Research on planning support systems (PSS) is increasingly paying attention to the added value that PSS applications have for planning practice. Whereas early studies tended to have a rather conceptual focus, recent studies have paid more attention to empirics. Although this is a step forward, there is still a notable gap in the literature: a dearth of empirical evaluations of PSS applications from a comparative perspective. This paper addresses this gap, based on an earlier published conceptual framework that identifies the potential added values of PSS applications. The paper also tentatively explores the effect of three explanatory factors: support capabilities of the PSS, usability, and the context. In doing so, it reports on research of four PSS applications in The Netherlands. The research method consisted of questionnaires completed directly after the session, open interviews and conversations with stakeholders, and observations. With regard to added value as perceived by the participants, the findings indicate that learning, both about the object and about others, was a key perceived added value in all four cases, despite differences in context, support capabilities and usability scores. Moreover, although usability perceptions of the PSS applications varied, overall they were relatively positive. Context appears to have a substantial effect on the perceived added value of the PSS application, making it hard to distil the exact effect of the support capabilities and usability perceptions. The effect of context is one of the topics that could be picked up in further studies into the added value of PSS. One way to accomplish this in future research is by comparing a larger number of different PSS applications in different contexts, resulting in a higher n in order to enable correlational analyses and cross-national comparisons to better grasp the influence of the institutional context.

Studies in the Planning Support Systems (PSS) debate are increasingly paying attention to the support function of PSS. This involves among other things studying the usefulness of PSS to practitioners. This paper adds another dimension to this evolving debate by arguing that planning tasks should receive more attention. Although planning tasks are central in several PSS definitions, they have hardly received explicit attention in empirical studies. In an aim to fill this void we conducted an empirical study based on the perspective of task-technology fit. The latter consists of a combination (‘fit’) of analytical and communicative support capabilities (‘technologies’), and three types of planning tasks: exploration, selection and negotiation. Next, we selected four case studies in the Netherlands, in which the same PSS was applied, which consists of a combination of the CommunityViz software and a touch-enabled MapTable. The cases differed in the planning tasks that were central during the workshop, resulting in different kinds of usefulness attributed to the PSS. For instance, in one case with a selection task the communicative support capabilities contributed to the transparency of the process, whereas in another the analytic support capabilities of the PSS improved the task of negotiation because of the iterative feedback it provided. The paper concludes with the observation that the concept of task-technology fit has potential be applied in different contexts and with different types of PSS.

Although planning support systems (PSS) have now undergone more than two decades of research and development, this is not reflected in their practical application. In this paper we argue that one of the reasons for this is that too much emphasis is put on the instrument rather than the usage and planning context. A better understanding of the relationship between planning practice and PSS is needed in order to improve the role of the latter. We argue that communicative and analytic approaches to planning should be combined. A key to this is a more careful conceptualization of the concepts of knowledge and planning support. Therefore, we have developed a conceptual framework in which the characteristics and evaluation of knowledge and the role of planning support are central. Combined with the notion of storytelling, we believe that this results in a perspective for PSS that has potential for future applications. We conclude the paper with recommendations for future research.

This paper acknowledges the great potential of Geodesign. It notes, however, that barriers exist for urban designers to use GIS-based tools. An experiment we conducted with students and interviews with practitioners seem to confirm this claim. We identify four main barriers for the usage of GIS-based tools by urban designers: (1) impotence to handle unquantifiable issues, (2) (perceived) restriction of creativity, (3) limited possibility for fuzziness, and (4) existing habits need to be changed. Based on the interviews, we provide tentative solutions to overcome these barriers. The paper concludes by pointing out future research directions, in particular into a holistic user perspective of GIS-based tools in combination with Geodesign.

Planning Support Systems (PSS) are geo-information based tools to support planning. Since the term PSS appeared for the first time in the late 1980s it has evolved into a serious academic subfield. In this debate, little systematic attention has been paid to the added value of PSS for planning practice. In particular the perspective of users requires more empirical attention. This paper attempts to fill this gap by answering the question: What is the practitioner's perception of the added value of PSS? In doing so we first develop a conceptual framework including the most important added values of PSS observed in the literature. Next, we describe an empirical study of the MapTable PSS, a support tool that is relatively frequently used in the Netherlands. Fifteen interviews were conducted and a Group Decision Room workshop was organized in order to systematically gather perceptions of users about the added value of this PSS. Added values that particularly emphasized are improved collaboration and communication among stakeholders, something which resonates with recent trends in planning. The added value of a better informed outcome is, somewhat surprisingly, considered less important. In order to deepen our understanding, we recommend more research in different contexts and with different tools.

Planning is both an interdisciplinary and a collaborative endeavour. A range of disciplines are involved in planning, which arguably all have a specific frame through which they perceive reality and address planning issues. Three main disciplinary frames can be discerned: analytical, design and negotiation. Within this context, increasing usage is made of planning support systems (PSS), which are integrated sets of tools, often digital, aiming to support different tasks in the planning process. PSS arguably have the potential to support the planning process by facilitating interdisciplinary learning processes, involving “frame reflection” by different disciplinary actors. This paper studies this assumption through two case studies in which a PSS was applied in an interdisciplinary setting. It was found that “frame reflection” (double-loop learning) occurred in only one of the two case studies -and that this involved several frictions between disciplines. In the other case study more practical forms of learning were found (single-loop learning) – also valuable for planning. It is concluded that PSS have potential for interdisciplinary learning, particularly where the impact analysis function and a shared spatial language improve the quality of the dialogue. With regard to the latter, however, PSS should be prevented from dominating the discussion as this is something which is particularly problematic for stakeholders with a design frame. In future research, the role of local stakeholders in relation to PSS and interdisciplinary learning could also be taken into account.

Sustainable urban development is a critical issue in the Netherlands. The country is densely populated, which causes conflicts between environmental concerns and spatial development. Environmental policy integration is proposed as a way to improve the integration of environmental values into spatial planning with the help of learning processes. This chapter evaluates the extent to which the combination of a map-based touch table and an area-specific environmental profile are of added value to environmental policy integration. The case study is the application of the map-based touch table, called MapTable® for the development of a sustainable neighborhood in the region of Utrecht, the Netherlands. It was found that MapTable® facilitates learning processes by providing a platform for communication among stakeholders from different backgrounds. Nonetheless, it must be ensured that all stakeholders are equally included, and that the process suits the application of a map-based touch table in combination with an areaspecific environmental profile.