PaRIT: A Planning Support System to Cope with a Network of Plans and Regulations

Abstract

Spanish

Chinese

Actors in urban development use and respond to many plans made by organizations, both public and private, at different times with different purposes and scopes. Coping with such networks of information and constraints presents an opportunity to advance development of planning support systems (PSS). The Plans and Regulations Information Tool (PaRIT) is a computing interface that enables spatial queries to identify and access plans and regulations. We illustrate the capabilities of PaRIT in applications to a light rail project in Maryland. Choices made in developing PaRIT demonstrate a feasible approach to accessing a network of plans and highlight opportunities for advances in PSS.

Keywords

plans regulations information technology GIS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

“A Developers’ Roundtable: Advancing Affordable Housing along the Purple Line Corridor.” 2021. Purple Line Corridor Coalition, April 20. https://purplelinecorridor.org/event/a-developers-roundtable-advancing-affordable-housing-along-the-purple-line-corridor/.

Berke

P. R.

Malecha

M. L.

Lee

Masterson

J. H.

2019. “Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard: Evaluating Networks of Plans in Six US Coastal Cities.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 62 (5): 901–20. doi:10.1080/09640568.2018.1453354.

Boyer

R. H.

Hopkins

L. D.

2018. “Acting under the Influence: Plans as Improvisational Gifts.” Planning Theory 17 (1): 31–52. doi:10.1177/1473095216654729.

R. K.

Brail

, Ed. 2008. Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Brinkley

Stahmer

2021. “What Is in a Plan? Using Natural Language Processing to Read 461 California City General Plans.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. doi:10.1177/0739456X21995890.

Buhler

2021. “When Vagueness is a Strategic Resource for Planning Actors.” Planning Theory 20(4): 325–49. doi:10.1177/1473095221995861.

Capital Trails Coalition. 2016. About. Washington, DC: Capital Trails Coalition. https://www.capitaltrailscoalition.org/about/.

Finn

Hopkins

L. D.

Wempe

2007. “The Information System of Plans Approach: Using and Making Plans for Landscape Protection.” Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (1–2): 132–45. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.006.

Zhai

2023. “Using Natural Language Processing to Read Plans: A Study of 78 Resilience Plans from the 100 Resilient Cities Network.” Journal of American Planning Association 89: 107–19. doi:10.1080/01944363.2022.2038659.

10.

Geertman

Stillwell

2020. “Planning Support Science: Developments and Challenges.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 47 (8): 1326–42. doi:10.1177/2399808320936277.

11.

Goodspeed

2020. Scenario Planning for Cities and Regions: Managing and Envisioning Uncertain Futures. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

12.

Hersperger

A. M.

Fertner

2021. “Digital Plans and Plan Data in Planning Support Science.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 48 (2): 212–15. doi:10.1177/2399808320983002.

13.

Hersperger

A. M.

Thurnheer-Wittenwiler

Tobias

Folvig

Fertner

2022. “Digitalization in Land-Use Planning: Effects of Digital Plan Data on Efficiency, Transparency and Innovation.” European Planning Studies 30: 2537–553. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.2016640.

14.

Hopkins

L. D.

1999. “Structure of a Planning Support System for Urban Development.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 (3): 333–43. doi:10.1068/b260333.

15.

Hopkins

L. D.

2001. Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans. Washington, DC: Island Press.

16.

Hopkins

L. D.

2012. “Plan Assessment: Making and Using Plans Well.” In Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning, edited by Weber

Crane

, 803–22. New York: Oxford University Press.

17.

Hopkins

L. D.

Kaza

Pallathucheril

V. G.

2005. “Representing Urban Development Plans and Regulations as Data: A Planning Data Model.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32 (4): 597–615. doi:10.1068/b31178.

18.

Hopkins

L. D.

Knaap

G.-J.

2018. “Autonomous Planning: Using Plans as Signals.” Planning Theory 17 (2): 274–95. doi:10.1177/1473095216669868.

19.

Kaza

Hopkins

L. D.

2012. “Intentional Actions, Plans, and Information Systems.” International Journal of Geographical Information Science 26 (3): 557–76. doi:10.1080/13658816.2011.603337.

20.

Kleymeyer

J. E.

Harstock

1973. Cincinnati’s Planning Guidance System. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 295. Chicago, IL: American Society of Planning Officials.

21.

Malecha

Masterson

J. H.

Berke

2019. Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook: Spatially Evaluating Networks of Plans to Reduce Hazard Vulnerability—Version 2.0. College Station, TX: Institute for Sustainable Communities, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University. http://mitigationguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Guidebook-2019.Sept-14.pdf.

22.

Millard-Ball

2013. “The Limits to Planning: Causal Impacts of City Climate Action Plans.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 33 (1): 5–19. doi:10.1177/0739456X12449742.

23.

Ohm

B. W.

2021. “Analyzing Action/Plan Consistency: The Role of the Staff Report.” Journal of the American Planning Association 87 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1080/01944363.2020.1785926.

24.

Pack

2020. Capital trails network process interview ( C.

Chimento

, Interviewer) [Video Call], August 24.

25.

Pendall

Prochaska

Allred

Hillyard

2022. “A New Skyline for Champaign: An Urban Dormitory Transformed.” Housing Policy Debate. doi:10.1080/10511482.2022.2124532.

26.

Purple Line Corridor Coalition. 2017. “About.” Purple Line Corridor Coalition, August 3. https://purplelinecorridor.org/about/.

27.

Seasons

2003. “Monitoring and Evaluation in Municipal Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69: 430–40.

28.

Seasons

2021. Evaluating Urban and Regional Plans: From Theory to Practice. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

29.

Woodruff

Meerow

Hannibal

Matos

Roy

Gilbertson

2022. “More than the Sum of their Parts: Approaches to Understand a Network of Plans.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. doi:0739456X221096395.

30.

Brand

A. D.

Berke

2020. “Making Room for the River: Applying a Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard to a Network of Plans in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.” Journal of the American Planning Association 86 (4): 417–30. doi:10.1080/01944363.2020.1752776.

31.

Zimmerman

2020. Purple line housing action plan process ( Chimento

, Interviewer) [Video Call], September 11.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.61 MB

1.43 MB