Smarter Urban Planning: Match Land Use with Citizen Needs and Financial Constraints

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6783)


Urban Planning defines land distribution and regulates land use in cities, with the objective to foster economic development and ensure quality of life. Current planning practices often fail to consider citizen needs. They lack the objectivity that is needed to balance public and private interests. And public facilities’ planning tends to work in isolation from public services programming, leading to unsatisfactory and inefficient service provision. In moments of economic downturn, public services are on the verge of a crisis. In response, we put forward a citizen-centric, systematic and analytical approach to urban planning. Using Catalonia in Spain as an example, we discuss the above issues and how the new approach is designed to address them.


urban planning facilities planning services programming systematic and analytic urban planning approach 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kemp, R.L.: Managing America’s Cities: A Handbook for Local Government Productivity. McFarland & Company, Jefferson (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mazza, L.: Certezza e flessibilità: due modelli di piani urbanistici. In: Urbanísitca, vol. 111, pp. 97–101. Instituto Nazionale di Urbanistica, Torino (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mazza, L.: Piano, progetti, strategie. Milan: FrancoAngeli. Col.: Strumenti Urbanistici (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    García Bellido, J., Betancor, A.: Urbanismos europeos comparados: Síntesis general de los estudios comparados de las legislaciones urbanísticas en algunos países occidentales. Ciudad Y Territorio 33(127), 83–144 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kubler, D., Piliutyte, J.: Intergovernmental relations and international urban strategies: constraints and opportunities in multilevel polities. Environment and planning C-Government and Policy 25(3), 357–373 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alfasi, N., Portugali, J.: Planning Just-in-Time versus planning Just-in-Case. Cities 21(1), 29–39 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Short, J.R., Kim, Y., Kuus, M., et al.: The dirty little secret of world cities research: Data problems in comparative analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 20(4), 697 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pallas, A.M., Jennings, J.L.: A Multiplex Theory of Urban Service Distribution: The Case of School Expenditures. Urban Affairs Review 45(5), 608–643 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bayliss, D.: The rise of the creative city: Culture and creativity in Copenhagen. European Planning Studies 15(7), 889–903 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis, N.M., Donald, B.: A New Rubric for ’Creative City’ Potential in Canada’s Smaller Cities. Urban Studies 47(1), 29–54 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cardoso, R., Breda-Vazquez, I.: Social justice as a guide to planning theory and practice: Analyzing the Portuguese planning system. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31(2), 384–400 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clinch, J.P., O’Neill, E.: Designing Development Planning Charges: Settlement Patterns, Cost Recovery and Public Facilities. Urban Studies 47(10), 2149–2171 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Jong, J., Spaans, M.: Trade-offs at a regional level in spatial planning: Two case studies as a source of inspiration. Land Use Policy 26(2), 368–379 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gielen, D.M., Tasan-Kok, T.: Flexibility in Planning and the Consequences for Public-value Capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies 18(7), 1097–1131 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barton, H.: Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy 26, S115–S123 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fan, Y.L., Khattak, A.J.: Does urban form matter in solo and joint activity engagement? Landscape and Urban Planning 92(3-4), 199–209 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    LeRoux, K., Carr, J.B.: Prospects for centralizing services in an urban county: evidence from eight self-organized networks of local public services. Journal of Urban Affairs 32(4), 449–470 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laurila, H.: Urban governance, competition and welfare. Urban Studies 41(3), 683–696 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Banerjee, T.: Role of indicators in monitoring growing urban regions - The case of planning in India’s national capital region. Journal Of The American Planning Association 62(2), 222–235 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang, S.L., Wong, J.H., Chen, T.C.: A framework of indicator system for measuring Taipei’s urban sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning 42(1), 15–27 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holden, M.: Urban indicators and the integrative ideals of cities. Cities 23(3), 170–183 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moussiopoulos, N., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., et al.: Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of sustainability in urban areas: A system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Greece. Cities 27(5), 377–384 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li, F., Liu, X.S., Hu, D., et al.: Measurement indicators and an evaluation approach for assessing urban sustainable development: A case study for China’s Jining City. Landscape And Urban Planning 90(3-4), 134–142 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adams, T.M., Vonderohe, A.P., Russell, J.S., et al.: Integrating facility delivery through spatial information. Journal Of Urban Planning And Development 118(1), 13–23 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Budic, Z.D.: Effectiveness of geographic information-systems in local-planning. Journal Of The American Planning Association 60(2), 244–263 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clarke, G.P., Langley, R.: A review of the potential of GIS and spatial modeling for planning in the new education market. Environment And Planning C-Government And Policy 14(3), 301–323 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Swetnam, R.D., Ragou, P., Firbank, L.G., et al.: Applying ecological models to altered landscapes. Scenario-testing with GIS. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 41(1), 3–18 (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thomson, C.N., Hardin, P.: Remote sensing/GIS integration to identify potential low-income housing sites. Cities 17(2), 97–109 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomas, M.R.: A GIS-based decision support system for brown field redevelopment. Landscape and Urban Planning 58(1), 7–23 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Freeman, C., Buck, O.: Development of an ecological mapping methodology for urban areas in New Zealand. Landscape and Urban Planning 63(3), 161–173 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., Green, E.: Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban green space accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning 86(1), 103–114 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drummond, W.J., French, S.P.: The Future of GIS in Planning: Converging Technologies and Diverging Interests. Journal of The American Planning Association 74(2), 161–174 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang, Y.W., Zou, Z.C.: Spatial Decision Support System for Urban Planning: Case Study of Harbin City in China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 136(2), 147–153 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pappas, V.: An integrated information-system for urban - regional-analysis and planning in Greece. Ekistics-The Problems and Science of Human Settlements 56(338-339), 290–295 (1989)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Polydorides, N.D., Petropoulos, P.: An expert system for the evaluation of urban plans. Ekistics-The Problems and Science of Human Settlements 56(338-339), 342–347 (1989)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ahn, J.K., Nourse, H.O.: Spatial economic interdependence in an urban hierarchy system. Journal of Regional Science 28(3), 421–432 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sotarauta, M.: Network management and information systems in promotion of urban economic development: Some reflections from CityWeb of Tampere. European Planning Studies 9(6), 693–706 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Limtanakool, N., Schwanen, T., Dijst, M.: Ranking functional urban regions: A comparison of interaction and node attribute data. Cities 24(1), 26–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garde, A.: Sustainable by Design? Insights From US LEED-ND Pilot Projects. Journal of The American Planning Association 75(4), 424–440 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Svoray, T., Bar, P., Bannet, T.: Urban land-use allocation in a Mediterranean ecotone: Habitat Heterogeneity Model incorporated in a GIS using a multi-criteria mechanism. Landscape and Urban Planning 72(4), 337–351 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kammeier, H.D.: A computer-aided strategic approach to decision-making in urban planning: an exploratory case study in Thailand. Cities 15(2), 105–119 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Churchill, C.J., Baetz, B.W.: Development of decision support system for sustainable community design. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 125(1), 17–35 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chakrabarty, B.K.: Urban management - Concepts, principles, techniques and education. Cities 18(5), 331–345 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Waddell, P.: UrbanSim - Modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and environmental planning. Journal of The American Planning Association 68(3), 297–314 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Biancardi, A., De Lotto, R., Ferrara, A.: Services localization and optimal traffic distribution: Users oriented system. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 134(1), 53–57 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shen, Q.P., Chen, Q., Tang, B.S., et al.: A system dynamics model for the sustainable land use planning and development. Habitat International 33(1), 15–25 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Adhvaryu, B.: Enhancing urban planning using simplified models: SIMPLAN for Ahmedabad, India. Progress in Planning 73, 113–207 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lin, Q.G., Huang, G.H., Huang, Y.F., et al.: Inexact Community-Scale Energy Systems Planning Model. Journal of Urban Planning And Development 136(3), 195–207 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lowe, J.M., Sen, A.: Gravity model applications in health planning: Analysis of an urban hospital market. Journal of Regional Science 36(3), 437–461 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    de Almeida, J.P., Morley, J.G., Dowman, I.J.: Graph theory in higher order topological analysis of urban scenes. Computers Environment and Urban Systems 31(4), 426–440 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhou, G.Q., Tan, Z.Y., Cen, M.Y., et al.: Customizing visualization in three-dimensional urban GIS via web-based interaction. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 132(2), 97–103 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Saarloos, D.J.M., Arentze, T.A., Borgers, A.W.J., et al.: A multi-agent paradigm as structuring principle for planning support systems. Computers Environment and Urban Systems 32(1), 29–40 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zellner, M.L., Theis, T.L., Karunanithi, A.T., et al.: A new framework for urban sustainability assessments: Linking complexity, information and policy. Computers Environment and Urban Systems 32(6), 474–488 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Webster, C., Wu, F.L.: Coase, spatial pricing and self-organising cities. Urban Studies 38(11), 2037–2054 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Samat, N.: Characterizing the scale sensitivity of the cellular automata simulated urban growth: A case study of the Seberang Perai Region, Penang State, Malaysia. Computers Environment and Urban Systems 30(6), 905–920 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kocabas, V., Dragicevic, S.: Assessing cellular automata model behaviour using a sensitivity analysis approach. Computers Environment and Urban Systems 30(6), 921–953 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Han, J., Hayashi, Y., Cao, X., et al.: Application of an integrated system dynamics and cellular automata model for urban growth assessment: A case study of Shanghai, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 91(3), 133–141 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Architecture and Building Engineering Dept.Girona UniversityGironaSpain
  2. 2.IBM Almaden Research CenterSan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations