Advertisement

A Transition Towards Sustainable Strategy Making: Integrating Land Use and Transport Knowledge Types

Chapter

Abstract

As extensively discussed by other scholars, there is a growing awareness that the integration of land use and transport (LUT) planning is a crucial prerequisite for the transition towards more sustainable transport patterns and urban development that foster interaction between people, support a sustainable business climate and reduces negative effects on the environment and climate (see, for example, Banister 2002, 2005; Cervero 1998; Meyer and Miller 2001; TRB 2004). However, in the Netherlands (and in other countries), such integration is scarcely present in daily planning practice (see, for instance, Hull and Tricker 2006). If anything, one can speak of policy coordination rather than ‘integration’; i.e. it is dialogue or information exchange which is geared at avoiding conflicts between projects, but does not seek to establish similar policy goals (Stead et al. 2004). Achieving integration in earlier phases of planning (for example, strategy development, goal orientation or visioning) can potentially produce shared policy goals, which would promote mutually reinforcing (instead of obstructing) land use and transport measures. However, for this to happen, a transition on its own is needed.

Keywords

Public Transport Knowledge Generation Tacit Knowledge Explicit Knowledge Railway Station 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Banister D (2002) Transport planning. Spon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Banister D (2005) Unsustainable transport: city transport in the new century. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Brabantstad (2003) Verkenning OV-netwerk Brabantstad: Samen investeren. Brabantstad, Den BoschGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabinet Office (2000) Wiring it up. Whitehall’s management of cross-cutting policies and services. A performance and innovation unit report. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cervero R (1998) The transit metropolis: a global inquiry. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Couclelis H (2005) Where has the future gone? Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environ Plann A 37:1353–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denyer D, Tranfield D, Van Aken JE (2008) Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organ Stud 29(3):393–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrmann J, Stinson B (1999) Joint fact-finding and the use of technical experts. In: Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) The consensus building handbook. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  9. Emberger G, Ibesich N, Pfaffenbichler P (2006) Can decision making processes benefit from a user friendly land use and transport interaction model? In: 8th international conference on design & decision support systems in architecture and urban planning, Eindhoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedmann J (1973) Retracking America, a theory of transactive planning. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  11. Geertman S (2006) Potentials for planning support: a planning-conceptual approach. Environ Plann B 33(6):863–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gemeente Breda (2005) Bavel, Beek en Berg: Voorontwerp Structuurplan Breda-Oost. BredaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow P (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gourlay S (2003) The SECI model of knowledge creation: some empirical shortcomings. In: McGrath F, Remenyi D (eds) Fourth European conference on knowledge management, Oxford, pp 377–385, 18–19 Sept 2003Google Scholar
  15. Gourlay S (2006) Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonaka’s theory. J Manage Stud 43(7):1415–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Healey P (2007) Urban complexity an spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hull A, Tricker R (2006) Findings of the ‘phase 1’ survey on the barriers to the delivery of sustainable transport solutions. UWE, BristolGoogle Scholar
  18. Innes JE (1998) Information in communicative planning. J Am Plann Assoc 64(1):52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Innes JE, Gruber J (2005) Planning styles in conflict: the metropolitan transportation commission. J Am Plann Assoc 71(2):177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones P, Lucas K (2005) Option generation: literature review. UCL, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Khakee A, Barbanente A, Borri D (2000) Expert and experiential knowledge in planning. J Oper Res Soc 51(7):776–788Google Scholar
  22. Klosterman RE (2007) Deliberating about the future. In: Hopkins LD, Zapata MA (eds) Engaging the future: forecasts, scenarios, plans and projects. Lincoln Institute of land policy, Cambridge, pp 199–219Google Scholar
  23. Meyer MD, Miller EJ (2001) Urban transportation planning: a decision-oriented approach. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Mintzberg H, Waters JA (1985) Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Manage J 6:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nonaka I, Konno N (1998) The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manage Rev 40(3):40–54Google Scholar
  26. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Nonaka I, von Krogh G, Voelpel S (2006) Organizational knowledge creation theory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organ Stud 27(8):1179–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Noordvleugel (2008) Metropoolregio Amsterdam: Ontwikkelingsbeeld Noordvleugel 2040. Metropoolregio Amsterda, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Pawson R, Tilley N (1997) Realistic evaluation. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Scharmer CO, Kaufer K (2000) Universities as the birthplace for the entrepreneurial human being. reflections. http://www.ottoscharmer.com/docs/articles/2000_Uni21us.pdf
  33. Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Temple Smith, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Schön D, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon HA (1993) Strategy and organizational evolution. Strategic Manage J 14:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stead D, Geerlings H, Meijers E (2004) Policy integration in practice. The integration of land use planning, transport and environmental policy-making in Denmark, England and Germany. Delft University Press, DelftGoogle Scholar
  37. Te Brömmelstroet MCG (2009) Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: state of practice of land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands. J Transp Land Use 3(1):25–41Google Scholar
  38. Te Brömmelstroet MCG, Bertolini L (2008) Developing land use and transport PSS: meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transp Policy 15(4):251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Te Brömmelstroet M, Bertolini L (2009) Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making. Transportation 37(5):85–104Google Scholar
  40. Tennøy A (2009) Why we fail to reduce urban road traffic volumes: does it matter how planners frame the problem? Transp Policy 17(4):216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Timms P (2008) Transport models, philosophy and language. Transportation 35(3):395–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. TRB (2004) A new vision for mobility: guidance to foster collaborative multimodal decision making. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsoukas H (2003) Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In: Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (eds) Organizational learning and knowledge management. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 410–425Google Scholar
  44. Uran O, Janssen R (2003) Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands. Comput Environ Urban Syst 27:511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van der Bijl R, Witsen PP (2000) Probleemoplossers versus toekomstdenkers. Blauwe Kamer 4:28–36Google Scholar
  46. Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  47. Vonk G, Geertman S, Schot P (2005) Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environ Plann A 37:909–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wachs M (1985) When planners lie with numbers. J Am Plann Assoc 55:476–479Google Scholar
  49. Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation and environmental planning. J Am Plann Assoc 68(3):297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wegener M (2005) Overview of land-use and transport models. In: Henscher DA, Button K (eds) Transport geography and spatial systems. Pergamon/Elsevier Science, Kidlington, pp 127–146Google Scholar
  51. Willson R (2001) Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transportation 28:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilson AG (1998) Land-use/transport interaction models, past and future. J Transp Econ 32(1):3–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AMIDSt – Amsterdam institute for Metropolitan and International Development StudiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations