Abstract-Challenges in spatial planning include adjusting settlement patterns to increasing or shrinking populations; it also includes organizing food delivery in rural and peripheral environments. Discourse typically starts with an open problem and the search for a holistic and innovative solution. Software will often be needed to implement the innovation. Spatial planning problems are characterized by large and heterogeneous groups of stakeholders, such as municipalities, companies, interest groups, citizens, women and men, young people and children. Current techniques for participation are slow, laborious and costly, and they tend to miss out on many stakeholders or interest groups.We propose a triple shift in perspective: (1) Discourse is reframed as a requirements process with the explicit goal to state software, hardware, and organizational requirements. (2) Due to the above-mentioned characteristics of spatial planning problems, we suggest using techniques of requirements engineering (RE) and CrowdRE for getting stakeholders (e.g. user groups) involved. (3) We propose video as a medium for communicating problems, solution alternatives, and arguments effectively within a mixed crowd of officials, citizens, children and elderly people.Although few spatial planning problems can be solved by software alone, this new perspective helps to focus discussions anyway. RE techniques can assist in finding common ground despite the heterogeneous group of stakeholders, e.g. citizens. Digital requirements and video are well-suited for facilitating distribution, feedback, and discourse via the internet. In this paper, we propose this new perspective as a timely opportunity for the spatial planning domain -and as an increasingly important application domain of CrowdRE.

No abstract

Abstract:The objective of this article is to emphasise the importance of integrating a gender perspective in the planning sciences to advance planning theories. We will first debate how gender issues are integrated into planning practice and theory. At the beginning we refer to the article of Sandercock and Forsyth 'A gender agenda -new directions for planning theory' (Sandercock, Forsyth 1992). We will deal with the question of how gender issues are received in the European mainstream of handbooks on planning theory. Furthermore, we will discuss why and how gender perspectives are to be integrated into planning to bridge the gap between gender-sensitive and mainstream approaches to planning theory. We outline why gender planning has to be an integrative planning approach by linking to the integrative approaches of Mitchell (2008Mitchell ( , 2009 and Wilber (2001Wilber ( , 2011. In particular, we want to highlight that integrative thinking is a basic idea of gender planning. Furthermore, we describe how gender planning can be a catalyst for valuable integrative approaches in planning which, up to hitherto, have been less recognised than the mainstream approaches. IntroductionThe objective of this article is to promote the integration of a gender perspective in planning sciences 1 (gender planning) as a necessary approach to build up comprehensive spatial planning theories. Assuming gender planning to be an integral part of spatial development requires a more explicit consideration of gender […] in both how planning is delivered and in its wider impact' (Burgess 2008:112). Especially, it means building an understanding of the different perspectives and interests of women and men as users and user groups, considering gender, as well as age, life situation and ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds, as an analytical tool to balance multiple differences and equality. In this regard, it focuses on the integration of gender equality as well as equity in all stages of the planning process reaching from the formulation of objectives via the planning of measures to their implementation and evaluation. In addition it is crucial to question the planning models and the values and attitudes underlying the planning philosophy and planning culture with 1 The planning sciences are understood to be the following disciplines, which are usually separated from each other: architecture and urban design, civil engineering, environmental planning, geography, landscape architecture and planning, spatial planning, town and country planning, traffic planning, urban planning (definition according to Dörhöfer 1994). Feminist theory and practice in particular have much to contribute to both planning theory and planning practice (e.g. Schneider 1989, 1998, Sandercock, Forsyth 1992, Ritzdorf 1992, Campbell, Fainstein 1996, Wotha 2000, Damyanovic 2007. On this basis, we will first debate 2 if and how feminist and gender issues are integrated into planning practice and theory. The starting point for the analysis is the article of Sandercoc...

No abstract

Ich stimme zu. Mein Leben ist eng. Von einer Perspektive oder einer anderen, sind all unsere Leben eng. Nur wenn Leben nebeneinander platziert sind, scheinen sie größer zu sein" (Waldie 2005, S. 94).