Speaker
Description
Existing planning support systems (PSS) have yet to fully address the challenge of integrating land use and transport (LUT) planning through collaborative scenario-building (te Brömmelstroet & Bertolini, 2008, 2010). Despite their potential, most PSS suffer from critical limitations, including insufficient LUT integration, lack of collaborative features, reliance on technical expertise, and an inability to capture essential spatial patterns (te Brömmelstroet, 2013; Champlin et al., 2019; Pelzer, 2017; Russo et al., 2018). These shortcomings reduce their effectiveness in early-stage planning, where strategic alignment, stakeholder engagement, and scenario development are most impactful.
This study introduces and evaluates SIM4PLAN, a PSS prototype designed to enhance scenario simulation and analysis in the early phases of LUT planning. The tool features an intuitive, multi-user platform that enables diverse stakeholders to collaborate at different usability levels, ranging from predefined scenarios to fully customisable simulations. It also employs a Vectorial Cellular Automata (VCA) model at the cadastral parcel level, improving the realism and interpretability of spatial impacts on LUT interactions. The prototype was empirically assessed through two experimental workshops—one engaging the public and the other involving policymakers and practitioners. Using a combination of questionnaires and observational analysis, the study evaluated SIM4PLAN’s user interface, usability, and practical value in a real case study of the Henares Corridor region (Madrid, Spain).
Results highlight the tool’s accessibility and collaborative potential as key strengths. Unlike conventional PSS, which are often designed for technical experts, SIM4PLAN’s modular structure accommodates varying levels of user experience, making it accessible to both professionals and non-experts. This approach fosters greater public awareness and engagement while facilitating dialogue and consensus-building among policymakers and practitioners, thereby improving LUT integration in strategic planning. However, opportunities for improvement remain. Workshop feedback identified three key areas for further development: (1) Transparency, where enhanced documentation and visual aids could improve user confidence in simulation outputs; (2) Scenario Interpretation, where additional evaluation methods could help balance competing priorities, such as economic growth versus environmental sustainability; and (3) Adaptability, where customisation features would allow integration of local policies and regulations to reflect real-world planning constraints more accurately.
In conclusion, this study highlights SIM4PLAN’s potential to enhance collaborative and scenario-driven LUT planning by making complex spatial simulations more accessible and inclusive. While its user-centric design fosters engagement among diverse stakeholders, ongoing refinement is necessary to address key challenges related to transparency, scenario interpretation, and adaptability. Future efforts should focus on scaling its application and expanding its evaluation framework through iterative testing and real-world case studies to fully realise its impact. By doing so, SIM4PLAN can evolve into a robust and widely applicable strategic resource for integrated LUT planning.
References
te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transport Policy, 15(4), 251–259.
Te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2010). Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making. Transportation, 37(1), 85-104.
te Brömmelstroet, M. (2013). Performance of planning support systems: What is it, and how do we report on it? Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41, 299–308.
Champlin, C., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Pelzer, P. (2019). Tables, tablets and flexibility: Evaluating planning support system performance under different conditions of use. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 12, 467-491.
Pelzer, P., Geertman, S., Van der Heijden, R., Rouwette, E., 2014. The added value of planning support systems: a practitioner’s perspective. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 48, 16–27.
Russo, P., Lanzilotti, R., Costabile, M. F., & Pettit, C. J. (2018). Towards satisfying practitioners in using Planning Support Systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 67, 9-20.
| Keywords | cellular automata; disruptive scenarios; participatory planning; urban land use; simulation |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
