Recent years have seen a renewed interest in the possibilities of digital technology to assist with urban planning, spurred by increased digitisation of planning work, and ever improving data availability and processing capabilities. Hidden behind recent developments is over 30 years of research and development by scholars in the field of Planning Support Systems (PSS), although to date there have been few attempts to systematically characterise their output or achievements. This paper reports on the results of a citation network analysis (CNA) on the PSS literature contained within the Scopus database, a systematic method to describe the overall structure of the field, mapping out of key research streams and how they change over time. The analysis reveals 27 distinct research streams under four themes, split between technical and applied research. There is strong evidence of a field still clearly defined by its roots in comprehensive software systems used for scenario and land use planning although shifting over time from a focus on the development of modelling techniques to applied research and case studies in the use of applications. Research output has remained steady in the context of exponential growth in related literature including smart cities, urban science and urban analytics. These findings support calls for a refreshed approach to the field as planning support science and the map produced by this analysis provides a valuable framework to navigate past research efforts to inform a new era of digital planning efforts.
AbolhasaniSTaleaiMKarimiM, et al. (2016) Simulating urban growth under planning policies through parcel-based cellular automata (ParCA) model. International Journal of Geographical Information Science30(11): 2276–2301. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2016.1184271.
2.
AfzalanNMullerB (2018) Online participatory technologies: opportunities and challenges for enriching participatory planning. Journal of the American Planning Association84(2): 162–177. DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2018.1434010.
3.
AfzalanNSanchezT (2017) Testing the use of crowdsourced information: case study of bike-share infrastructure planning in Cincinnati, Ohio. Urban Planning2(3): 33–44. DOI: 10.17645/up.v2i3.1013.
4.
AlonsoLZhangYRGrignardA, et al. (2018) CityScope: a data-driven interactive simulation tool for urban design. Use case volpe. In: MoralesAJGershensonCBrahaD, et al. (eds), Unifying Themes in Complex Systems IX. Cham: Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer International Publishing, pp. 253–261. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-96661-8_27.
5.
BabelonIStåhleABalforsB (2017) Toward Cyborg PPGIS: exploring socio-technical requirements for the use of web-based PPGIS in two municipal planning cases, Stockholm region, Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management60(8): 1366–1390. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1221798.
6.
BachPMKullerMMcCarthyDT, et al. (2020) A spatial planning-support system for generating decentralised urban stormwater management schemes. Science of The Total Environment726: 138282. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138282.
7.
BaileyKGrossardtT (2010) Toward structured public involvement: justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers100(1): 57–86. DOI: 10.1080/00045600903364259.
8.
BarabásiA-LPósfaiM (2016) Network Science. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BattyM (1994) A chronicle of scientific planning: the Anglo-American modeling experience. Journal of the American Planning Association60(1): 7–16. DOI: 10.1080/01944369408975546.
10.
BattyM (2018) Digital twins. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science45(5): 817–820. doi: 10.1177/2399808318796416.
11.
BattyMAxhausenKWGiannottiF, et al. (2012) Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics214(1): 481–518. DOI: 10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3.
12.
BishopID (1998) Planning support: hardware and software in search of a system. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems22(3): 189–202. DOI: 10.1016/S0198-9715(98)00047-7.
13.
BrömmelstroetMTSchrijnenPM (2010) From planning support systems to mediated planning support: a structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design37(1): 3–20. DOI: 10.1068/b35019.
14.
DanielCPettitC (2021) Digital disruption and planning – use of data and digital technology by professional planners, and perceptions of change to planning work. Australian Planner57: 50–64. DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2021.1920995.
15.
DealBPanHTimmS, et al. (2017) The role of multidirectional temporal analysis in scenario planning exercises and planning support systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems64: 91–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.01.004.
16.
DevlinC (2020) Digital social innovation and the adoption of #plantech: the case of coventry city council. Urban Planning5(4): 59–67. DOI: 10.17645/up.v5i4.3214.
17.
DietzelCClarkeKC (2007) Toward optimal calibration of the SLEUTH land use change model. Transactions in GIS11(1): 29–45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2007.01031.x.
18.
Digital Task Force for Planning (2021) Digital task force for planning – an independent expert panel to raise awareness, expertise and skills to empower planning profession in the digital era. Available at:https://digital4planning.com/ (accessed 7 December 2021).
19.
FlackeJShresthaRAguilarR (2020) Strengthening participation using interactive planning support systems: a systematic review. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-InformationMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute9(1): 149. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi9010049.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (2004) Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems28(4): 291–310. DOI: 10.1016/S0198-9715(03)00024-3.
22.
GeertmanSStillwellJCH (eds), (2009) Planning Support Systems Best Practice and New Methods. Dordrecht: The GeoJournal librarySpringer.
23.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (eds), (2020a) Handbook of Planning Support Science. Research Handbooks in Planning Series. Cheltenham, Glos, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
24.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (2020b) Planning support science: challenges, themes and applications. In: GeertmanSStillwellJ (eds), Handbook of Planning Support Science. Research handbooks in planning series. Cheltenham, Glos, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
25.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (2020c) Planning support science: developments and challenges. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(8): 1326–1342. SAGE Publications Ltd STM. DOI: 10.1177/2399808320936277.
26.
GeertmanSStillwellJToppenF (2013) Introduction to ‘planning support systems for sustainable urban sevelopment. In: GeertmanSToppenFStillwellJ (eds), Planning Support Systems for Sustainable Urban Development. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 1–15. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-37533-0_1.
27.
GeertmanSToppenFStillwellJ (2013) Planning Support Systems for Sustainable Urban Development.
28.
GeertmanSFerreiraJGoodspeedR, et al. (eds), (2015) Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8.
29.
GeertmanSAllanAPettitC, et al. (2017) Introduction to planning support science for smarter urban futures. In: Planning Support Science for Smarter Urban Futures. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–19.
30.
GeertmanSZhanQAllanA, et al. (eds), (2019) Computational Urban Planning and Management for Smart Cities. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-19424-6.
31.
GeertmanSCMPettitCGoodspeedR, et al. (2021) Urban Informatics and Future Cities. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-76059-5 (accessed 7 December 2021).
32.
GhavamiSMTaleaiMArentzeT (2017) An intelligent spatial land use planning support system using socially rational agents. International Journal of Geographical Information ScienceTaylor & Francis31(5): 1022–1041. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2016.1263306.
33.
HarrisBBattyM (1993) Locational models, geographic information and planning support systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research12(3): 184–198. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X9301200302.
34.
HerspergerAMFertnerC (2021) Digital plans and plan data in planning support science. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48(2): 212–215. DOI: 10.1177/2399808320983002.
35.
HopkinsLD (1999) Structure of a planning support system for urban development. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26(3): 333–343. DOI: 10.1068/b260333.
36.
IaconoMLevinsonDEl-GeneidyA (2008) Models of transportation and land use change: a guide to the territory. Journal of Planning Literature22(4): 323–340. SAGE Publications Inc. DOI: 10.1177/0885412207314010.
37.
InnesJEBooherDE (2015) A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory14(2): 195–213. DOI: 10.1177/1473095213519356.
JiangHGeertmanSWitteP (2020c) The effects of contextual factors on PSS usefulness: an international questionnaire survey. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy14: 221–245. DOI: 10.1007/s12061-020-09352-5.
40.
JiangHGeertmanSWitteP (2020a) Avoiding the planning support system pitfalls? What smart governance can learn from the planning support system implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(8): 1343–1360. doi: 10.1177/2399808320934824.
41.
JiangHGeertmanSWitteP (2020b) Smart urban governance: an alternative to technocratic “smartness”. GeoJournal86(6): 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10708-020-10326-w.
42.
Kahila-TaniMKyttaMGeertmanS (2019) Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and Urban Planning186: 45–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019.
43.
KetzlerBNaserentinVLatinoF, et al. (2020) Digital twins for cities: a state of the art review. Built Environment46(4): 547–573. DOI: 10.2148/benv.46.4.547.
44.
KlostermanRE (1997) Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research17(1): 45–54. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X9701700105.
45.
KlostermanRE (1999) The what if? Collaborative planning support system. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26(3): 393–408. DOI: 10.1068/b260393.
46.
Ligmann‐ZielinskaAChurchRLJankowskiP (2008) Spatial optimization as a generative technique for sustainable multobjective land‐use allocation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science22(6): 601–622. Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.1080/13658810701587495.
47.
LiuYTangWHeJ, et al. (2015) A land-use spatial optimization model based on genetic optimization and game theory. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems49: 1–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.09.002.
48.
LockOBednarzTLeaoSZ, et al. (2019) A review and reframing of participatory urban dashboards. City, Culture and Society20: 100294. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccs.2019.100294.
49.
MalczewskiJ (2004) GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Progress in Planning62(1): 3–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2003.09.002.
50.
McEvoySvan de VenFHMBlindMW, et al. (2018) Planning support tools and their effects in participatory urban adaptation workshops. Journal of Environmental Management207: 319–333. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.041.
51.
MeerowSNewellJP (2017) Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Planning159: 62–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005.
52.
MinnerJS (2015) Recoding embedded assumptions: adaptation of an open source tool to support sustainability, transparency and participatory governance. In: GeertmanSFerreiraJGoodspeedR, et al. (eds), Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 409–425. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_22.
53.
MoraLBoliciRDeakinM (2017) The first two decades of smart-city research: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Urban Technology24(1): 3–27. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123.
54.
MoraLDeakinMReidA (2019) Combining co-citation clustering and text-based analysis to reveal the main development paths of smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change142: 56–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.019.
55.
Nodovic-BudicZ (1997) GIS technology and organisational context: interaction and adaption. In: CragliaMCouclelisH (eds), Geographic Information Research: Bridging The Atlantic. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 165–184.
56.
OmidipoorMJelokhani-NiarakiMMoeinmehrA, et al. (2019) A GIS-based decision support system for facilitating participatory urban renewal process. Land Use Policy88: 104150. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104150.
57.
PageJMörtbergUDestouniG, et al (2020) Open-source planning support system for sustainable regional planning: a case study of Stockholm County, Sweden. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(8): 1508–1523. SAGE Publications Ltd STM. DOI: 10.1177/2399808320919769.
58.
PanHChenSGaoY, et al. (2020) An urban informatics approach to understanding residential mobility in Metro Chicago. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(8): 1456–1473. SAGE Publications Ltd STM. DOI: 10.1177/2399808320924437.
59.
PanHGeertmanSDealB (2020) What does urban informatics add to planning support technology?Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(8): 1317–1325. SAGE Publications Ltd STM. DOI: 10.1177/2399808320945453.
60.
PelzerP (2017) Usefulness of planning support systems: a conceptual framework and an empirical illustration. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice104: 84–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.019.
RussoPLanzilottiRCostabileMF, et al. (2018) Adoption and use of software in land use planning practice: a multiple-country study. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction34(1): 57–72. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2017.1327213.
63.
Santé-RiveiraICrecente-MasedaRMiranda-BarrósD (2008) GIS-based planning support system for rural land-use allocation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture63(2): 257–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2008.03.007.
ShahatEHyunCTYeomC (2021) City digital twin potentials: a review and research agenda. Sustainability13(6): 3386. DOI: 10.3390/su13063386.
66.
SieberR (2006) Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers96(3): 491–507. Routledge. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x.
67.
TaoFSuiFLiuA, et al. (2019) Digital twin-driven product design framework. International Journal of Production Research57(12): 3935–3953. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1443229.
68.
teBrömmelstroetM (2017) PSS are more user-friendly, but are they also increasingly useful?Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice104: 96–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.009.
69.
van de VenFHMSnepRPHKooleS, et al. (2016) Adaptation planning support toolbox: measurable performance information based tools for co-creation of resilient, ecosystem-based urban plans with urban designers, decision-makers and stakeholders. Environmental Science & Policy66: 427–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.010.
70.
VonkGGeertmanSSchotP (2005) Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space37(5): 909–924. DOI: 10.1068/a3712.
71.
VoskampIMVan de VenFHM (2015) Planning support system for climate adaptation: composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather events. Building and Environment. 83: 159–167. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.07.018.
72.
WaddellP (2002) Urbansim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and environmental planning. Journal of the American Planning Association68(3): 297–314. DOI: 10.1080/01944360208976274.
73.
XiangW-NClarkeKC (2003) The use of scenarios in land-use planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30(6): 885–909. SAGE Publications Ltd STM. DOI: 10.1068/b2945.
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.
