Spatial Planning and Geo-ICT: How Spatial Planners Invented GIS and Are Still Learning How to Use It

  • Arjen de Wit
  • Adri van den Brink
  • Arnold K. Bregt
  • Rob van de Velde
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 96)


Location is a fundamental aspect of spatial planning. It is subject to, and the result of, planning activities. It is therefore not surprising that the first incentives for the development of tools for spatial data management and spatial analysis came from professionals who were engaged in spatial planning. This chapter describes the development and interaction between the evolvement of spatial planning and the rapid development of Geo-ICT in the past decades. This is illustrated with examples of Geo-ICT applications used for spatial planning over the years, from very basic land use models via more advanced models to integrated systems supporting discussion and decision making. Key issues as the growing importance of the communicative aspects of planning processes and the concept of planning as a participatory process are adressed. Through the revolutionary development of internet technology along with geospatial technology new future crossroads between Geo-ICT and spatial planning are foreseen. Although Geo-ICT and spatial planning appear to be closely related interrelated in scientific development, it is stated that the use of Geo-ICT in spatial planning practice lags behind expectations. The key obstacles related to this in methodology, data and competences are reviewed.


Multi-agent systems Participatory planning Planning support systems Preferences Regional planning Spatial planning 


  1. Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning theory. (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave).Google Scholar
  2. Alverson, C. (1993). Land from water: controlling growth and change in polderland. GIS Europe, 2(7), 32–35.Google Scholar
  3. Appleton, K. and Lovett, A. (2005). GIS-based visualization of development proposals: Reactions from planning and related professionals. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(3), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batty, M. (1995). Planning Support Systems and the New Logic of Computation. Regional Development Dialogue 16, 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. Boetze, W. and Van Uum, J. (2007). Time travel to the future landscape of Groningen Lake City. In A. van den Brink, R. van Lammeren, R. van de Velde and S. Däne (Eds.), Imaging the future, Geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe (pp. 127–139). Mansholt Publication Series, Volume 3. (Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
  6. Brail, R.K. and Klosterman, R.E. (Eds.) (2001). Planning Support Systems. Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models, and Visualization Tools. (Redlands: ESRI Press).Google Scholar
  7. Buiter, H. and Korsten, J. (2006). Land in aanleg: De Dienst Landelijk Gebied en de inrichting van het platteland. (Zutphen: Walburg Pers).Google Scholar
  8. Bulens, J. and Ligtenberg, A. (2006). The MapTable, an interactive instrument for spatial planning design processes. (Paper presented at the 9th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Visegrád, Hungary).Google Scholar
  9. Bulmer, D. (2001). How can computer simulated visualizations of the built environment facilitate better public participation in the planning process? Online Planning Journal (, publication date November 13, 2001.
  10. Carsjens, G.J. and Ligtenberg, A. (2007). A GIS-based support tool for sustainable spatial planning in metropolitan areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2006). De Digitale Economie 2005. Persbericht 06-702, 19 januari 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, M.G., Steiner, F.R. and Rushman, M.J. (2001). Land-Use Suitability Analysis in the United States: Historical Development and Promising Technological Achievements. Environmental Management, 28(5), 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Couclelis, H. (2005). “Where has the future gone?” Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1353–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crompvoets, J. (2006). National spatial data clearinghouses: worldwide development and impact. Dissertation, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  15. Däne, S. and Van den Brink, A. (2007). Perspectives on citizen participation in spatial planning in Europe. In A. van den Brink, R. van Lammeren, R. van de Velde and S. Däne (Eds.), Imaging the future, Geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe (pp. 33–51). Mansholt Publication Series, Volume 3. (Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
  16. Dangermond, J. (1979). A case study of the Zulia Regional Planning Study, describing work completed. In P.J. Moore (Ed.), Harvard Library of Computer Graphics, volume 3 (pp. 35–62). (Cambridge MA: Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphics).Google Scholar
  17. Dekkers, J.E.C. and Koomen, E. (2007). Land-use simulation for water management: application of the Land Use Scanner model in two large-scale scenario-studies. In E. Koomen, J.C.H. Stillwell, A. Bakema and H.J. Scholten (Eds.), Modelling land-use change: progress and applications, GeoJournal Library. (Dordrecht: Springer).Google Scholar
  18. De Vries, B., Buma, S.A. and Jessurun, A.J. (2006). An intuitive interface for building management and Planning. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 4(2), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission (1997). The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. Regional Development Studies. (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).Google Scholar
  20. Faludi, A. and Van der Valk, A.J. (1994). Rule and Order, Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century: The Geo Library, volume 28. (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (Eds.) (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. (London: University College).Google Scholar
  22. Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  23. Geertman, S. and Stillwell, J. (Eds.) (2003). Planning Support Systems in Practice. (Heidelberg: Springer).Google Scholar
  24. Goodchild, M.F. (1995). GIS and geographic research. In J. Pickles, (Ed.), Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems (pp. 31–50). (New York: Guildford Press).Google Scholar
  25. Gupta, R. (2005). Google, Google and Google! GIS Development (New Delhi), 9(11), 15–18.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, B. (1989). Beyond Geographic Information Systems: computers and the planning professional. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartshorne, R. (1939). The Nature of Geography: A Critical Survey of Current Thought in the Light of the Past. (Lancaster: Association of American Geographers).Google Scholar
  28. Harvey, F. (1997). From Geographic Holism to Geographic Information System. Professional Geographer, 49(1), 77–85.Google Scholar
  29. Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formulation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heywood, I., Cornelius, S. and Carver, S. (2006). An introduction to geographical information systems. Third edition. (Harlow: Pearson Education).Google Scholar
  31. Humboldt, A. von (1845–1862). Kosmos: Entwurf einer physischen Weltbeschreibung. (Stuttgart/ Tübingen: J.G. Gotta’scher Verlag).Google Scholar
  32. Koomen, E., Rietveld, P. and de Nijs, T. (2008). Modelling land-use change for spatial planning support: Editorial. Annals of Regional Science. The GeoJournal 90, 1–21.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, Jr Douglass B. (1973). Requiem for Large-Scale Models. AIP Journal 39, 163–177.Google Scholar
  34. Ligtenberg, A. (2006). Exploring the use of Multi-Agent Systems for interactive Multi-actor Spatial Planning. Dissertation, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  35. Ligtenberg, A., Beulens, A., Kettenis, D and Bregt, A.K. (2009). Simulating knowledge sharing in spatial planning: an agent-based approach. Environment and Planning B, published online.Google Scholar
  36. McHarg, I.L. (1969). Design with nature. (New York: Natural History Press).Google Scholar
  37. McLoughlin, B. (1969). Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. (London: Faber & Faber).Google Scholar
  38. QANU (2008). Onderwijsvisitatie Sociale Geografie, Planologie en Demografie. Report of Visitation Committee.Google Scholar
  39. Roos-Klein Lankhorst, J. and Verweij, P. (1999). WARUMEC: Een quick scan system voor het integraal toetsen van ruimtelijke beleidsplannen. Agro-informatica, 9, 9–11.Google Scholar
  40. Scholten, H.J. and Van de Velde, R.J. (1987). Advanced applications of geographic information systems in regional planning. (In Proceedings of ESRI User Conference Palm Springs).Google Scholar
  41. Scholten, H.J., Van de Velde, R.J., Rietveld, P. and Hilferink, M. (1999). Spatial information infrastructure for scenario planning: the development of a land use planner for Holland. In J.C.H. Stillwell, S. Geertman and S. Openshaw (Eds.), Geographical Information and Planning. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).Google Scholar
  42. Scottà, A., Scholten, H., Zlatanova, S. and Van Borkulo, E. (2007). Tangible user interfaces in order to improve collaborative interactions and decision making. (In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Gi4DM, Toronto).Google Scholar
  43. Steiner, F. (2000). The living landscape, an ecological approach to landscape planning. Second edition. (New York: McGrawHill).Google Scholar
  44. Tress, B. and Tress, G., (2002). Disciplinary and meta-disciplinary approaches in landscape ecology. In O. Bastian and U. Steinhardt (Eds.), Development and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology (pp. 25–37). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
  45. Uran, O. and Janssen, R. (2003). Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27, 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van den Brink, A. (1995). Basic alternatives as “scenarios” in Dutch land development practice. In J.F.Th. Schoute, P.A. Finke, F.R. Veeneklaas and H.P. Wolfert (Eds.), Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment (pp. 627–634). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
  47. Van den Brink, A., Van Lammeren, R., Van de Velde, R. and Däne, S. (2007). Imaging the future, Geo-visualisation for participatory spatial planning in Europe. Mansholt Publication Series, Volume 3. (Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
  48. Van Leeuwen, E.S., Hagens J.E. and Nijkamp P. (2007). Multi-Agent Systems: A Tool for Spatial Planning, An Example of Micro-Simulation Use in Retail Development. DISP 170(3), 19–32.Google Scholar
  49. Vonk, G. (2006) Improving Planning Support, The use of Planning Support Systems for spatial planning. Dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  50. Wrathall J.E. and Carrick, R.J. (1983). Almere – a new city in the IJsselmeerpolder (Netherlands). Geography, 68(3), 257–260.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arjen de Wit
    • 1
  • Adri van den Brink
    • 1
  • Arnold K. Bregt
    • 2
  • Rob van de Velde
    • 3
  1. 1.Landscape Centre, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Environmental Sciences GroupWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Geo-InformationWageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.GeonovumAmersfoortThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations