Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gaming, Urban Planning and Transportation Design Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography ((LNGC))

Abstract

In today’s urban planning, two perspectives dominate the discourse: a technical-rational perspective and a communicative rational perspective. Bridging the dichotomy between the two perspectives and situating new planning support methods within the context of complexity theories leads to new structures for planning support systems. The implications of the inherent complex nature of planning when bridging these perspectives should be taken into account for new planning processes and support systems. The development of such methods requires an iterative cycle between methodological and technological aspects of tool development. The chapter presents a technical framework that enables the development of methods integrating both perspectives. The framework derives its requirements from the integration of the two perspectives, and is evaluated in the context of two design case studies in the cities of Stockholm and Paris. The development of the framework and method has implications for the design of tools in urban planning. The tools need to reflect the open nature of the complex systems they represent and operate in. Such methods also expand the boundaries of the design space, allowing for previously unknown configurations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alfasi, N. (2003). Is public participation making urban planning more democratic? The Israeli experience. Planning Theory and Practice, 4(2), 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P. M. (2012). Cities and regions as self-organizing systems: models of complexity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batty, M. (2007). Cities and complexity: Understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batty, M., Dodge, M., Jiang, B., & Smith, A. (1999). Geographical Information Systems and Urban Design. In D. J. Stillwell, P. S. Geertman, & D. S. Openshaw (Eds.), Geographical information and planning (pp. 43–65). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Behrisch, M., Bieker, L., Erdmann, J., & Krajzewicz, D. (2011). SUMO—Simulation of urban mobility—An overview. Presented at the SIMUL 2011, The Third International Conference on Advances in System Simulation, (pp. 55–60).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brail, R. K. (2006). Planning support systems evolving: When the rubber hits the road. In J. Portugali (Ed.), Complex artificial environments (pp. 307–317). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E. M. (1979). A participatory approach to urban planning. New York: Human Sciences Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecchini, A., & Rizzi, P. (2001). Is urban gaming simulation useful? Simulation and Gaming, 32(4), 507–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. (1978). The origins and nature of “hard” systems thinking. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 5(2), 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Roo, G., & Rauws, W. S. (2012). Positioning planning in the world of order, chaos and complexity: On perspectives, behaviour and interventions in a non-linear environment. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk, & E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity theories of cities have come of age (pp. 207–220). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dearden, J., & Wilson, A. (2011). Using participatory computer simulation to explore the process of urban evolution. Transactions in GIS, 15(3), 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devisch, O. (2012). The metaverse as lab to experiment with problems of organized complexity. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, R. D., & Geurts, J. (2004). Policy games for strategic management. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dykes, J. (2000). An approach to virtual environments for visualization using linked geo-referenced panoramic imagery. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24(2), 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischmann, K. R. (2006). Boundary objects with agency: A method for studying the design-use interface. The Information Society, 22(2), 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaber, J. (2007). Simulating planning simcity as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, E., Schirra, S., & Hollander, J. (2011). Immersive planning: a conceptual model for designing public participation with new technologies. Environment and Planning-Part B, 38(3), 505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenblat, C. S., & Duke, R. D. (1981). Principles and practices of gaming-simulation. CA: Sage Publications Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hanzl, M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: A review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28(3), 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., & Sadler, S. (2013). Non-plan: Essays on freedom, participation and change in modern architecture and urbanism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. H. G. (2003). Gaming and simulation: Principles of a science of design. Simulation and Gaming, 34(4), 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. H. G. (2006). Guest editorial. Artifact assessment vs. theory testing. Simulation and Gaming, 37(2), 148–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers, J. H. G. (2008). The magic circle: Principles of gaming and simulation. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. B. (1973). Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39(3), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, J., van den Hoogen, J., & Meijer, S. (2013). Using gaming simulation experiments to test railway innovations: Implications for validity (pp. 1766–1777). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, I. S. (2010). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation and Gaming, 40(6), 825–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, R. L., & Duke, R. D. (1966). Gaming simulation for urban planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, S. A. (2009). The organisation of transactions: Studying supply networks using gaming simulation. Wageningen Academic: Wageningen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, S. (2012). Gaming simulations for railways: Lessons learned from modeling six games for the Dutch infrastructure management. In X. Perpinya (Ed.) Infrastructure design, signalling and security in railway. doi:10.5772/35864.

  • Meijer, S. A., Mayer, I. S., van Luipen, J., & Weitenberg, N. (2012). Gaming rail cargo management: Exploring and validating alternative modes of organization. Simulation and Gaming, 43(1), 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, S., Reich, Y., & Subrahmanian, E. (2014). The future of gaming for design of complex systems. In R. D. Duke., & W. Kriz. (Eds.), Back to the future of gaming. Gutersloh: W. Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnery, J., & Searle, G. (2014). Toying with the city? Using the computer game simcityTM4 in planning education. Planning Practice and Research, 29(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutch, A. (2002). Actors and networks or agents and structures: Towards a realist view of information systems. Organization, 9(3), 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poplin, A. (2011). Games and serious games in urban planning: Study cases. In B. Murgante, O. Gervasi, A. Iglesias, D. Taniar, & B. O. Apduhan (Eds.), Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2011 (pp. 1–14). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poplin, A. (2012). Playful public participation in urban planning: A case study for online serious games. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 36(3), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portugali, J. (1999). Self-organization and the city. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portugali, J. (2006). Complexity theory as a link between space and place. Environment and Planning A, 38(4), 647–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portugali, J. (2012). Complexity theories of cities: Implications to urban planning. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk, & E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity theories of cities have come of age (pp. 221–244). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raghothama, J., & Meijer, S. (2014). A review of gaming simulation in transportation. In S. Meijer., & R. Smeds (Eds.), Frontiers in gaming simulation (Vol. 8264, pp. 237–244). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenwandt, W. (2012). Planning in crisis? Theoretical orientations for architecture and planning. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd,

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, E., & Portugali, J. (2012). The responsive city design game. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk, & E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity theories of cities have come of age (pp. 369–390). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bueren, E. (2009). Greening governance: an evolutionary approach to policy making for a sustainable built environment. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware, C. (2000). Information visualization: Perception for design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research described in this paper was conducted while the authors were affiliated with the Department of Transport Science, School of Architecture and Built Environment, KTH, Sweden. The authors would like to acknowledge EIT ICT Labs and TRENoP who jointly funded this research effort. The authors would also like to acknowledge Mohammed Azhari, Miguel Ramos Carretero and Michael van den Berg for the programming effort that went into this. The authors also acknowledge the reviewers comments, which improved the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Technology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Jayanth Raghothama & Sebastiaan Meijer

Authors
  1. Jayanth Raghothama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastiaan Meijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jayanth Raghothama .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Geography and Planning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Stan Geertman

  2. Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Joseph Ferreira, Jr.

  3. Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Robert Goodspeed

  4. School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

    John Stillwell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Raghothama, J., Meijer, S. (2015). Gaming, Urban Planning and Transportation Design Process. In: Geertman, S., Ferreira, Jr., J., Goodspeed, R., Stillwell, J. (eds) Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation