Reporting on the Performance and Usability of Planning Support Systems—Towards a Common Understanding
- 53 Downloads
To assess the implementation of Planning Support Systems (PSSs) and scenario planning strategies, a common understanding of model goals, performance, and usability are among several issues that need to be addressed. Without a common understanding, resulting policies that are drawn from model outcomes could be compromised. Reporting methods of PSS results should be objective, reasonable, understandable, and useful. We describe a process including several methods of reporting PSS results that allows for minor variation and understandably communicating the results to PSS users. This approach includes finding meaningful resolution and probability matching of PSS model results. We show that our approach is a theoretically reasonable and objective method for reporting PSS results in planning practice. We test our approach using the LEAM PSS in an application in northern Illinois. In this case, our model results inform planners using an easily comprehensible spatial resolution over which the simulation provides useful information for future land-use scenarios. We also apply our reporting methods to compare a preferred scenario to a business-as-usual scenario. The result prompts local planners and stakeholders to rethink their plan implementation strategy for preferred scenario implementation. We conclude that next steps for PSS model development will require both technical and practical focuses in the model reporting and implementation arena.
KeywordsPlanning support systems Model performance Usefulness Scenario planning Spatial analytics Land-use
The work used the ROGER supercomputer, which is supported by NSF under grant number: 1429699. We thank Shaowen Wang’s assistance with super-computing technical assistance, which was made possible through the CyberGIS Center Help Desk.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Almeida, C. M., Monteiro, A. M. V., Camara, G., Soares-Filho, B. S., Cerqueira, G. C., Pennachin, C. L., & Batty, M. (2005). GIS and remote sensing as tools for the simulation of urban land-use change. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(4), 759–774.Google Scholar
- Andrews, C. J. (2002). Humble analysis: the practice of joint fact-finding. Praeger: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
- Ballestores, F., Jr., & Qiu, Z. (2012). An integrated parcel-based land use change model using cellular automata and decision tree. Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2(2), 53.Google Scholar
- Champlin, C., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Pelzer, P. (2018). Tables, tablets and flexibility: evaluating planning support system performance under different conditions of use. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-018-9251-0.
- Deal, B., Pan, H., Pallathucheril, V., & Fulton, G. (2017a). Urban resilience and planning support systems: the need for sentience. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
- Fry, J., et al. (2011). Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. PE&RS, 77(9), 858–864.Google Scholar
- Goodchild, M. F. (1986). Spatial Autocorrelation: Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography. Norwich: Geo Books.Google Scholar
- McHenry County Regional Planning Commission. (2010). McHenry County 2030 comprehensive plan. Retrieved from https://www.co.mchenry.il.us/county-government/departments-j-z/planning-development/divisions/planning-zoning-land-use-division/2030-comprehensive-plan. Accessed 29 May 2018.
- Pan, H., Zhang, L., Cong, C., Deal, B., & Wang, Y. (2019). A dynamic and spatially explicit modeling approach to identify the ecosystem service implications of complex urban systems interactions. Ecological Indicators, 102, 426–436.Google Scholar
- Pelzer, P. (2017). Usefulness of planning support systems: a conceptual framework and an empirical illustration. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 104, 84–95.Google Scholar
- Pelzer, P., Geertman, S., van der Heijden, R., & Rouwette, E. (2014). The added value of planning support systems: a practitioner’s perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 48, 16–27.Google Scholar
- Pettit, C. J., Klosterman, R. E., Delaney, P., Whitehead, A. L., Kujala, H., Bromage, A., & Nino-Ruiz, M. (2015). The online what if? Planning support system: A land suitability application in Western Australia. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 8(2), 93–112.Google Scholar
- Silva, C., Bertolini, L., te Brömmelstroet, M., Milakis, D., & Papa, E. (2017). Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap. Transport Policy, 53, 135–145.Google Scholar
- te Brömmelstroet, M. (2017a). PSS are more user-friendly, but are they also increasingly useful? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 104, 96–107.Google Scholar
- te Brömmelstroet, M. (2017b). Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 104, 77–83.Google Scholar
- te Brömmelstroet, M. T., & Schrijnen, P. M. (2010). From planning support systems to mediated planning support: a structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
- White, R., & Engelen, G. (1994). Cellular dynamics and GIS: modelling spatial complexity. Geographical System, (1), 237–253.Google Scholar