Frames and dilemmas in multifunctional projects

Castaño, Julieta Matos

doi:10.3990/1.9789036540889

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 179 publications

(295 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Four aspects of divergence related to knowledge are: frames, domains, abstraction levels and uncertainty. First, planning actors use frames to filter and make sense of specific issues and their relationships (Matos Castaño, 2016;Dewulf et al, 2009).…”

Section: Divergencementioning

confidence: 99%

Contextualizing planning support (systems): co-designing to fit the dynamics of spatial strategy making

Franken-Champlin¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PSS tend to outperform other GIS-based tools in terms of the provision of knowledge, communication of knowledge and support in the analysis of knowledge (Vonk & Geertman, 2008). Despite their knowledge-handling capabilities, these technologies by and large have not entered the realm of non-routine, strategic planning tasks. Strategic tasks rely heavily on dynamic processes of communication and knowledge exchange for learning about a spatial system. Supporting these process-related aspects is important when confronted by divergent knowledge and priorities that compel actors to frame issues differently (Matos Castaño, 2016). Instead, PSS tend to focus on the substantive aspects of a planning issue-e.g. easing traffic congestion, prioritizing land uses (Pelzer et al., 2014). Dealing with well-defined, routine problems is more straight forward since these tasks rely on 'expert knowledge [that] is relatively unambiguous but subject to error because of the extensiveness of the "facts" involved' (Batty, 1995, p. 6). Consequently, PSS that have successfully made the transition to practice typically support routine planning tasks (Couclelis, 2005). According to a study by Vonk et al. (2007b), out of 58 analyzed PSS, 55 systems supported problem exploration and the analysis of trends while only one system supported problem formulation tasks. The functionality of the PSS that were evaluated focused considerably more on analyzing and modelling information than on supporting communication and information gathering, two process-related aspects of problem formulation. Such analyses of PSS use have become associated with the task-technology-user fit model (Vonk, 2006; Goodhue & Thompson, 1995). This model provides insight into the influence of method and tool components on both the process and outcome of group work (Geertman, 2013). Present-day research examining the relationships between planning task, planning support and users is centered on understanding the usefulness of these tools. PSS usefulness is determined in part by the fit between the support function of the system and the planning task, or its utility, and in part by the perceived usability of the utility function (Pelzer, 2017). Several studies provide discussions of usefulness, particularly concerning the potential communication and learning benefits of PSS use (see Shrestha, 2018; Pelzer et al., 2016; Pelzer et al., 2014; Goodspeed, 2013a). Communication and learning are two process-related aspects that I have attempted to link in the previous section to the dynamics of divergence and convergence. Communication and learning have been measured at both the group and individual level. Both levels of analysis are important since planning as a communicative activity is grounded both in the collective common sense of the group acting together and in the knowledge and consciousness that autonomous individuals gain through self-reflection (Alexander, 1988 as cited in Klosterman, 1997). While the term usefulness hints at a bias toward the potential benefits of PSS use, P...

show abstract

Section: Divergencementioning

confidence: 99%

Contextualizing planning support (systems): co-designing to fit the dynamics of spatial strategy making

Franken-Champlin¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four aspects of divergent thinking that can be captured in rapid brainstorming with diverse smaller groups are: frames, domains, abstraction levels, and uncertainties. Planning actors use frames to filter and make sense of specific issues and their relationships (Dewulf et al, 2009; Matos Castaño, 2016). Frames about these issues may be expressed as perspectives pertaining to an issue or preferences and priorities of one option over another.…”

Section: Operationalization Of Key Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A game co-design method to elicit knowledge for the contextualization of spatial models

Champlin

Flacke

Dewulf

2021

Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A frequent criticism of knowledge-based planning tools is the apparent mismatch between information frameworks used in their spatial models and the information needs of planning actors. Increasingly, these actors are contributing their context-specific knowledge during the development of such tools. Transferring this knowledge from actors to the model remains a challenge. This study establishes a set of design requirements for knowledge elicitation in small group settings and introduces game co-design as a method allowing planning actors and planning support experts to meet halfway between the technology and user domains in the so-called third space. We present an initial case where in three nominal group sessions, actors encountered and critiqued parameterized assumptions of their planning issues in a tangible game environment. Findings indicate that the method can elicit different types of knowledge (divergence) about a spatial system in operationalized terms (formalization). We discuss the potential of tangible game co-design as a modeling as learning exercise and its complementarity to dedicated digital technologies for more holistic planning support.

show abstract

Frames and dilemmas in multifunctional projects

Cited by 2 publications

References 179 publications

Contextualizing planning support (systems): co-designing to fit the dynamics of spatial strategy making

Contextualizing planning support (systems): co-designing to fit the dynamics of spatial strategy making

A game co-design method to elicit knowledge for the contextualization of spatial models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About