Speaker
Description
Accessibility planning has become increasingly interdependent. Early research indicated that accessibility is dependent on both the transport and land use systems. Subsequent literature demonstrated that the telecommunication system also significantly impacts accessibility. Furthermore, it is established that accessibility planning is subject to uncertainties, which are intensified by emerging interdependencies. For instance, greater uncertainty surrounding dimensions, such as goals, stakeholders, or information, and variables such as innovation, political directives, or user behavior, may arise and affect the planning process or alter plans. Consequently, accessibility necessitates integrative planning with special attention given to dealing with uncertainties.
Despite the development of numerous approaches for guiding integrative planning (e.g. planning support systems, policy mixes) and dealing with uncertainties (e.g. scenario planning, dynamic adaptive policy pathways), these have proven challenging to implement in practice. This is due to the intricacy of accessibility planning, with each system institutionally separated, and uncertainties being incomprehensible. To facilitate the implementation of these approaches, research identifies the pivotal role of learning, i.e., the sharing, transferring, and co-creation of knowledge among diverse stakeholders. Learning can serve as a platform to engage with the approaches and eventually support integrative accessibility planning under uncertainty.
In light of the above, to gain deeper insights into the process of learning, the literature conceptually highlights three knowledge types (i.e. systems, target, and transformation) that are iteratively co-created throughout the process. Further explanation of the practicality of these is inconclusive. Additionally, the importance of paying close attention to six key questions (i.e. who is learning, what are they learning, when to learn, how to learn, to what effect is the learning, and why to learn?) is emphasized, although not all of these are discussed simultaneously in the literature. Evidently, the existing literature is somewhat conceptual and fragmented. Above all, despite the extensive literature on learning, a gap remains in the existence of operationalized frameworks that structure and facilitate learning, especially in the context of this research. This research develops such a novel framework.
The research followed a systematic literature review of case studies (n = 30) of learning in the contexts of accessibility planning and dealing with uncertainty. The three knowledge types and the six questions preliminary structured the analysis. Then, through a qualitative systematic investigation of each of the six questions in light of the three knowledge types, the framework was developed.
The results highlighted the sequential presence of the three knowledge types in all analyzed cases, with transformation knowledge being the least prevalent. Systems knowledge highly employs the expertise of researchers, although others were involved, and the means to facilitate it include brainstorming and drawing diagrams. Target knowledge involves all stakeholders equally, and the means to facilitate it include imaging and storytelling. Finally, transformation knowledge involves the public sector extensively, and the means to facilitate it include presentations and discussions. To measure the effect of learning processes, at least three techniques are used in each case (e.g. ex-post outcomes, interviews, and observations). In this regard, however, no differentiation between the three knowledge types was found. The sixth question, which asked why to learn, did not yield any answers.
In conclusion, the proposed framework demonstrates how stakeholders can learn to (1) analyze their interdependent systems – systems knowledge, (2) envision their futures – target knowledge, and (3) draft pathways to deal with uncertainty – transformation knowledge. Although each of these steps may include the three knowledge types within, they still highlight a core knowledge type per step. Future research should seek deeper insights into the reasons why stakeholders learn, and how to motivate them. It is suggested that this element has a significant impact on learning.
| Keywords | Accessibility planning; Integrative planning; Uncertainty; Learning; Knowledge co-creation |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
