Abstract
This chapter studies and evaluates the development processes of the SoftGIS methods through four different case studies during 2005–2011 where nine SoftGIS applications were developed in nine different cities in Finland. The Internet-based SoftGIS applications aim to gather residents’ locality-based experiences of their living environment. SoftGIS aims to achieve new and innovative methods to support research and participative urban planning practices as planning support systems (PSS).
Often the tools as planning support systems (PSS) that aim to foster the collaboration between planners and citizens are developed separately by researchers and industry who also have limited knowledge of the users’, such as urban planners and residents, actual needs. This creates the problem of an implementation gap, which refers to the mismatch of the supply and demand of planning support tools.
To narrow down the implementation gap and to embed these tools more effectively into practice, a more user-sensitive and iterative development process is needed. To open up these multi-actor development processes, the engagements and roles of different actors are studied through the concept of a trading zone that allows describing different forms of cooperation during the development process. The research and development processes of different SoftGIS applications are considered as trading zones where information is shared among the stakeholders.
The findings of this study aim to narrow down the implementation gap of PSSs by indicating the importance of the development phase. The development phase and process of the planning support systems should receive more attention to realise a functional system for all stakeholders. To reach this goal, the main focus should be on the social process instead of technical development work, and on a more continuous learning process, which is needed throughout from the development phase to implementation to reduce the implementation gap.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bäcklund P, Mäntysalo R (2010) Agonism and institutional ambiguity: ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. Plann Theor 9(4):333–350
Bailey K, Grossardt T (2010) Towards structured public involvement: justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(1):57–86
Building and Land Use Act (Maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki) (1999): http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990132
Coburn J (2003) Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: improving urban planning for communities at risk. J Plann Educ Res 22(4):420–433
Coleman DJ, Georgiadou Y, Labonte J (2009) Volunteered geographic information: the nature and motivation of producers. Int J Spatial Data Infrastruct Res 4:332–358
Collins H, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296
Collins H, Evans R, Gorman M (2007) Trading zones and interactional expertise. Stud Hist Philos Sci 38:657–666
Collins H, Evans R, Gorman ME (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise. In: Gorman ME (ed) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp xx–xx
Elzen B, Enserink B (1996) Socio-technical networks: how a technology studies approach may help us solve problems related to technical change. Soc Stud Sci 26(1):96–141
Galison P (1997) Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Galison P (2010) Trading with the enemy. In: Gorman ME (ed) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp xx–xx
Geertman S, Stillwell J (2004) Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28(4):291–310
Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as voluntary sensors: spatial data infrastructure in the world of Web 2.0. Int J Spatial Data Infrastruct Res 2:24–32
Gorman ME, Spohrer J (2010) A new expertise for managing sociotechnical systems. In: Gorman ME (ed) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp xx–xx
Harvey F, Chrisman N (1998) Boundary objects and the social construction of GIS technology. Environ Plann A 30:1683–1694
Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. McMillan Press Limited, Hampshire/London
Jenkins LD (2010) The evolution of a trading zone. In: Gorman ME (ed) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp xx–xx
Johnson M (1993) Moral imagination. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kahila M, Kyttä M (2009) SoftGIS as a bridge-builder in collaborative urban planning. In: Planning support systems best practice and new methods, vol 95, The GeoJournal Library. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands
Klosterman RE (1997) Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning. J Plann Educ Res 17:45–54
Kyttä M (2011) SoftGIS methods in planning evaluation. In: Hull A, Alexander ER, Khakee A, Woltjer J (eds) Evaluation for participatory and sustainable planning. Routledge, London/New York, pp 334–354
Kyttä M, Broberg A, Kahila M (2011) Urban infill policy and the perceived quality of the environment. Special Issue GIS Technol Appl Urban Des Plan Urban Des Int 16(1):19–35
Staffans A (2004) Vaikuttavat asukkaat. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja, vol A 29. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki
Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, “Translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420
Brömmelstroet M, Schrijnen P (2010) From planning support systems to mediated planning support: a structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environ Plann B Plann Des 37:3–20
Vonk G (2006) Improving planning support: the use of planning support systems for spatial planning. Nederlandse Geografische Studies, Utrecht
Vonk G, Geertman S (2008) Improving the adoption and use of planning support systems in practice. Appl Spatial Anal 1:153–173
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kahila-Tani, M. (2013). SoftGIS Development Process as a Trading Zone: Challenges in Implementing a Participatory Planning Support System. In: Balducci, A., Mäntysalo, R. (eds) Urban Planning as a Trading Zone. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5853-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5854-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)