they are far too generic,complex, inflexible, incompatible with the `wicked' nature of most planning tasks,

Potentials for planning support 865

oriented towards technology rather than problems, incompatible with the less formaland unstructured information needs, and too focused on strict rationality (see Bishop,1998; Couclelis, 1989; Geertman, 1999; Klosterman, 1994; 2001; Nedovic-Budic, 1998;Ottens, 1990; Scholten and Stillwell, 1990; Worrall, 1994). Moreover, on the demandside it can be concluded that planners have to perform a varied number of analyticaltasks, which makes it difficult to build generic instruments. Likewise, there is adiversity of potential users with a variety of demands. Also, the market for public-sectorsoftware is relatively small, and consequentially, the costs of developing and supportingcommercial software are high. In addition, the professional education and training ofplanners in the innovative application of planning-support instruments remains at arudimentary stage. And planning education has shifted from object orientation (`what toplan') to a preoccupation with concerns about the process of planning (`how to plan').Besides, a lot of frustrations and antagonistic attitudes can be found in planning practiceas a consequence of previous failures to adopt new technology (for example, reactionsto a so-called `quantitative revolution in social sciences') (Brail and Klosterman,2001; Geertman, 1999; 2002; Geertman and Stillwell, 2003). As a consequence, thedevelopment of planning-support instruments and their factual application in planningpractice continues to lag far behind that of other professions (for example, transportationengineering).

Despite this unfortunate situation, more recently evidence has been mounting fordevelopments that will possibly have a positive impact on adoption. Within the field ofgeoinformation technology itself, systems are rapidly becoming more user-friendly,interoperable, cost-effective, standardised and platform independent. At the sametime, geodata are becoming more abundant, cheaper, easier to obtain, and of a higherresolution and quality.Within planning practice too, ongoing changes are increasing theneeds and potential for planning support instruments. The growing involvement ofparticipants in planning processes is one example, and the increasing sophisticationofplanningowing to the growing complexityof real-world dynamics is another (Geertman,2002; Geertman and Stillwell, 2000). The dissemination of data and plans is changingradically, plans are becoming available in digital format, although many as CAD(computer-aided design) files (in the Netherlands all spatial plans should be availablein an exchangeable digital format before 2007), and (prototyping) systems are enteringthe market with which plans can be put on the Internet and made easily accessible to awide audience. Furthermore, computer-based land-use modelling for physical planninghas been reinvigorated with the development of new forms of simulation models(Engelen et al, 1999), new land-use ^ transportation packages (Simmonds, 2001) andnew techniques from areas such as artificial intelligence for applications such as floodforecasting. Moreover, as mentioned before, a new generation of so-called PSSare entering the planning scene. All in all, it can be expected that the backwardsituation of the adoption of planning-support instruments in planning practice willimprove thanks to recent push (dataware, hardware, software, etc) and pull (sophistica-tion of planning, complexity of planning practice, etc) factors, although the pace ofimprovement will probably lag far behind the potential.

3 A conceptual frameworkA range of lessons can be presented on the basis of already briefly indicated observa-tions and experiences. These lessons can be presented as influential factors on theadoption of planning-support dedicated information, knowledge, and instruments inplanning practice. These factors are presented here in a conceptual framework that willbe used for further analysis of past and ongoing developments in planning as seen froma planning-conceptual standpoint (see figure 1).

866 S Geertman

The first factor concerns the content of the planning issue at stake. Many strategic,nonroutine, planning issues can be said to be ill structured or at best semistructured(Rittel and Webber, 1984). In this regard, it is not the answer to the planning questionthat is of prime concern, but mainly the adequate interpretation of the question itself.As a consequence, the potential role of planning support is dependent on its dedicationto the elaboration of the definition(s) of the problem at stake. The input of a diversityof knowledge categories will be necessary to handle this deficiency of structure. Not onlyformal knowledge, but also informal knowledge is required, alongside scientificknowledge, ordinary knowledge, proven knowledge, and intuitive ideas, etc. Handlingthese `deviating' information and knowledge categories properly will be a significantchallenge for planning support instruments, but an inevitable one nonetheless.

Besides the dedication of the supportive role of information, knowledge, andinstruments to the content of the planning issue itself, the degree of appropriateness ofthe planning issue at stake for support is also a question here. In general, one can statethat some planning issues lend themselves better for support than others, given someinherent characteristics that fit the supportive role more automatically. An example isthat many transport planning and infrastructure-related issues (for example, short-termpredictions of traffic flows) are considered much easier and more widely acceptable tohandle with quantitative-oriented analytical or modelling instruments than are issuesin which human behaviour is much less predictable and regulated (for example, long-term land-use modelling). Without a doubt, we are more capable of `understanding'and predicting some `behaviours' than others (for example, erosion versus migration),which translates into either an easier or more difficult to fulfil support role. Weshould be aware of these differences, particularly as they also influence the degree ofacceptance of the support role.

The second factor comprises the characteristics of the users, including their professionand working habits. Each category of user possesses certain qualities and restrictions andhas specific demands and wishes concerning the content of information needed and theform of the technology to be handled. For instance, within the profession of planners, adivision can often be made between more research-oriented planners and more design-oriented planners (for example, see Schuur, 1994). Within this distinction, it appears thatthe working habits of research-oriented planners differ greatly from those of design-oriented planners (more systematic and analytical versus more creative and intuitive,respectively). Also, the different planners have different demands regarding the supportfunction of instruments (different functionalities required) and different attitudes regardingthe outcomes of the instruments in the form of dedicated information and knowledge. Forexample, from several of my own previous studies it appears that the more design-orientedplanners do not value the outcomes of the land-use-modelling exercise very highly

Specific characteristics ofinformation, knowledge,and instruments

Characteristicsof planning andpolicy process

Dominantplanningstyle

User characteristicsPolitical context

Content of planning issue

Potential planning support role ofdedicated information, knowledge,and instruments in planning practice

3 3

3 3

Dominant policy model

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

3

Figure 1. Factors influencing the potential planning-support role of dedicated information,knowledge, and instruments in planning practice.

Potentials for planning support 867

(they consider it a largely straightforward, noncreative, black-box exercise), whereas themore research-oriented planners consider the same exercise very innovative and highlyvaluable in the right direction of the end product. In these divergent viewpoints, without adoubt, professional protectionism plays a role of importance too.

In addition, the characteristics of the users also comprise the different professionalidentities one can apply to the planning job (for example, objective researcher versuspartisan supporter). It will be clear that what is meant by `planning support' can andwill be quite different for different identities.

The third factor covers the characteristics of the planning and policy process. Ingeneral, it can be stated that each planning and policy process possesses distinctivecharacteristics that influence the planning-support role of information, knowledge,and instruments. These characteristics include time span (for example, strictness ofdeadlines, and time pressures), participation rate (resulting diversity in knowledge,experience, educational background, occupation, etc), publicity (such as degree ofpolitical sensitivity), organisation of consultation (for example, procedural commu-nication or open planning process), and so forth. All these characteristics have aninfluence on the potential planning- supportive roles of dedicated information, knowl-edge, and instruments. Some planning and policy processes, for instance, are moresocially oriented (for example, reconstruction after a great disaster) some aremore politically oriented (for example, when national security interests are at stake)and still others are more scientifically and intellectually based (for instance, thedesign and construction of a high-speed transport connection). It will be obvious thatthe potentials of a supportive role of information, knowledge, and instruments can andwill deviate between these three different kinds of planning and policy processes.

The fourth factor forms the so-called political context. Each policy processöandthus planning tooöis embedded in a broader political context. This context hasspecific qualities (for example, a dictatorial versus democratic system) that exert aninfluence on the choice of the technology (for example, its needed or wished degree oftransparency, so no `black-box' technology) and the way in which this technology isimplemented and handled in policy processes (absolute truth telling versus advisorysystem). For instance, in a politically open democratic society, all relevant opinions ofresponsible members of the decisionmaking process should be seriously considered.The adoption of any of these opinions should be publicly accounted for and even theimplementation should be monitored publicly. Appropriate information, knowledge,and instruments can help to perform these tasks.

The fifth factor concerns the specific characteristics of (geo)information, knowledge,and instruments themselves that also influence the appropriateness of their planning-supportive role. Regarding the characteristics of (geo)information and knowledge itcan be said that these are contextual, relative, and problematic. They are contextual,in that the policy-support role of (geo)information and knowledge proves to be lessevident within strategic decisionmaking than at the level of operational decisionmak-ing. They are relative, in that other factors such as traditions and power relationsinfluence the planning and policy process also (see Lindblom and Cohen, 1979). Theycan be potentially problematic, in that information based on scientific research is besetwith problems relating to the availability, accessibility, and/or utility of the underlyingdata and of the methods to process them (for example, see Chorley, 1988). In fact,information and knowledge do not constitute a neutral entity and are loaded withinherent choices and biases (see Forester, 1989). Besides specific characteristics of(geo)information and knowledge, those of dedicated instruments also influence theirsupport-role performance. One such characteristic concerns the discrepancy in theconcept of space. According to Couclelis (1989), the concept of space as employed in

868 S Geertman

several planning support instruments is general, absolute, and tangible, whereas withinthe activities of spatial planning it is mostly abstract, subjective, personal, and/orrelative. For instance, speaking about a fuzzy concept such as the economic heartlandof Europe is easy from a planning perspective but very difficult to handle within aplanning-support instrument. Another discrepancy exists between the nature of thespatial-planning activity itself and the way its practioners deal with it, on the onehand, and the nature of planning-support instruments on the other hand. Spatialplanning is a highly dynamic and inherently contextual and problem-oriented activity.Irrational, dynamic, political, juridical, economic, and other more or less nonspatialfactors all play an important role in the spatial-planning practice. However, it is veryhard to cope with these kind of characteristics within planning-support instruments(see, for example, Klosterman, 1994; Worrall, 1994). Another related discrepancy con-cerns the aforementioned lack of sufficiently attuned spatial-analytical and modellingfunctionalities to be handled in a user-friendly and sufficiently transparent way withinplanning-support instruments.

The last, but not least, factors consist of the dominant planning style and policymodel. A planning style can be described as the dominant form of planning during acertain period of time (for example, see Kreukels, 1980; Mastop, 1984). It representstime-bound normative opinions as to the way in which the planning job should beperformed. Planning styles change as a consequence of the demands put on planningduring a certain period of time and of the difficulties that are encountered with thedominant planning style within the preceding period. These changes neither occurpromptly nor everywhere at the same moment in time. Policy models, on the otherhand, represent the specific policy context of planning styles, and therefore the time-bound normative insights into policymaking. They can be described as the way inwhich a policy agency (such as a planning institute) transforms an identified problem,placed on the political agenda, into a politically sanctioned policy (for example, seevan de Graaf and Hoppe, 1989).

Planning styles and policy models are interconnected in that, when circumstancesand/or insights force the policy model to adjust to another position, the dominantplanning style, and consequently, the needs for dedicated information, knowledge, andinstruments, will all move along. In contrast with the more practical factor of thecharacteristics of the planning and policy process, the planning styles and policymodels involve more normative notions concerning planning and policymaking,although these notions are embedded into planning and policy practice too. Simplystated, they can be envisioned as being abstracted and generalised, more or less time-bound, normative notions concerning the `what' (for example, the role and functionwithin society) and the `how' (for example, the working methods) of planning andpolicymaking. As will be seen in the next section, each of these notions possessesspecific characteristics and is founded on certain premises, so when asserting theappropriateness of the dedicated information, knowledge, and instruments to supportplanning, it is wise to take these notions explicitly into account.

The prime purpose of the presented conceptual framework is to provide an inter-pretative model with which past and present developments within the field of planningcan be confronted with the actual and potential support functions of dedicated infor-mation, knowledge, and instruments. Given the restricted space for elaboration and thespecific focus of the paper (planning-conceptual approach), the planning theoreticalfactors of the presented conceptual framework will be the dominant focus of attentionin the next section.

Potentials for planning support 869

4 A planning theoretical perspectiveLooking at planning over the last half millennium within the Western World (WesternEurope and Northern America), one can identify some differing planning traditions.These traditions encompass more or less internally coherent and externally distinguish-able groups of planning styles and policy models. In general, since World War 2, fourdifferent traditions of policy models and associated planning styles can be identified(see table 1). The start of this overview parallels the postwar planning paradigm shiftfrom a period which can be identified as `planning as design' (`orthogonal design') toone of `planning as applied science', in which information technology starts to play arole in planning (see also Friedmann, 1987; Klosterman, 2001). See, for other theoreti-cal overviews, Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones (2002), Campbell and Fainstein (2003),Hall (1975). These traditions are positioned in a set timeframe, although this should beconsidered as merely a rough indication; in reality the associated timeframes will differ,as was noted in the explanation of the conceptual framework, from place to place (forexample, Europe versus the USA), between different planning professions (researchersversus designers), from one planning field to another (infrastructure versus land-useplanning), from one planning process to another (politically versus scientificallyoriented), etc. Moreover, previous traditions do not end with the arrival of the nextone (no Kuhnian paradigm shifts). Instead, there is more of a gradual, evolutionarychange in which equally-as-worthy indicated elements of previous traditions continuealongside and/or intermingled with, and/or adapted to following planning traditions.Besides, given the prime focus and restrictions of space of this paper, the presenteddevelopments in planning styles and policy models form only rough indications in whichwe have to abstract from the wealth of associated nuances.

4.1 `Rationality' traditionTable 1 shows that the `rationality' tradition is characterised by the planning style of`blueprint planning', also called `master planning' or end-state planning'. Two centralideas underpin this planning style (for example, see Faludi, 1973). In the first place, allrelevant knowledge needed to tackle the planning problem at stake is available, at leastin principle. Second, the planner or planning organisation more or less controls the givensituation. Taken together, knowledge and power can be considered a unity: in principle,the more knowledge one possesses, the more control one can exert, and vice versa.

The well-known policy model of comprehensive rationalism' (for example, Meyersonand Banfield, 1955) is congruent with this planning style. This model prescribes alogical, step-by-step methodology: analyse the situation at hand, select and elaboraterelevant goals, establish an exhaustive list of strategies to attain the selected goals,evaluate and compare the pros and cons of each of the selected strategies, and makea choice. This rational policy model is based on a number of more-or-less fulfilledassumptions: human beings generally think and act as `homo economicus' (people striveto maximise profits or utility), in which cost ^ benefit analysis plays a crucial role, personsin charge possess the necessary information and knowledge, the decision situationconsists of a well-structured problem with a single-actor decisionmaker, and the deci-sionmaking process can be characterised by scientific objectivity and political neutrality.

It is understood that planning practice under these circumstances requires anexhaustive amount of mainly value-free, substantive information and knowledge ofthe planning problem at hand. Hence, the role of planning-support instruments iscrucial, especially in generating and processing the requisite information and knowl-edge. In fact, under these circumstances the role of planning support is heading forexpert support: with the help of an exhaustive amount of data and information inconjunction with the objective knowledge of experts, the instrument will generate the

870 S Geertman

best (scientifically and technically underpinned, and objective) solution to the planningproblem at stake. In fact, in this tradition the planning-support role of dedicatedinformation, knowledge, and instruments is beyond doubt.

It is clear that worthy elements of this tradition are still well alive within planningpractice, although adapted to current times. For example, for specific planning issues(such as infrastructure planning) and within specific user groups (for example, engineer-ing) exhaustive amounts of more-or-less objective (numerical) information still plays adominant role in the planning process (see figure 1).

Table 1. Planning traditions: a historical overview of planning styles, policy models, andassociated characteristics of information, knowledge, and instruments.

Timeframe Planning Policy Characteristics Characteristicsof planning style model of information of planning-traditions and knowledge support

instruments

1950s/60s and blueprint comprehensive value free, expert orientedonwards planning rationalism substantive

`Rationality'tradition

1960s/70s and process disjointed procedural processonwards planning incrementalism management

`Procedural' administrative bounded satisfying processtradition planning rationality management

advocacy pluralism value laden,planning partisancritical structuralism value laden, empowermentplanning potentially

distorting

1970s/80s and strategic mixed scanning strategic continuousonwards planning generation`Strategic' of combinedtradition process and

substantiveinformation

1980s/90s and communicative social interaction socially facilitationonwards planning constructed, of `reasoning

`Participatory' value laden, together'

tradition context bound,class bound

development pragmatism empirically based

planning and stems from communityreconstruction supportive,of experiences empirically

based, experi-governance integrated multidimensional mentally

management oriented, andplanning real-life power laden and informationanalytics rationality actively produced and knowledge

through social disseminatinginteraction

Potentials for planning support 871

4.2 `Procedural' traditionThe `procedural' tradition can be seen as a reaction to the preceding traditions. Withinplanning and policymaking, it is generally understood that the central thoughts thatunderscore the `blueprint planning' are no longer valid. Accordingly, the prerequisitesof the rational policy model come under attack by a wide diversity of planners,scientists, theorists, and others (for extensive overviews, for example, see Alexander,1984; Dalton, 1986; Faludi, 1973; 1987).

One of the criticisms concerns the preoccupation with the fixed end state of theplanning process, which resolves in an orientation to the actual planning process.For instance, Lindblom's (1959) model of `disjointed incrementalism' envisions policy-making as a step-by-step and socially fragmented process (the `science of muddlingthrough'). Goal attainment (`grand design') is no longer the keyword, but, rather, it isstep-wise problem resolution. Facts and values are no longer seen as entities thatshould and could be held apart, but are considered necessarily interwoven and, assuch, the notion of scientific objectivity is increasingly called into question. In addi-tion, the idea of the monolithic decisionmaker is replaced by the recognition that thereare several decisionmakers working together. Simon's (1947) model of `bounded ration-ality' can be considered as another example of this process orientation. It points to thefact that actors are restricted in their information absorbing and handling capabilities,and that policy processes are not open ended but possess a priori restrictions in theirpotential outcomes. As a consequence, the model rejects the rational inherent drive foroptimisation and opts for a more realistic search for satisfying solutions (`satisfying'instead of `optimising').

Another rationality criticism concerns Davidoff's (1965) `advocacy planning', inwhich the rational value-neutrality (the division of facts and values) is not onlyrejected, but its counterpart is explicitly propagated. The planner should choose aposition and get actively involved in a partisan fashion into the policymaking process.In the same vein, the planning style of critical planning' restates the link between factand value and warns of the value-laden nature of information and communication(see Scott and Roweiss, 1977). In contrast to `advocacy planning', however, criticalplanning' envisages the active involvement of the planner in the policymaking processnot just as positive but as potentially distorting too.

Taken together, the changing focus from end-state planning' to `process planning'reveals that, in addition to substantive knowledge, procedural knowledge is also animportant prerequisite concerning the planning process. Moreover, it has been recog-nised that information and knowledge are generated right through the planning processin a somewhat fragmented way, contrary to the idea of an `all-in-one' step at thebeginning of the process. In addition, the `procedural' tradition rejects the absolutestatus of information and knowledge and points to the interconnectivity of factsand values. For the policy-support role of information, knowledge, and instrumentsthis implies a more modest role in providing the planning process with continuoussubstantive, and especially process-management, information. In addition, both `advo-cacy planning' and critical planning' add to that the need for a more fair distributionof information and knowledge, namely, an instrument for empowerment.

It is clear that worthy elements of the `procedural' tradition are also still alive andkicking within present planning practice, although they have of course been adapted tocurrent times. As an example, one can think of attention for the specific mixture ofsocial, political, and/or scientific orientation of a planning process (characteristics of theplanning and policy process); or we can think also of the different professional identitiesone can exert on the planning job and its infillings (user characteristics).

872 S Geertman

4.3 `Strategic' traditionThe `strategic' tradition reflects a reaction to both preceding traditions. Planningis regarded as having lost its vision and orientation on a clear and appealingperspective by concentrating its focus on the management of the ongoing planningprocess. As a remedy, planning must return to some of the best elements of thepreceding traditions and link these together. The notion of `strategic planning' (2) inter-links long-term visions and short-term processes (see Bryson and Einsweiler, 1988;Bryson and Roering, 1988). The policy model of mixed scanning can be consideredan example of this planning style and is a way to selectively synthesise some elementsof the rational and the incremental model into a new and adaptive `mixed-scanning'policy model (Etzioni, 1968). Therein, attention is first directed to the global investiga-tion of the available potentials and the generation of some broad perspectives. Thefocus is subsequently redirected to the elaboration of some specific elements of theseperspectives, including their process of realisation.

Information and knowledge are considered crucial for and continuous within thetradition of strategic planning. Moreover, the selective availability and attainability ofthe needed information is accepted (see Etzioni,1968).`Scanning'means that the decision-maker takes in available information and explores alternative steps in a continuous waythat moves from the global to the specific and more-detailed level. The potential supportrole of instruments can best be viewed as a continuous information-generating andknowledge-generating process of substantive and process information. An example ofsuch an instrument is the so-called `what-if scenario builder' (of which a wide diversityexists within the group of PSS)öwhich looks at certain policy decisions and considerswhat the likely consequences (pros and cons) are for one of them. On the basis of itsoutcomes and consequences, a more responsible choice can be made.

Once again, in current times many worthy elements of this `strategic' tradition canbe identified. The quite common and accepted working method of building, presenting,and discussing scenarios of potential policy decisions for strategic planning issues is anexample of this (planning issue and characteristics of planning and policy process).

4.4 `Participatory' traditionThe `participatory' tradition can be seen as a reaction to all three preceding traditions.It states that for planning to become more effective, not only is the quality of theplanning process or its substance and/or content of great importance, but also, at leastequally important for its improved effectiveness is the degree to which the affectedpeople support the proposed policy and the degree to which they are involved in theimplementation of the plan. As a consequence, affected people are actively involved at anearly stage in the planning process, which results in a so-called communicative planning'style. Often-used alternative names include `planning through debate', `argumentativeplanning', `deliberative planning', `participatory planning', and collaborative planning'(Healey, 1998). A lively discussion still rages concerning the definition of this plan-ning style (Harris, 2002). In general, the style rests on a diversity of sources (for example,a social-interaction model), but first and foremost it rests on Habermas's (1983) theoryof communicative action, with its roots in the critical theory' of the Frankfurt school.

(2) Strategic planning': it should be noted that within different contexts this term is used withdifferent meanings that may deviate from the given description. Some indicate it as a mode ofplanning in which long-term visions are connected to short-term actions (as we do); others considerit an indication of planning as performed by commercial firms in contrast to public planning;still others consider strategic planning as performed by higher-order governmental organisations(regional or national) in contrast to local governments; and others regard strategic planning as theopposite of day-to-day operational planning or decisionmaking, etc.

Potentials for planning support 873

Participation and collaboration are seen as crucial elements of this planning style,sometimes involving stakeholders and sometimes the wider public. It replaces thedomination of scientific rationality with that of social interaction (`reasoning together').

Several related planning styles have emerged in recent times, mostly closely associatedwith communicative planning', although occasionally launched as alternatives. Oneof these is `development planning', in which extra attention is paid to the implementa-tion phase. This approach is based on the philosophy of pragmatism (for example,John Dewey), which can be considered as more of a different attitude than as analternative to Habermas's theory of communicative action, which also draws on theUS pragmatists (Harrison, 2002). They stress the empirical basis of knowledge andrecognise that knowledge stems from the reconstruction of experience, which thelearner does in the context of society (see Farrah, 2001). Truth on that basis is notfoundational. Ideas that are community derived acquire a truth status when they provetheir worth in practice for solving problems (Oranje, 2002). In fact, the emphasis onexperiences of planning practice as a source of practical knowledge within this plan-ning style shows close resemblance to the well-known US pragmatic tradition of `sociallearning' or `learning by doing' (for example, Friedman, 1987).

Another related planning style can be found in the concept of `governance' (forexample, see Masser, 2003), which can be considered as a shift in emphasis from urbanland-use planning as such to integrated urban management. Two key aspects arestressed: first, the building of partnerships between all relevant public, private, andpersonal participants, and second, the multidimensionality of problems and solutionsin which, not only physical factors, but also social, economic, and environmentalfactors are taken into account. Attention is focused on the integration of policyformulation, resource allocation, and policy implementation by public, private, andcivil society actors. In so doing, the approach deals with one of the criticisms ofcommunicative planning', namely, that it pays insufficient attention to institutionaland structural issues (Harris, 2002).

Another associated planning style can be found with so-called `planning analytics'.Based on the philosophy of Foucault, this planning style stresses the inescapability ofpower that shapes planning (the multifaceted nature of planning with multiple andoften conflicting objects). The associated policy model, `Real-Rationalita« t', or `real-liferationality', shifts the focus from what should be done to what is actually done. ThoughHabermas and his planning protagonists (for example, Forester, 1989) intend to reg-ulate power and dominance within communicative actions by freeing them from theirdistorting power elements, the so-called `ideal speech situation', the `planning analytics'stress the utopian nature of this exercise and propagate the investigation of power dynam-ics in concrete planning situations (for example, see Flyvbjerg and Richardson, 2002).These writers critically reflect on existing planning-support instruments and processes,and suggest a power-sensitised understanding of the nature of knowledge (power andknowledge directly imply one another), rationality, and spatiality in planning theory.Knowledge is seen as being actively produced through a social process of interactionand intersubjective learning (Pennington, 2002).

In this tradition dedicated information, knowledge, and instruments are generallyseen as facilitating the participatory planning process of reasoning together (for example,see Forester, 1999); in other words, they seem to explicitly support planning duringcommunicative actions. This role confirms the inherent shift from competitive interestbargaining to collaborative consensus building (Healey, 1998). In short, the potentialrole of planning support can be characterised as community supportive, empiricallybased, experimentally oriented, and (spatially) information and knowledge disseminat-ing. Simultaneously, this role can also be characterised as relative and potentially

874 S Geertman

distorting, directing attention to partisan solutions and away from more widelyaccepted solutions. As a consequence, the potential facilitating and distorting rolesof information, knowledge, and instruments form two sides of the same coin andrequire critical reflection at all times.

It is clear that when the other factors from figure 1 are positioned within this `parti-cipatory' tradition each one plays a distinctive role in the determination of the potentialplanning-support role of dedicated information, knowledge, and instruments (such as,political context). For example, some planning issues and some planning and policyprocesses better lend themselves to a participatory approach than others, somethingwhich can be attributed to matters such as the degree of abstractness, complicatedness,or political sensitivity of issues or processes at stake (for example, finding buildinglocations for nuclear installations versus new housing sites). As a consequence, the specificpositions taken by each of these factors will determine the potential planning-supportroles of dedicated information, knowledge, and instruments.

5 Some lessons to be learnedWhat lessons can be learned from this overview of planning traditions (section 4) whenconfronted by the given conceptual framework of section 3? One lesson is that eachidentified planning tradition has its own specific needs and demands for information,knowledge, and instruments and that, by scanning the different traditions, it must beconcluded that the degree of appropriateness of the planning-support role of dedicatedinformation, knowledge, and instruments changes substantially over time. At present,within the so-called `participatory' tradition, with particular reference to the specificcharacteristics of information, knowledge, and instruments (see figure 1) not only areprofessional information and knowledge relevant, but also the personal experiences ofaffected laypersons. Moreover, not scientific knowledge alone, but also experiences,ordinary knowledge, tacit knowledge, practical common-sense reasoning', and intuitivenotions are essential parts of the planning knowledge input as well (Harris, 2002;Lindblom and Cohen, 1979). Besides knowledge, other crucial factors will also impactthe planning and policy process, such as political viewpoints; power structures; tradi-tions; status; cultural differences; psychological barriers; financial, technical, and legalconstraints; and so on. Moreover, knowledge is value laden, context bound, and evenclass bound, and consequentially, one must question the objectivity of information andknowledge, or the existence of a consensus regarding social values or the definitionsand solutions of social problems. Knowledge is socially constructed (consensus) andcan be developed and communicated in a variety of forms (analysis, storytelling,and expression, to name a few). In addition, power shapes planning, and power andknowledge are related in a mutually reinforcing way. In conclusion, this range of charac-teristics must be explicitly accounted for to attain an appropriate state of planningsupport by dedicated information, knowledge, and instruments. Furthermore, givenall these factors one has to be modest (contextual, relative, restricted, etc) aboutthe potentials of actual planning support by dedicated information, knowledge, andinstruments, as they should be considered but one among many potentially valuableinputs to the factual planning practice.

As for the other factors of figure 1, these also take in specific positions under theoverarching heading of the present `participatory' planning tradition. For instance,as far as the specific characteristics of the planning and policy process are concerned,it has been recognised that some processes are more socially oriented (for example, toprevent societal exclusion), some more politically oriented (based on elective motiva-tions) and some more scientifically and intellectually based (best technical solution).

Potentials for planning support 875

Each of these orientations and characterisations will place differing demands ofcontent and form on the support roles of information, knowledge, and instruments(for example, a PSS in a politically oriented process will be fundamentally different infunctionality and look and feel than in a scientifically oriented planning process).Likewise, within the present participatory planning tradition the tasks (planning issues)and persons involved (user characteristics), increased and diversified substantially,all within different political contexts. For example, the fact that, throughout the years,the group of actively involved people in the planning process has grown in numberand diversity puts high strain on the range of demands for information, knowledge, andinstruments. Each of the involved groups (researcher, planners, designers, politicians,laypersons, representatives of certain pressure groups, etc) will have their own barelyoverlapping demands in content and form for information, knowledge, and instru-ments (for example, the functions and look and feel of a PSS for politicians will differsubstantially from one for planners or researchers). As an ultimate consequence, thisrequires group-specific attunement of information, knowledge, and instruments to thegroup-specific demands and capabilities. Practically speaking, however, one canquestion whether this consequence in its ultimate form is a realistic perspective forfactual planning support.

Another lesson can be learned from the confrontation of table 1 with the practice-oriented history of planning-support instruments as briefly identified in section 2 andmore deeply elaborated on by several other authors (for example, Batty and Densham,1996; Klosterman, 2001). In general, it seems that there is an ongoing discrepancy intime-bound demand and supply, between the characteristics of available planning-support information, knowledge, and instruments on the one hand, and the more orless time-bound needs for support by planning practice on the other. Sometimes,technology and its outcomes (information and knowledge) appear to run far ahead offactual support needs and the capabilities of planners. For instance, the 1970s and1980s presented highly sophisticated models and decision support systems, whereasplanning was mostly interested in and could fulfil the requirements (in data, knowl-edge, etc) of far more simplistic planning-process management systems. At other timestechnology appears to lag far behind the factual planning needs. For instance, in the1990s, planners requested handy spatial analytical tools (for example, to build andanalyse spatial scenarios) and technology development was mainly interested inimproving data-management and display functionalities. Sometimes the prerequisitesof instruments fail to cope with the capabilities of planners. For example, for quitesome time, so-called GIS demanded a good deal of learning time, whereas plannerswere looking for handy, easy-to-use instruments. On the other hand, the potentials ofinformation, knowledge, and instruments occasionally fail to cope with the prerequisitesof the planning profession. For instance, the present increase both of cellular-automata-based and of multiagent-based land-use models provides huge potential; however, theymostly fail to open up and make underlying processes transparent (`black box'), whichprevents their more general application in factual planning practice. To summarise,there seems to be an ongoing but time-related variable discrepancy between the supplyside of planning-support information, knowledge, and instruments (figure 1) and thedemand side of factual planning practice. Breaking through this apparent sequence ofmismatches is a huge challenge to meet.

In conclusion, the foregoing information suggest that for real planning support inactual practice, by means of information, knowledge, and instruments, the dedicationto the time-bound and place-bound particularities of the planning activity is of theutmost importance. In that respect, the identified factors of the conceptual framework(figure 1) play an overarching and crucial role.

876 S Geertman

6 DiscussionSo, where do the preceding lessons take us from here? In fact, all this leads to theobservation that the factors of figure 1 are all dynamically interconnected, and in apractical planning situation one must be explicitly aware of their positions and theirinterconnectedness. As seen before, planning styles and policy models form a kind of aunity in which an alteration in one will sooner or later imply a change in the other(for example, from rationalism and blueprint planning to pragmatism and developmentplanning). Besides that, the other factors of figure 1 all seemöat least looselyöinter-connected, in that the practical effect of the planning-support role will depend on thesum of the individual positions taken in by each of the factors. Therein, some config-urations of positions will strengthen each other and others will weaken each other intheir cumulative contribution to the planning-support role. An example within thepresent `participatory' tradition is that, besides scientific knowledge, ordinary and tacitknowledge is also important (characteristics of information, knowledge, and instru-ments) and therefore participation of, for instance, laypersons (user characteristics) isof relevance. This implies a more-or-less open planning process (characteristics ofplanning and policy process), however, one that should be in concordance withthe planning issue at stake (for example, sufficiently clear, one dimensional, no securityissue) and with the political context (for example, democratic society). In reflection, it isclear that some positions, in combination, will strengthen the planning-support roleand others will weaken it and, given the dynamic nature of most planning processes,the final effectiveness of the associated planning-support role will change dynamicallytoo. In fact, continual critical reflection is demanded on the appropriateness of factorpositions taken and their actual cumulative contribution to the planning-supportiverole of information, knowledge, and instruments.

In general, despite this dynamic, contextual, relative, and restricted support role, tooptimalise such a role not only requires an adaptation of planning-supportive activitiesto planning practice but also the reverse. On the one hand, this implies a morethorough and explicit dedication of the factors of planning support to the specificcharacteristics of factual planning practice (explicitness and transparency in underlyingpremises, methods, restrictions of outcomes, etc). Without this dedication, planningsupport will be far too general and abstract, and practically useless in factual plan-ning practice. On the other hand, in order to fully appreciate the potential benefits ofsupportive actions, planning and policymaking processes should adapt too. In general,this asks for much more transparency and explicitness in the handling of dedicatedinformation, knowledge, and instruments in planning and policy processes and, notleast, a much more critical attitude (given the inherent value-laden character of infor-mation and knowledge), certainly more than is usually the case in planning practice.Otherwise, no public control on the appropriateness of planning and policymakingprocesses and outcomes (decisions) is possible. In fact, this mutual adaptation impliesan explicit methodology for planning support. The presented factors of figure 1 fulfil inthat sense a necessary prerequisite, but one that is not sufficient on its own. Therefore,closer insight into their interconnectedness, their dynamics, and their mutual adjust-ment to changing demands from factual planning practice is of dominant importance.In other words, a new subsequent study is born.

In conclusion, various factors affect the potential planning-support role of dedi-cated information, knowledge, and instruments (see figure 1). Taking them seriouslyand explicitly into account can be considered a preliminary step for their appropriatehandling in factual planning practice. In my opinion, more clarityöin particulartransparencyöover these factors and the way in which they are handled within a

Potentials for planning support 877

specific planning situation will enhance their potential for performing a more effectiveplanning-supportive role.

In closing, it seems a great deal of fascinating work remains to be undertaken torender planning support, its instruments, and its outcomes (dedicated information andknowledge) more widespread within factual planning practice. Sufficient insight intoboth sides of the same coinöplanning practice versus planning supportötheir devel-opments and actual positions, is an essential prerequisite to make this fascinating workbecome reality.

Acknowledgements. The author wishes to thank Dr Danielle Gorgels and Prof. Dr Henk Ottensfor their critical remarks on an earlier version of this paper and the anonymous referees of thejournal for their helpful comments.

ReferencesAlexander E R, 1984, `After rationality, what? A review of responses to paradigm breakdown''

Journal of the American Planning Association 50 (4) 62 ^ 69Allmendinger P,Tewdwr-Jones M (Eds), 2002 Planning Futures: New Directions for PlanningTheory

(Routledge, London)Batty M, 2004, ` Dissecting the streams of planning history: technology versus policy through

models'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31 326 ^ 330BattyM, Densham P,1996, ` Decision support, GIS, and urban planning'', http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/�pdensham/sdss/s t paper.html

Bishop I D, 1998, ` Planning support: hardware, software in search of a system'' Computers,Environment and Urban Systems 22 189 ^ 202

Brail R, Klosterman R (Eds), 2001Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic InformationSystems, Models, and Visualization Tools (ESRI Press, Redlands, CA)

Bryson J M, Einsweiler R C (Eds), 1988 Strategic Planning: Threats and Opportunities for Planners(Planners Press, Chicago, IL)

Bryson J M, RoeringW D, 1988, `Applying private sector strategic planning in the public sector'',in Strategic Planning: Threats and Opportunities for Planners Eds J M Bryson, R C Einsweiler(Planners Press, Chicago, IL) pp 15 ^ 34

Campbell S, Fainstein S, 2003 Readings in Planning Theory 2nd edition (Blackwell, Oxford)Chorley R, 1988, ` Some reflections on the handling of geographical information'' International

Journal of Geographical Information Systems 2 3 ^ 9Couclelis H, 1989, ` Geographically informed planning: requirements for planning relevant GIS'',

paper presented at the 36th North American Meeting of Regional Science Association, SantaBarbara, available from H Couclelis, Department of Geography, University of California,Santa Barbara, available from H Couclelis, Department of Geography, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara

Dalton L C,1986, ` Why the rational paradigm persists: the resistance of the professional education,and practice to alternative forms of planning'' Journal of Planning Education and Research6 147 ^ 153

Davidoff P, 1965, `Advocacy and pluralism in planning'', in A Reader in Planning TheoryEd. A Faludi (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 277 ^ 296

Engelen G, Geertman S, Smits P,Wessels C, 1999, ` Dynamic GIS, strategic physical planningsupport: a practical application'', in Geographical Information and Planning Eds J Stillwell,S Geertman, S Openshaw (Springer, Heidelberg) pp 87 ^ 111

Etzioni A,1968TheActive Society:ATheoryof Societal andPolitical Processes (Free Press, NewYork)Faludi A, 1973 Planning Theory (Pergamon Press, Oxford)Faludi A, 1987 A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning (Pergamon Press, Oxford)Farrah P, 2001Rationalism, Empiricism, and Pragmatism: The Three Major Epistemological

Traditions, Their Influence on Instructional Design International Institute for Geo-informationScience and Earth Observation, Hengelosestraat 99, 7500 AA Enschede

Flyvbjerg B, Richardson T, 2002, ` Planning and Foucault: in search of the dark side of planningtheory'', in Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory Eds PAllmendinger,M Tewdwr-Jones (Routledge, London) pp 44 ^ 62

Forester J, 1989, ` Planning in the face of power'' (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)Forester J, 1999, ` The deliberative practitioner'' (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)

878 S Geertman

Friedmann J, 1987 Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, NJ)

Geertman S, 1999, ` Geographical information technology and physical planning'', in GeographicalInformation and Planning Eds J Stillwell, S Geertman, S Openshaw (Springer, Heidelberg)pp 69 ^ 86

Geertman S, 2002, ` Participatory planning and GIS: a PSS to bridge the gap'' Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design 29 21 ^ 35

Geertman S, Stillwell J, 2000, ` Geoinformation, geotechnology and geoplanning in the 1990s'',WP 00/01, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds

Geertman S, Stillwell J (Eds), 2003 Planning Support Systems in Practice (Springer, Heidelberg)Habermas J, 1983 The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)Hall P, 1975 Urban and Regional Planning (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)Harris B, 1960, ``Plan or projection: an examination of the use of models in planning'' Journal of

the American Institute of Planners 26 265 ^ 272Harris B, 1999, ` Computing in planning: professional and institutional requirements'' Environment

and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 321 ^ 331Harris N, 2002, ` Collaborative planning: from theoretical foundations to practice forms'', in

Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory Eds P Allmendinger, M Tewdwr-Jones(Routledge, London) pp 21 ^ 43

Harris N, Batty M, 1993, ` Locational models, geographic information and planning supportsystems'' Journal of Planning Education and Research 12 184 ^ 198

Harrison P, 2002, `A pragmatic attitude to planning'', in Planning Futures: New Directions forPlanning Theory Eds P Allmendinger, M Tewdwr-Jones (Routledge, London) pp 157 ^ 171

Healey P, 1998, ``Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning''Environment and Planning A 30 1531 ^ 1546

Hopkins LD,1998,` Progress, prospects for planning support systems''Environment andPlanningB:Planning and Design anniversary issue 29 ^ 31

Klosterman R E, 1994, ` International support for computers in planning'' Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design 2 387 ^ 391

Kosterman R E, 1998, ` Computer applications in planning''Environment and Planning B: Planningand Design anniversary issue 32 ^ 36

Klosterman RE, 2001, ` Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning'',in Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models, andVisualization Tools Eds R Brail, R Klosterman (ESRI Press, Redlands, CA) pp 1 ^ 23

Kreukels A, 1980 Planning en Planningproces: een verkenning van de SociaalwetenschappelijkeTheorievorming op Basis van Ruimtelijke Planning [Planning and planning process: areconnaissance of human scientific theory based on spatial planning] ('s-Gravenhage,Gezondeidsraad)

Lee D R, 1973, ` Requiem for large-scale models'' Journal of the American Institute of Planners39 163 ^ 178

Lindblom C E, 1959, ` The science of `muddling through'', in A Reader in Planning TheoryEd. A Faludi (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 151 ^ 169

Lindblom C E, Cohen D K, 1979 Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving(Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)

Masser I, 2003, ` Future research for urban and regional planning and geoinformation management'',ITC farewell lecture 27 March, copy available from I Masser, Department of Geomatics,University of Melbourne,Victoria

Mastop J M, 1984 Besluitvorming, Handelen en Normeren: Een Methodologische Studie NaarAanleiding van het Streekplanwerk [Decisionmaking, acting, and regulating: a methodologicalresearch concerning regional planning] (University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam)

Meyerson M, Banfield E, 1955 Politics, Planning, and the Public Interest (Free Press, NewYork)Nedovic-Budic Z, 1998, ` The impact of GIS technology'' Environment and Planning B: Planning

and Design 25 681 ^ 692Oranje M, 2002, ` Planning and the postmodern turn'', in Planning Futures: New Directions for

Planning Theory Eds P Allmendinger, M Tewdwr-Jones (Routledge, London) pp 172 ^ 186Ottens H, 1990, ``The application of geographical information systems in urban and regional

planning'', inGeographical InformationSystems forUrban andRegionalPlanningEdsHJScholten,J Stillwell (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 15 ^ 22

Potentials for planning support 879

Pennington M, 2002, `A Hayekian liberal critique of collaborative planning'', in Planning Futures:NewDirections for PlanningTheoryEds PAllmendinger, MTewdwr-Jones (Routledge, London)pp 187 ^ 205

Rittel H,Webber M, 1984, ``Dilemmas in a general theory of planning'', in Developments in DesignMethodology Ed. N Cross (JohnWiley, NewYork) pp 135 ^ 144

Rubenstein-Montano B, 2000, `A survey of knowledge-based information systems for urbanplanning: moving towards knowledge management'' Computers, Environment and UrbanSystems 24 155 ^ 172

Scholten H, Stillwell J (Eds), 1990 Geographical Information Systems for Urban and RegionalPlanning (Kluwer, Dordrecht)

Schuur J, 1994, `Analysis and design in computer-aided physical planning'' Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design 21 97 ^ 108

Scott A, Roweis S, 1977, ` Urban planning in theory and practice: a reappraisal'' Environmentand Planning A 9 1095 ^ 1208

Simmonds D, 2001, ` The objectives and design of a new land-use modelling package: DELTA'',in Regional Science in Business Eds G Clarke, M Madden (Springer, Heidelberg) pp 115 ^ 157

Simon H, 1947 Administrative Behaviour (Free Press, Glencoe, IL)Stillwell J, Geertman S, Openshaw S, 1999, ` Developments in geographical information and

planning'', inGeographical Information and PlanningEds J Stillwell, S Geertman, S Openshaw(Springer, Heidelberg) pp 3 ^ 22

van de Graaf H, Hoppe R, 1989 Beleid en Politiek: Een Inleiding tot de Beleidswetenschap en deBeleidskunde [Policy and politics: an introduction into policy science] (Coutinho, Muiderberg)

Vonk G, Geertman S, Schot P, 2005, ` Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning supportsystems'' Environment and Planning A 37 909 ^ 924

Webster C J, 1993, ` GIS and the scientific inputs to planning, part 1: description'' Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design 20 709 ^ 728

Webster C J, 1994, ` GIS and the scientific inputs to planning, part 2: prediction and prescription''Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21 145 ^ 157

Worrall L, 1994, ` The role of GIS-based spatial analysis in strategic management in localgovernment'' Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 185 323 ^ 332

ß 2006 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

880 S Geertman

Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal researchby members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or otheronline distribution system) without permission of the publisher.