From Metaplanning to PSS 2.0

Exploring the architecture of Geodesign as a process

Authors

  • Michele Campagna Università di Cagliari Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Ambientale e Architettura DICAAR

Downloads

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7480/rius.4.819

Abstract

This paper explores the perspective of geodesign as a process. As such, it is argued methods and tools are needed to manage the process complexity, including the definition of the involved parties, of their roles and responsibilities, as well as all the steps to be undertaken to unfold the process, together with their underlying methods and enabling technologies and tools. A metaplanning operational approach based on Business Process Management is proposed to deal with the process complexity and eventually as a means to support the construction of a second generation of process-oriented Planning Support Systems. The overall discussion is supported by practical examples aiming at demonstrating how the Business Process Modelling and Notation language can be used to represent the planning processes from high level overview models to detailed ones which can express geodesign methods and enabling technologies.

How to Cite

Campagna, M. (2016). From Metaplanning to PSS 2.0: Exploring the architecture of Geodesign as a process. Research in Urbanism Series, 4, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.7480/rius.4.819

Published

2016-09-11

Issue

Vol. 4 (2016): Geo-Design: Advances in bridging geo-information technology, urban planning and landscape architecture

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2016 Michele Campagna

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biography

Michele Campagna, Università di Cagliari Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Ambientale e Architettura DICAAR

Michele Campagna, Research Doctor in Land Engineering, is Associate Professor of Spatial Planning at the University of Cagliari, where he teaches spatial planning, Geodesign and Planning Support Systems, and GIS since 2005. His main research interests concern the role of Information Communication Technologies in spatial planning and environmental impact assessment, including Geodesign, Metaplanning, Planning Support Systems, Spatial Data Infrastructures, and Social Media Geographic Information.

References

Allen, E. (2001). INDEX: software for community indicators. In R. K. Brail, & R. E. Klosterman (eds.). Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models and Visualization Tools (pp. 229-261). Redlands, CA: ESRI, Inc.

Bhargava, H.K, Krishnan, H. & Muller, R. (1997). Decision Support on Demand: Emerging Electronic Markets for Decision Technologies. Decision Support Systems 19.3: 193–214.

Campagna, M., Ivanov, K., & Massa, P. (2014a, June). Orchestrating the spatial planning process: from Business Process Management to 2nd generation Planning Support Systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Connecting a Digital Europe through Location and Place. Castellón, Spain.

Campagna, M., Ivanov, K., & Massa, P. (2014b). Implementing metaplanning with Business Process Management. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 22, pp. 199-209.

Champlin, C., Hartmann, T. & Dewulf, G. (2014). Negotiating PSSs as Epistemological Objects: An exercise in sociotechnical model development for planning support. Manchester, UK. Retrieved from www.revitaplan.com/preview/31

DeBettencourt, J. S., Mandell, M. B., Polzin, S. E., Sauter, V. L , & Schofer, J. L. (1982). Making planning more responsive to its users: the concept of metaplanning. Environment and Planning A, 14(3), 311-322.

Emshoff, J. R. (1978). Planning the process of improving the planning process: A case study in meta-planning. Management Science, 24(11), 1095-1108.

Hall, P. (2002). Urban and Regional Planning. London: Routledge (fourth ed.).

Harris, B. (1989). Beyond geographic information systems: Computers and the planning professional. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55, 85-90.

Healey, P. (1993). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for strategy formation. In F. Fisher, & J. Forester (eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp. 233-253). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472.

Khakee, A. (1998). Evaluation and planning: inseparable concepts. Town Planning Review, 69(4), 359-374.

Klosterman, R. E. (1999). The What if? Collaborative planning support system. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(3), 393-408.

Kwartler, M., & Bernard, R. (2001). CommunityViz: an integrated planning support system. In R. K. Brail, & R. E. Klosterman (Eds.). Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models and Visualization Tools (pp. 285-308). Redlands, CA: ESRI, Inc.

McLoughlin, J. B. (1969). Urban and Regional Planning: a Systems Approach. London, United Kingdom: Faber.

Steinitz, C. (2012) A framework for Geodesign. Redlands, CA: ESRI, Inc.

Weske, M. (2012) Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.