Recoding Embedded Assumptions: Adaptation of an Open Source Tool to Support Sustainability, Transparency and Participatory Governance

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

This chapter traces the adoption of Envision Tomorrow, an open source planning support tool, in a large-scale planning effort within the Austin metropolitan region. A regional consortium of public, nonprofit, and private organizations was awarded a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities grant to create and deploy an analytical tool for the assessment of district, community and regional-scale scenarios. Several dimensions of Envision Tomorrow are described in the chapter including its use: as a tool in participatory plan-making; as an analytical process that extends and structures how planners perform analysis; as a PSS that focuses on quantifiable sustainability indicators and thus supports the inscription of particular definitions of sustainability; and as a conduit of exchange between planners and university researchers and between planners and members of the public. The chapter concludes with a reflection on the virtues of transparency and adaptability. It also reveals embedded assumptions that represent both sources of promise and concern in the application of a PSS in planning processes.

Keywords

Planning Process Geographic Information System Development Type Green Infrastructure Sustainability Indicator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Tom Hilde, Donald Jackson, Elizabeth Mueller, Michael Oden, Robert Paterson, Marla Torrado, Sarah Wu for sharing their insights and research. I would also like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers who helped to guide the development of this article.

References

  1. Bartholomew, K. (2007). Land use-transportation scenario planning: Promise and reality. Transportation, 34(4), 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauregard, R. A. (2012). Planning with things. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 182–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caliskan, K., & Callon, M. (2009). Economization, part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society, 38(3), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calthorpe Associates. (undated). Scenario planning tools: RapidFire and UrbanFootprint. http://www.calthorpe.com/scenario_modeling_tools. Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
  6. Capital Area Council of Governments. (2012). Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.sustainableplacesproject.com/node/2. Accessed 1 Jan 2015.
  7. Chakraborty, Arnab. (2011). Enhancing the role of participatory scenario planning processes: Lessons from reality check exercises. Futures, 43(4), 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. City of Austin. (2011). CATS demonstration site application: City of Austin proposal urban rail system. (Central Austin and Mueller Activity Centers) http://austin.sustainableplacesproject.com/sites/sustainableplacesproject.com/files/files/Austin%20Application.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
  9. City of Austin. (2012). Imagine Austin comprehensive plan. Austin, Texas: City of Austin.Google Scholar
  10. Drummond, W., & French, S. (2008). The future of GIS in planning: Converging technologies and diverging interests. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Envisiontomorrow.org. (2014). Envision tomorrow—welcome to envision tomorrow. http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/. Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
  12. Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ganapati, S. (2010). Using geographic information systems to increase citizen engagement. IBM Center for the Business of Government website. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/GanapatiReport.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2012.
  14. Göçmen, Z. A., & Ventura, S. J. (2010). Barriers to GIS use in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodspeed, R. (2013). Planning support systems for spatial planning through social learning. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Hilde, T., & Paterson, R. (2014). Integrating ecosystem services analysis into scenario planning practice: Accounting for street tree benefits with i-Tree valuation in Central Texas. Journal of Environmental Management, 146(15), 524–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holway, J., Gabbe, C. J., Hebbert, F., Lally, J., Matthews, R., & Quay, R. (2012). Opening access to scenario planning tools. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, D. E. Jr. (2013). Fiscal impacts of land use planning decisions: Sprawl, sustainable development, and simulation in public process. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  19. Koekoek, A., van Lammeren, R., & Vonk, G. A. (2009). The potential of integrating e-participation in planning support systems. URISA Journal, 21(2), 39–47.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Macmillan, B. (2009) ANT in Westboro: An examination of the applicability of actor-network theory in gentrification studies. Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
  23. Mueller, E., & Torrado, M. (2013). Redevelopment and displacement manual. Document from e-mail correspondence.Google Scholar
  24. Nelson, A., Eskic, D., Kittrell, K. (2012). Return on investment (ROI) model: Envision tomorrow (ET+). Accessed at http://www.arch.utah.edu/cgi-bin/wordpress-etplus/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Return-on-Investment_7-1-12.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2014.
  25. Oden, M., Mueller, E., Jackson, D. E. Jr. (2014). The big picture: Using scenario based planning to achieve environmental and social sustainability. Unpublished Working Paper. Document from e-mail correspondence. 6 Aug 2014.Google Scholar
  26. Open Planning Tools Group. (undated). About. http://www.openplanningtoolsgroup.org/about/, Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
  27. Partnership for Sustainable Communities. (2014). Partnership grants, assistance, and programs. http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/partnership-resources, Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
  28. PlaceMatters (undated). Place/Matters. http://placematters.org/, Accessed 28 Nov 2014.
  29. Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2010). Notice of funding availability (NOFA) for HUD’s fiscal year 2010 sustainable communities regional planning grant program.Google Scholar
  32. Wittenmore, A. (2013). Finding sustainability in conservative contexts: Topics for conversation between American conservative elites, planners and the conservative base. Urban Studies, 51(12), 2460–2477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations