Despite planning support systems (PSS) becoming increasingly useful for citizen participation processes, the effects of such systems’ material and spatial setup on citizen participation processes still need to be studied. PSS have long been equated to software- and data-based technologies, and only little attention has been put on place-bound PSS that prescribe onsite face-to-face collaboration. As closing the ‘implementation gap’ requires extensive conceptualisation, description, and critical analysis of different ideal types, workings, and use cases of PSS, this study researches this understudied place-bound type of PSS. More precisely, this study uses empirical material from Haifa’s 3 S Lab to contribute to closing the implementation gap by identifying place-bound PSS – an under-studied type of PSS – as useful for deliberative decision-making – an overlooked implementation context. This research advances the conceptualisation of PSS by discussing place-bound PSS and their hypothesised utility, practical setup, and empirically tested benefits for deliberative citizen participation. We find that the benefits of place-bound PSS for planning lie in deliberative affordances that ease the communication and comprehension deficiencies that often plague deliberative citizen participation processes. As place-bound PSS, the 3 S Lab provides an immersive shared space that improves communication, while its interactive visualisation techniques afford improved comprehension of complex urban issues.
Aharon-GutmanMSchaapMLedermanI (2018) Social topography: studying spatial inequality using a 3D regional model. Journal of Rural Studies62: 40–52.
2.
AnttiroikoA-V (2016) City-as-a-platform: the rise of participatory innovation platforms in Finnish cities. Sustainability8(9): 922.
3.
AragónPKaltenbrunnerACalleja-LópezA, et al. (2017) Deliberative platform design: the case study of the online discussions in Decidim Barcelona. In: CiampagliaGLMashhadiAYasseriT (eds) Social Informatics. Cham, Germany: Springer International Publishing, 277–287. Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
4.
BächtigerABeauvaisE (2016) Taking the goals of deliberation seriously: a differentiated view on equality and equity in deliberative designs and processes. Regular Issue12(2).
5.
BächtigerANiemeyerSNebloM, et al. (2010) Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. The Journal of Political Philosophy18(1): 32–63.
6.
BaezaJLSievertJLLandwehrA, et al. (2021) City scope platform for real-time analysis and decision-support in urban design competitions. International Journal of E-Planning Research10(4): 121–137.
7.
BattyM (2007) Planning Support Systems: Progress, Predictions, and Speculations on the Shape of Things to Come. London, UK: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis. Epub ahead of print 2007.
8.
BattyM (2018) Digital twins environment and planning B: urban Analytics and city science. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science45(5): 817–820.
9.
BinghamLBNabatchiTO’LearyR (2005) The new governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review65(5): 547–558.
10.
BrownGBrownGDBrownGR, et al. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ChamplinCte BrömmelstroetMPelzerP (2019) Tables, tablets and flexibility: evaluating planning support system performance under different conditions of use. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy12(3): 467–491.
CrosbyNKellyJMSchaeferP (1986) Citizens panels: a new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review46(2): 170.
14.
CuiBMeiHOoiBC (2014) Big data: the driver for innovation in databases. National Science Review1(1): 27–30.
15.
DanielCPettitC (2022) Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: results of a citation network analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science49(7): 1875–1892.
16.
DembskiFWössnerULetzgusM, et al. (2020) Urban digital twins for smart cities and citizens: the case study of Herrenberg, Germany. Sustainability12(6): 2307.
17.
DeseriisM (2021) Rethinking the digital democratic affordance and its impact on political representation: toward a new framework. New Media & Society23(8): 2452–2473.
18.
DienelPC (2001) Die Planungszelle: eine Perspektive für die Demokratie. Sozialwissenschaften und Berufspraxis24(2): 171–175.
19.
DryzekJS (2001) Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory29(5): 651–669.
20.
DryzekJSBächtigerAChambersS, et al. (2019) The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science363(6432): 1144–1146.
21.
EvansSKPearceKEVitakJ, et al. (2017) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research: explicating affordances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(1): 35–52.
22.
FishkinJS (2021) Deliberative public consultation via deliberative polling: criteria and methods. Hastings Center Report51(S2): S19–S24.
23.
FlackeJShresthaRAguilarR (2020) Strengthening participation using interactive planning support systems: a systematic review. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information9(1): 49.
24.
FlyvbjergB (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry12(2): 219–245.
GanuzaEFrancésF (2012) The deliberative turn in participation: the problem of inclusion and deliberative opportunities in participatory budgeting. European Political Science Review4(2): 283–302.
27.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (2020) Planning support science: developments and challenges. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(8): 1326–1342.
28.
GerberMBächtigerAShikanoS, et al. (2018) Deliberative abilities and influence in a transnational deliberative poll (EuroPolis). British Journal of Political Science48(4): 1093–1118.
29.
GordonEManosevitchE (2011) Augmented deliberation: merging physical and virtual interaction to engage communities in urban planning. New Media & Society13(1): 75–95.
30.
GuestGSMacQueenKMNameyEE (2011) Applied Thematic Analysis. 1st edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
31.
HanzlM (2007) Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Participatory Design Studies28(3): 289–307.
32.
HaslerBSLandauDHHassonY, et al. (2021) ‘Virtual Reality-Based Conflict Resolution: The Impact of Immersive 360° Video on Changing View Points and Moral Judgment in the Context of Violent Intergroup Conflict’. New Media & Society23(8): 2255–2278. doi: 10.1177/1461444821993133.
33.
HealeyP (2004) Creativity and urban governance. Policy Studies25(2): 87–102.
34.
HennenLvan KeulenIKorthagenI, et al. (2020) Studies in digital politics and governance. European E-Democracy in Practice. Cham, Germany: Springer International Publishing. Available at: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8 (accessed 23 April 2022).
35.
JankowskiPCzepkiewiczMMłodkowskiM, et al. (2019) Evaluating the scalability of public participation in urban land use planning: a comparison of geoweb methods with face-to-face meetings. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science46(3): 511–533.
36.
JiangHGeertmanSWitteP (2020) 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.
KishoreSMuncunillXNBourdinP, et al. (2016) Multi-Destination Beaming: Apparently Being in Three Places at Once through Robotic and Virtual Embodiment’. Frontiers in Robotics and AI3. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2016.00065.
39.
KlostermanRE (1997) Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research17(1): 45–54.
40.
KneuerM (2016) E-democracy: a new challenge for measuring democracy. International Political Science Review37(5): 666–678.
41.
LandemoreHE (2012) Why the many are smarter than the few and why it matters. Special Issue: Participatory Budgeting8(1): 7.
42.
LinYBennekerK (2022) Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science49(2): 391–410.
43.
LvZOtaKLloretJXiangWBellavistaP (2019) Complexity problems handled by big data technology. Complexity2019: 1–7.
44.
ManuelJVigarG (2021) Enhancing citizen engagement in planning through participatory film-making. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48(6): 1558–1573.
45.
Mello RoseF (2021) The unexpected persistence of non-corporate platforms: The role of local and network embeddedness. Digital Geography and Society2(100020): 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.diggeo.2021.100020.
46.
MitasovaHHarmonRWeaverK, et al. (2012) Scientific visualization of landscapes and landforms. Geomorphology137: 122–137.
47.
MitchellWJT (1995) Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
NoymanAHoltzTKrögerJ, et al. (2017) Finding places: HCI platform for public participation in refugees’ accommodation process. Procedia Computer Science112: 2463–2472.
OrensteinDEZimroniHEizenbergE (2015) The immersive visualization theater: a new tool for ecosystem assessment and landscape planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems54: 347–355.
51.
PelzerP (2015) Usefulness of planning support systems: conceptual perspectives and practitioners’ experiences. PhD Thesis, InPlanning, Mülheim An Der Ruhr, Germany.
52.
Peña LópezI (2019) Shifting Participation into Sovereignty: The Case of ‘Decidim Barcelona’. Barcelona, Spain: Huygens Editorial.
53.
PettitCBakelmunALieskeSN, et al. (2018) Planning support systems for smart cities. City, Culture and Society12: 13–24.
54.
PortmanMNatapovAFisher-GewirtzmanD (2015) To go where no man has gone before: virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems54: 376–384. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.05.001.
55.
RosenbergSW (2014) Citizen competence and the psychology of deliberation. In: ElstubSMcLavertyP (eds) Deliberative Democracy. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 98–117. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780748643509-008/html (accessed 24 April 2022).
56.
RoyoSPinaVGarcia-RayadoJ (2020) Decide Madrid: a critical analysis of an award-winning e-participation initiative. Sustainability12(4): 1674.
57.
RuohomakiTAiraksinenEHuuskaP, et al. (2018) Smart city platform enabling digital twin. In: 2018 international conference on intelligent systems (IS), Funchal, Portugal, September 2018, 155–161. IEEE. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8710517/(accessed 12 January 2022).
58.
RyfeDM (2005) Does deliberative democracy work?Annual Review of Political Science8(1): 49–71.
59.
SoltaniRN (2019) Culture driven co-creation: guidelines for super moderators in U_CODE project. Master Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands. Epub ahead of print 2019.
60.
SopherHFisher GewirtzmanDKalayYE, et al. (2019) ‘Going Immersive in a Community of Learners? Assessment of Design Processes in a Multi-Setting Architecture Studio’. British Journal of Educational Technology50(5): 2109–2128. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12857.
61.
SorialSPetersonA (2019) Australian schools as deliberative spaces: framing the goal of active and informed citizenship. Curriculum Journal30(1): 24–39.
62.
SteinerJ (2018) The foundation of deliberative democracy and participatory governance. In: HeineltH (ed) Handbook on Participatory Governance. Handbooks of Research on Public Policy. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 33–52.
63.
StelzleBJannackAHolmerT, et al. (2021) Smart citizens for smart cities. In: AuerMETsiatsosT (eds). Internet of Things, Infrastructures and Mobile Applications. Cham, Germany: Springer International Publishing, 571–581.
64.
ThompsonDF (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science11(1): 497–520.
65.
ThoneickR (2021) Integrating online and onsite participation in urban planning: assessment of a digital participation system. International Journal of E-Planning Research10(1): 1–20.
66.
TolandAKilbaneS (2018) ‘City Mega-Models as Literal and Figurative Visioning Tools’. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning171(4): 166–176. doi: 10.1680/jurdp.18.00007.
67.
VonkGGeertmanSSchotP (2005) Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space37(5): 909–924.
68.
Yossef RavidBAharon-GutmanM (2022) The social digital twin: the social turn in the field of smart cities. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science50(6): 239980832211370.
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.
