Managing Knowledge in Urban Planning: Can Memory Support Systems Help?

  • Adele Celino
  • Grazia Concilio
  • Anna De Liddo
Part of the IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 270)

When dealing with environmental plans, participation is considered crucial but hard work still has to be done in order to make participatory knowledge really operative. Tools and approaches to knowledge management are required that make participatory knowledge, which is produced, shared, and used along the planning action, available to the action itself. Starting from an experience of participatory planning in the context of Torre Guaceto natural Park, authors first reflect on the possible meaning of knowledge management in the planning process; secondly authors envisage the relevance of memory support systems in such processes as means to capture the argumentation chains which, explaining the action, are produced along the action and supporting it. Finally the paper presents the first results of a research project aiming at developing a memory support system dedicated to the Torre Guaceto Park Agency.


Participatory knowledge management Memory support Argumentation Long-term plans 


  1. Ackermann, R. : Context Dependent Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 42(3):425-433 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarado, M. , Banares-Alcantara, R., and Trujillo, A. Improving the Organizational Memory by recording decision making, rationale and team configuration. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 47:71-88 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachler, M., Buckingham Shum S., De Roure, D., Michaelides D., and Page, K. Ontological mediation of meeting structure: Argumentation, annotation, and navigation. In: 1st International Workshop on Hypermedia and the Semantic Web. Nottingham, UK, 30th August (2003).Google Scholar
  4. Baddeley, AD. Working Memory, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1986).Google Scholar
  5. Brauner, E., Becker, A. Beyond Knowledge Sharing: The Management of Transactive Knowledge Systems, Knowledge and Process Management, 13(1):62-71 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Celino, A., Concilio, G. Supporting collaborative learning in environmental scenario building through an argumentative system. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4:240-249 (2006b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Celino, A., Concilio, G. E-Governance or environmental planning: perspectives of open content systems. In Dan Remenyi (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on e-government, Academic Conferences Limited Reading, UK, pp. 89-99. (ISBN 1-905305-11-7) (2005).Google Scholar
  8. Celino, A., Concilio, G. Managing open contents for collaborative deliberation in environmental planning. In F. Malpica, A. Oropeza, J. Carrasquero, & P. Howell, eds., Proceedings PISTA 2006. The 4th International Conference on Politics and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications, International Institute of Informatics and Systemics, pp.155-160 2006a.Google Scholar
  9. Conklin, J., Selvin, A., Shum Buckingham, S., Sierhuis, M. Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gibis. In: HYPERTEXT ’01 Proceedings of the twelfth ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia:123-124, New York, NY (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EEA: Participatory integrated assessment methods: An assessment of their usefulness to the European Environmental Agency. Technical Report n.64. (2001).
  11. Fischer, G., Arias, E., Eden, H., Gorman, A., and Scharff, E. Transcending the Individual Human Mind - Creating Shared Understanding through Collaborative Design. In J. Carroll (ed.) "Human Computer Interaction in the New Millennium", Addison-Wesley, pp. 347-372 (2001).Google Scholar
  12. Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A.G., and Mehandjiev, N. Meta-design: A manifesto for end-user development, Communications of the ACM, volume 47, number 9, pp. 33-37 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hage, M, Leroy, P, Willems, E. Participatory Approaches in Governance and in Knowledge Production: What Makes the Difference? Working paper series 2006/3, Research Group Governance and Places, University of Nijmegen. (2006).
  14. Hitchcock, D. The Practice of Argumentative Discussion. Argumentation, 16(3): 287-298 (2002).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaspers, M., Banthien, H., Mayer-Ries, J. New forms of knowledge management in participatory foresight: The case of “Futur”. Eu-us seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods (Seville, May) (2004).Google Scholar
  16. Kangas, J., Store, R. Internet and teledemocracy in participatory planning of natural resources management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62:89-101 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26:259-277 (2001).zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunz, W., Rittel, HWJ. Issues as elements of information systems. Technical Report WP-131, University of California, Berkeley (1970).Google Scholar
  19. Lanzara, GF. Ephemeral organizations in extreme environments: Emergence, strategy, extinction. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1):71-95 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miyake, A., Shah, P. Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge University Press, New York (1999).Google Scholar
  21. Mostert, E. The Challenge for Public Participation. Water Policy, 5:179-197 (2003).Google Scholar
  22. Pellizoni, L. Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy. Environmental Values, 12:195-224 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Risbey, J., Sluijs, J., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., Funtowicz, S., Corral Quintana, S. Application of a checklist for quality assistance in environmental modelling to an energy model. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 10(1):63-79 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Santos, AC., Galina, SVR., Alves, AC. , Fagundes, LG. Adapting a Decision Making Synchronous/Asynchronous Environment to a Distributed Hypermedia Concurrent Engineering System. In: 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 6 to 10 January, Maui - New York. IEEE, 1: 686-694 (1997).Google Scholar
  25. Shum, S. Cognitive Dimensions of Design Rationale. In: Diaper D, Hammond NV (eds) People and Computers VI: Proceedings of HCI’91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 331- 344 (1991).Google Scholar
  26. Shum, S. Analyzing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation. In: Moran TP, Carroll JM (eds) Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 185-215 (1996).Google Scholar
  27. Tress, B., Tress, G. Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning - a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64:161-178 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tweed, C. Supporting Argumentation Practices in Urban Planning and Design. Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems, 22(4):351-363 (1998).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Wegner, DM. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13:319-339 (1995).Google Scholar
  30. Zeleny, M. Cognitive equilibrium: a new paradigm of decision making?. Human Syst. Manage., 8: 185-188 (1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adele Celino
    • 1
  • Grazia Concilio
    • 1
  • Anna De Liddo
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Architettura eUrbanistica Politecnico di BariItaly

Personalised recommendations