Planning Information Systems

Development and Implementation of Planning Information Systems
in collaborative spatial planning processes
Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines

DOKTOR-INGENIEURS
von der Fakultät für
Bauingenieur-, Geo- und Umweltwissenschaften
der Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe (TH)
genehmigte
DISSERTATION
von
M.Sc. Ing. Hany Elgendy
aus Kairo
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 02.07.2003
Hauptreferent: Prof. Dr. sc.techn. Bernd Scholl

Korreferent: Prof.em. Dr. Jakob Maurer
Korreferent: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dirk Zumkeller
Karlsruhe 2003
Preface
Since 1997, the subject of planning information systems (PIS) represents a core research theme in the
institute for urban and regional planning - university of Karlsruhe (Institut für Städtebau und
Landesplanung, ISL). The interest in this subject is not limited only to the academic research but it is
directly related to practical planning activities in projects of different types and on different levels of
spatial planning in different countries. Based on the results of these research activities and projects,
this dissertation is an attempt to set a framework for the development and application of planning
information systems in collaborative spatial planning. It is essential to mention that many persons have
participated in the activities and projects that represented the practical part of this dissertation. I
appreciate the direct and indirect contribution of all these persons.
I would like to thank Prof. Bernd Scholl the chairman of ISL, the one who encouraged me to explore
this field and gave me the opportunity to experiment new concepts and ideas in different contexts,
which have contributed to further development of this work. I thank him also for his support and
guidance throughout this work.
My thanks also for Prof. Jakob Maurer for his advices and suggestions from the early stages of my
work as well as for his feedback and constructive critique; opening for me new horizons that will help
far beyond this work.
I thank also Prof. Dirk Zumkeller for accepting to review my work, for his feedback and remarks that
have contributed in finalizing this dissertation.
I would like to extend my thanks to my current and previous colleagues in ISL - Torsten Beck,
Susanne Dahm, Dirk Engelke and Sebestian Wilske - with whom I worked in the different case studies
and projects which represented the practical application of the concept of PIS. I thank them for the
discussions, feedback and suggestions, which directly contributed to the development of this work.
Last but not least, I thank my family, my wife and children for their support, patience and
understanding.
Hany Elgendy
Karlsruhe, April 2003

List of abbreviations
Projects
NBS Sustainable Land Management in Stuttgart Nachhaltiges Bauflächenmanagement Stuttgart
NST North-south Trans European railway corridor Die Nord Süd Transversale für Europe
SGMC Sustainable Growth Management in Cairo
Organizations
ARPA The Advanced Research Projects Agency
EU The European Union
GCR Greater Cairo Region
Institute for Urban and Regional Planning, University of Institut für Städtebau und Landesplanung
ISL
Karlsruhe An der Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
KE Kommunal Entwicklung GMBH
W3C The World Wide Web Consortium
Technical
ALB Cadastre Information System in Stuttgart Automatisiertes Liegenschaftsbuch
ASP Active Server Page
CAD Computer Aided Design
CSS Cascading Style Sheet
DHTML Dynamic HTML
Email Electronic Mail
FTP File Transfer Protocol
GIS Geographical information systems
HTML Hyper Text Markup Language
HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol
IRC Internet Relay Chat
ISAS Soil Contamination Information System in Stuttgart Informationssystem Altlasten Stuttgart
IT Information Technology
OOP Object Oriented Programming
PC Personal Computer
PIS Planning Information Systems
SIAS Spatial Information & Access Service in Stuttgart
UI User Interface
URL Unified Resources Location
WWW The World Wide Web
Table of Contents
Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... i
Preface .................................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. iii
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Information: An exploratory review ........................................................................................... 4

1.1. Technical senses of “information” .......................................................................................... 5
1.2. Intellectual senses of Information ........................................................................................... 6
1.3. Data, information and knowledge ........................................................................................... 7
1.4. A working definition for information...................................................................................... 8
1.5. Some characteristics of human information processing .......................................................... 9
1.6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 12
2. Theoretical Bases of PIS ............................................................................................................. 13

2.1. An introduction to spatial planning ....................................................................................... 14
2.2. Information in different approaches to spatial planning........................................................ 16
2.2.1. The classical approach “the blueprint view of planning”.............................................. 17
2.2.2. The systematic view of planning................................................................................... 18
2.2.3. The systems approach “the cybernetic view of planning”............................................. 22
2.2.4. Planning as a problem-solving process in a network of actors...................................... 25
2.2.5. Comparison ................................................................................................................... 27
2.3. Characteristics of spatial problems........................................................................................ 28
2.3.1. Interconnectivities in the spatial context ....................................................................... 28
2.3.2. The problem-space and the solution-space.................................................................... 32
2.3.3. The time dimension in spatial planning......................................................................... 34
2.4. Characteristics of spatial planning processes ........................................................................ 35
2.4.1. Planning process from organizational viewpoint .......................................................... 36
iii
2.4.2. Objectives and goals in spatial planning ....................................................................... 37
2.4.3. Planning and the plan-making ....................................................................................... 38
2.5. Characteristics of planning information ................................................................................ 39
2.5.1. A definition of planning information ............................................................................ 39
2.5.2. Main features of planning information in complex planning situations........................ 40
2.5.3. The planners’ use of planning information.................................................................... 41
2.5.4. Rationality and planning information............................................................................ 43
2.5.5. Language in planning information ................................................................................ 44
2.6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 45
3. A Typology of Planning Information......................................................................................... 47

3.1. Planning information domains .............................................................................................. 49
3.1.1. The subject-matter domain ............................................................................................ 53
3.1.2. The planning-knowledge domain .................................................................................. 57
3.1.3. The process domain....................................................................................................... 58
3.1.4. Summary of the planning information domains ............................................................ 60
3.2. Planning Information Processes ............................................................................................ 61
3.2.1. Decision-making ........................................................................................................... 62
3.2.2. Coordination.................................................................................................................. 70
3.2.3. Communication ............................................................................................................. 76
3.2.4. Summery of decision-making, coordination and communication................................. 84
3.3. Planning information objects................................................................................................. 85
3.3.1. Object orientation .......................................................................................................... 85
3.3.2. General attributes of planning information objects ....................................................... 88
3.4. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 90
4. Conceptual Bases of PIS ............................................................................................................. 94

4.1. Introduction to “systems” ...................................................................................................... 94
4.2. Aims and tasks of a PIS......................................................................................................... 96
4.3. Conceptual criteria of PIS ................................................................................................... 103
4.3.1. A decentralized and interconnected system................................................................. 105
4.3.2. An open system ........................................................................................................... 106
4.3.3. A dynamic system ....................................................................................................... 107
4.3.4. A hierarchal system ..................................................................................................... 107
4.3.5. A modular system........................................................................................................ 109
4.3.6. Associative organization of information ..................................................................... 110
4.3.7. Information in multi context and multi representation ................................................ 111
4.3.8. Supply modes of planning information ....................................................................... 112
iv
4.4. The proposed general structure of a PIS: Components of PIS ............................................ 112
4.5. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 116
5. Technical Bases of PIS .............................................................................................................. 118

5.1. An introduction to information systems .............................................................................. 119
5.1.1. Definition, components and functions......................................................................... 119
5.1.2. Typology of information systems................................................................................ 120
5.2. Information systems in spatial planning.............................................................................. 121
5.2.1. The mainframe era....................................................................................................... 121
5.2.2. The personal computer era .......................................................................................... 122
5.2.3. The Internet era ........................................................................................................... 125
5.3. Technical aspects regarding the proposed general structure of PIS .................................... 126
5.3.1. Technical criteria of PIS.............................................................................................. 126
5.3.2. The Internet ................................................................................................................. 127
5.3.3. The World Wide Web (WWW) .................................................................................. 128
5.3.4. Hypertext and Hypermedia: ........................................................................................ 129
5.3.5. Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) ..................................................................... 131
5.3.6. Dynamic generation of web content............................................................................ 133
5.4. Realization of the proposed structure of PIS from a technical viewpoint ........................... 135
5.4.1. The information space ................................................................................................. 136
5.4.2. The functions and the tools.......................................................................................... 140
5.4.3. The rules scheme ......................................................................................................... 142
5.4.4. The user interface ........................................................................................................ 143
6. Application Case Studies of PIS .............................................................................................. 144

6.1. The Southern Railway System in Austria (Südbahn).......................................................... 146
6.1.1. Background ................................................................................................................. 146
6.1.2. Characteristics of the situation: ................................................................................... 147
6.1.3. Application of PIS ....................................................................................................... 148
6.1.4. Concluding remarks..................................................................................................... 152
6.2. Sustainable Growth Management in Cairo (SGMC)........................................................... 154
6.2.1. Background ................................................................................................................. 154
6.2.2. Characteristics of the situation .................................................................................... 154
6.3. The case study of Sustainable Land Management in Stuttgart (NBS) ................................ 169
6.3.1. Background ................................................................................................................. 169
v
6.3.3. The application of PIS ................................................................................................. 172
6.3.4. Main components of NBS information platform......................................................... 179
6.3.5. Implementation of NBS information platform ............................................................ 187
6.3.6. Results and concluding remarks .................................................................................. 191
6.4. The case study of the “North-south Trans European railway corridor” .............................. 196
6.4.1. Background ................................................................................................................. 196
6.5. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 208
7. A Framework for PIS Application .......................................................................................... 210

7.1. Outlines of the development process for a PIS.................................................................... 211
7.2. Typical phases of the development process of a PIS........................................................... 213
7.2.1. The orientation phase .................................................................................................. 213
7.2.2. The planning phase of PIS........................................................................................... 215
7.2.3. The development phase ............................................................................................... 216
7.2.4. The implementation phase........................................................................................... 217
List of Literature ............................................................................................................................... 219
Kurzfassung ....................................................................................................................................... 227
vi
“We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance.
As our island of knowledge grows,
so does the shore of our ignorance”
John A. Wheele,
Scientist-philosopher and physician
the father of the Black Hole

Introduction
Planning information systems (PIS) are tools for supporting the various information processes that are
conducted in spatial planning processes. In developing these systems, different aspects should be
considered regarding the characteristics of the spatial problems, the required processes to solve these
problems and the main feature of the information that is needed, processed or produced in these
processes. In addition, this information is processed and produced by humans. Hence, the
characteristics of the human processing of information in general and especially in planning and
decision-making should also be considered.
Furthermore, complex planning situations have specific characteristics that distinguish such a situation
from a normal one. A complex situation is not a repetitive task; there are a variety of indigenous and
exogenous interconnections and dynamics that influence the subject matter of planning and the results
of the planned actions. In such a situation the solution options are not given or well known in advance.
They should be generated. Handling complex planning tasks is usually conducted in a collaborative
process among a group of individuals or organizations from different disciplines. In addition,
information in these situations is characterized by being imperfect and uncertain.
Bearing in mind these characteristics of: complex planning situations, collaborative planning processes
and planning information on one hand, and on the other hand witnessing the fast evolving world of
information and communication technology, which introduces new innovations and opens new
opportunities, it is the planners task to think about the requirements of the different tasks in spatial
planning, then to explore the potentials of the new technology and to develop tools that meet the
requirements of such situations. However, it is not enough to utilize the new technology by dressing
up traditional concepts of the use of information with a new technology facade (Bracken 1990). The
1
new technology encourages exploring new forms of communication and new conceptual frameworks,
which consequently leads to a more effective use of information.
Thus, it is argued in this research that the development and the implementation of PIS are not merely a
technical issue that could be handled by information experts. The above-mentioned factors should be
considered in the development and the implementation of these systems. The intention of this
dissertation is to define the main aspects that influence spatial planning in complex planning
situations, then to identify the requirements of a PIS as an instrument for supporting information
processing in collaborative planning processes, subsequently to explore the opportunities of applying
new information and communication technologies to realize this system. Aiming at setting a
framework for the development and the implementation of PIS in collaborative planning processes
that deal with complex planning situations from the theoretical, conceptual, technical and operative
perspectives the research has the following structure.
2
In chapter 1, the research starts be exploring the perception of information from different technical and
intellectual viewpoints. Then the working definition of information as it is used in this research is
discussed. Afterwards, the main characteristics of the human use of information are reviewed.
In chapter 2, it is argued that the role and the use of information in the various planning theories are
different. Hence, the theoretical bases of PIS should be based on the main aspects that govern spatial
planning, namely the characteristics of humans in processing information, the characteristics of
planning problems, characteristics of planning process and last but not least characteristics of planning
information. Theses characteristics are crucial for the development and the implementation of PIS.
Facing the variety of information types and the activities that are considered as information process in
spatial planning, chapter 3 includes an attempt to set a typology for planning information. This
typology observe planning information from different perspectives. Three main perspectives are
considered important for the PIS, namely information domains, information processes and information
objects. For the development of a PIS it is essential to define which domains are needed for the current
case, which processes should be supported and which information objects should be included.
Chapter 4 starts by exploring the term “system” aiming at defining the main components of any
system. Then, based on the characteristics that resulted from chapter 2 and the typology that resulted
from chapter 3, the main conceptual criteria that should be considered in PIS are defined regarding the
system structure, the system organization and the information organization. Afterwards, the general
structure of PIS is introduced in the form of the main components of the proposed system.
As mentioned earlier, the search for suitable information systems for collaborative planning processes
in complex situations should be based on the requirements of these situations. Hence, based on the
pre-requirements and the conceptual criteria from the earlier chapters, chapter 5 is an exploration of
the innovative information and communication technology, to define which techniques could be used
to fulfil the task and to consider the pre-requirements of PIS. Although, the spectrum of innovative
technologies is unlimited, the adopted techniques in PIS should be simple and should require no
special resources. Hence, this chapter includes a set of technical criteria that should be considered.
This research is based on different experiments in a variety of projects and planning processes with
special emphasis on two main areas of spatial planning. The first is the sustainable growth
management in rapidly growing cities with special emphasis on inner development. The second
subject is the relation between infrastructure development and spatial development. These cases are
introduced in chapter 6. They cover a variety of collaborative planning processes including cross-
border, cross-organization and cooperative work in ad-hoc organizations. In each of these cases, a PIS
was developed and implemented. Each of these cases represents the application of PIS on a different
planning level. Based on the results of these experiments, the proposed theoretical, conceptual,
technical and operative framework is concluded in chapter 7.
3
1. Information: An exploratory review
Planning information systems are mainly aiming at supporting the organization, processing and
communication of different types of information in planning processes. Setting a framework for the
development and implementation of such systems requires a clear understanding of the variety and
nature of information that are used, processed or produced in different types of planning processes.
Although the term “Information”, nowadays, is one of the most frequently used expressions in daily
life as well as in scientific writings from a wide range of disciplines, nevertheless, it is not possible to
find a consensus about a common perception that is universally accepted about this term. Different
perceptions of the term “information” are found in various disciplines ranging from computer science
and communication on one hand, and cognitive psychology and logic on the other hand. Some of these
disciplines have developed a domain-specific definition that serves principally the sole aim of this
discipline. For example, telecommunication has an extremely technical view of information while
philosophy has a very abstract one.
Since “information” plays an important role in the research on Planning Information Systems (PIS), it
is therefore essential to clarify this ambiguity as long as it is related to the purpose of this study. Based
on this clarification, it would be possible to articulate a working definition. This working definition is
important since it determines “what will be regarded as information?“ This will consequently preside
over what will be considered as planning information. Hence, this chapter starts by a representation of
different perceptions of information in some of the related disciplines to the subject of PIS, e.g.
information theory, computer science, semantics and philosophy. As information is produced,
4
processed and used by humans, it is very important in this chapter to explore different aspects of the
human capacity in processing information.
1.1. Technical senses of “information”
One of the fundamental theories that dealt with information is “Information Theory”. Information
theory is a mathematical theory concerned mainly with the transmission, storage, and retrieval of data.
In this theory, information is interpreted as: “… the messages occurring in any of the standard
communications media, such as telegraphy, radio, or television, and the signals involved in electronic
computers, and other data-processing devices.” (Encyclopedia Britannica). Information theory utilizes
a number of variables to describe information and the related processes such as transmission and
storage. Among these variables are bandwidth, noise, data transfer rate, storage capacity, number of
channels, accuracy, precision, and reliability. Information theory is also applied to the signals
appearing in the nervous networks of human beings and animals. Since information theory is
concerned predominantly with the transmission of information in the form of signals or messages,
therefore it is not necessary that the transmitted message has a meaning in any ordinary sense. This
anomaly is explained since it is as difficult to transmit a series of nonsense syllables exactly as it is to
transmit the most valuable piece of plain text. Hence, this theory originated its interpretation of
information as any message occurring in any communication media regardless of the content or the
meaning of the message. It could be concluded that, information theory concentrates on quantitative
problems of data transmission regardless of the content, the meaning or the type of the transmitted
message.
From computer science viewpoint, information is defined as: “… stimuli that has meaning in some
context for its receiver.” (Whatis.com 2000). This definition goes a step further than the former by
suggesting that the information should have a meaning in some context. However, for computer
science information is the raw materials of a process, in which information is converted into data that
could be manipulated and processed by computers. Computer science suggests that almost all kinds of
information can be converted into data and passed on to another receiver. Relative to the computer,
information is transformed into data, and then put into the computer where it is stored and processed
as data, and then put out as data in some form that can be perceived as information.
Other technical definitions of information, as found in different technical dictionaries and writings,
tend to interpret information as the organization of data as part of data processing operations. In the
extremely technical definitions, information is considered as a general term for any manipulated data
where meaning is apparent. In this sense, data manipulation could be conducted through any of the
following processes: recording, organization, assembly, classification, relation, analysis, summary or
interpretation. An example of this definition is found in GIS Dictionary (2000), which defines
information as “Intelligence resulting from the assembly, analysis or summary of data into a
5
meaningful form“. Such definitions emphasize that information is the result of data manipulation. It
also stress that the result of data manipulation should be into a format that readily leads itself to
hypothesis testing, planning, and decision making (Water Words Dictionary 2000).
1.2. Intellectual senses of Information
Contrary to the afore-mentioned technical definitions, semantic interpretations of information tend to

include an intellectual sense that links information with its meaning. Some of these definitions
consider information as corresponding to knowledge. One of these intellectual interpretations links
information to the meaning resulting from a representation of a fact or a message for the receiver
(Hornung: in Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems). It is important to notice that another
dimension is added to the earlier characteristics of information, which is that the meaning of
information is not absolute in itself, but relative to the receiver. This aspect adds a new dimension to
the definition of information that goes beyond the technical definition of information. The meaning of
information is not standalone. It takes place only when a recipient receives the information and a
meaning occur in his mind. In other words, information is not only a message but it is connected to an
act that converts this message into a meaning in the receiver’s mind. For example, a bar chart, which is
manipulated data, would be technically interpreted as information. However, in this intellectual sense,
it is not considered information until any receiver acquires some meaning out of it.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2000) went a step further by defining information as the knowledge
obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. This definition has a major aspect that states that
information is not only obtained through data manipulation but also through other informative acts that
create knowledge without data manipulation such as investigation and study. It also includes
expressing ideas, suggestion, preferences and decisions. In the same direction, Wordsmyth
Educational Dictionary –Thesaurus (2000) generalized the concept of the informative act as the source
of knowledge, and defines information as “knowledge derived from any source”. Two major aspects
of information could be identified from this semantic version of the definition of information. Firstly,
the meaning of information is not absolute but relative to the receiver. Secondly, information is not
only data manipulation, but it could also be acquired through informative acts. The concept of the
informative acts plays an important role in the conceptualization of planning information systems.
Based on this concept, the role of information systems should not be limited to organization and
processing of data. It should be extended to promoting informative acts to creating opportunities to
communicate, share and use available information.
From a philosophical point of view, information is regarded mostly as what reduces the uncertainty of
the receiver. An example of this direction is Claude Shannon who interprets information as “that
which reduces uncertainty” (Shannon, in Principia Cybernetica Web) or the more detailed definition
“a message received and understood that reduces the recipient’s uncertainty” (Open Resource Online
6
Dictionary, 2000). Uncertainty here is defined as “The (average) number of decisions a decision maker
has to make in order to select one out of a set of mutually exclusive alternatives“ (Krippendorf: in
Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems). However, in many situations new messages or
information might increase the uncertainty of the receiver rather than to decrease it. Attempting to
overcome this anomaly, the following definition goes beyond the argument of decreasing uncertainty,
to be generally, what changes somebody’s knowledge, regardless of whether this change increases or
decreases the knowledge. In this context, Bateson defines information as “that which changes us”
(Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems).
Beyond this interpretation of information as a message, Rittel (1982) stresses a different dimension of
information which implies that information is not only a message, but also it is a process as well. He
states, "Information is a process which leads to changing somebody's knowledge". He argues that an
information process takes place when an individual, who knows something at a specific point in time
"ti", no longer knows this or know something more at the time "ti + ∆t". This definition ensures that
information is a process and it occurs when a change of knowledge occurs. Both the concept of
information as a process and the afore-mentioned concept of informative acts represent corner stones
for the development of PIS. They shift the system from being tools for accumulating and structuring
data to platforms for sharing and communicating available information.
1.3. Data, information and knowledge
The above-introduced review of the term “information” from different perspectives shows that this
term is used in a larger context of several interconnected terms such as “facts”, “data” and
“knowledge”. Data is the original observation of an event, a characteristic, phenomenon measurement
or record of facts in a specific moment of time under specific circumstances. Raw data is recognized
upon its acquisition from one of many different sources in one of many different ways through events
in the real world and the world of the mind (Penzias 1989). It is important here to emphasize that data
in this perspective is not limited only to the observations of the physical world, but it also results from
mental events. In the conventional definition, for data to be useful and to produce information it
should be selected, filtered, arranged and processed according to some principle or goal which give it
some form and coherence. However, information is not only produced by data manipulation. Ideas,
positions and decisions are considered information but they are not produced by the sole manipulation
of data.
Information is converted into knowledge through scientific processes of generalization and the
investigation of cause and effect by imposing and testing a structure, which is usually not inherited in
the original data or the processed information (Penzias 1989). Knowledge is the principle or the goal
obtained through the information. Here, we move from the concrete levels to the abstract levels into
which details fold. This is the process through which perception becomes cognition, and through
7
which events are organized into larger structures (Wong & Storkerson 1997). Knowledge may be
converted into intelligence whenever it is applied to new ideas, suppositions, and information in an
organized effort to interpret new information or to take a purposeful view of the future (Penzias 1989).
In this hierarchy, when it comes to intelligence, the contact will be mainly with abstract concepts
rather than with concrete facts. Thus, we have two poles: concrete and abstract. Between these two
poles, we navigate up by concept formation and back by verification.
The relationship between these concepts is traditionally represented as a five-steps pyramid where
facts are the base and intelligence is the top. Data, information and knowledge are the steps in-
between. However, data is not only based on facts and information is not only based on data. For
example, an idea or a proposal for solving some problem are not manipulations of data, but they are
decisive pieces of information for solving problems. Similarly, the position of a political party against
or for a specific course of development represents an important piece of information but it is not a
result of data manipulation.
It is argued that our society is a data-rich but information-poor society (Shubik 1980). What is needed
is not more data collection but how to select relevant data from the available ones and then to
transform these data to information and then to knowledge and intelligence. It is not enough to supply
data to get information or to supply information to extract knowledge. Beyond selection and
transformation of data to information, it is essential to emphasize the creation of opportunities for
informative acts rather than to concentrate on data collection. This differentiation among these
concepts and terms is extremely important during the development and implementation of PIS.
It is important here to stress that although data is usually considered as an ingredient of information,
not all data make useful information (Yeung 1998). Data that is not properly collected and organized
is a burden rather than an asset to an information user. Additionally, data that makes useful
information to one person may not be useful to another. Furthermore, information and knowledge have
no value in themselves but their value can be realized only when it is disseminated, shared and used
(Srinivas 2002). This aspect represents a basic task for PIS that is to support the creation of these
opportunities for informative acts to take place.
1.4. A working definition for information
It is far beyond the scope of this research to search for an interdisciplinary definition of information.
However, it is crucial for further work in this study to reach at least a working definition that considers
the nature of planning processes and planning problems. In the working definition that is adopted in
this study, information as a term implies in two folds. The first fold emphasizes information as a
message, from any source, that changes the recipient's knowledge and/or uncertainty. The second fold
introduces information as a process in which the message is encoded, communicated, decoded,
8
interpreted and understood. Based on this understanding the change in the recipient's knowledge or
uncertainty takes place. These two folds are interconnected. They represent a corner stone for the
concept of PIS. As mentioned earlier information has no value in itself it gets value only when it is
used or communicated.
Regarding information as a message, the following aspects are important for further discussion:
Information is a coded message using some sort of language. Language includes, but is not
limited to, coding languages (i.e. Morris language of signs), sign languages, spoken and
written languages, graphics, photos, etc.
For the recipient to decode the received information and understand the message, he should be
able to understand the language in which the information is encoded.
The meaning of the message results from the meaning of the applied symbols, the context of
these symbols and the background of those who process the message. (Maurer 1988)
The source of the message could be anything. The recipients could be also anything. This
includes unattended senders and untargeted recipients.
The second fold of the information in this definition emphasizes the process of communicating this
message, which emphasizes the following characteristics:
The message should make some change either to the recipient's knowledge or to his
uncertainty or to both of them, regardless of whether this change is positive or negative. Here,
knowledge and uncertainty are stated separately since the received information may decrease
or increase either one or both of them. This change could be in the same direction or in
opposite directions.
A message that has some meaning for the sender in some sense of communication languages
but has no meaning for the recipients is not considered information in the sense discussed
above. Furthermore, a message that is not received by any receptionist will not be considered
information, as it will not affect anybody’s knowledge or uncertainty.
A message that is already known to the recipients is not considered information, as it changes
neither their knowledge nor their uncertainty.
1.5. Some characteristics of human information processing
The right to seek and to receive information without restrictions and regardless of the fortune is one of
the basic human rights included in the Human Rights Declaration (1948). In article 19 of the
declaration it is affirmed that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Since then information is considered a
grantor of individual rights (Jumel 2001).
9
Witnessing the information revolution, seeking for information became more than a right, it is
considered by many people as a need in both work and in daily life. In a study titled “Dying for
information?” conducted by Reuters in 1996, aiming at exploring the use of information in the
information age, they asked 1300 mangers from different countries different questions about their use
of information. One of these questions was about the need for information. Two-thirds of managers
responding expressed their need to "very high levels" of information. This tendency reflects a feeling
that large amounts of information are essential to back up decisions. Nearly half of them reported that
they needed to collect information to keep up with colleagues. (Reuters 1996) This result shows that
information is becoming increasingly an essential need and a substantial part of the working life for
many people.
As many information resources are becoming available in low cost and effort, there is a tendency to
collect more information. Information is an essential ingredient in most of what we do. We spend
much time gathering, refining, and interpreting information (Rouse 1992). In doing this, it is claimed
that more information means better decisions. It was proved empirically that the short-term capacity of
human mind in processing information is very limited. This represents a key issue for the development
and implementation of PIS as it deals with the psychological characteristics of the human information
processing system, which should be considered in developing these systems.
Human capacity in processing information (7 ± 2)
Human information processing system could be described in the following three steps (Hussy 1998):
Using the different senses, human beings receive information from the surrounding
environment.
Then, using memory structures, either they save or process this information.
At the end, they give the output again to the surrounding environment; transform it into a
command to the organs or save it for later use.
Using the concept of the channel capacity on the human information processing system, the channel
capacity of the human mind could be defined as the upper limit or the extent to which the observer can
match his responses to the stimuli he gets (Heylighen 1991). Cognitive psychology has proved that the
human mind has a very limited ability to hold more than five to nine bits of information in short term
memory. Miller (1956) argues in his work “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two” that the
capacity of the human mind regarding the span of absolute judgment and the span of immediate
memory imposes severe limitations on the amount of information that it is able to receiving,
processing and remembering. Based on several experiments by different researches, he concluded that
this capacity is somewhere in the neighborhood of seven. This capacity is measured as chunks of
information, called bits that could be received and processed simultaneously.
10
However, adding several dimensions to each chunk or a sequence of chunks could stretch the
information capacity bottleneck. This process is called “recoding” and is discussed in a later chapter.
Consequently, it is argued that the capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex
problems is very small compared with the size of the problems whose solution is required in the real
world (Behn & Vaupel 1982).
During the process of developing and implementing PIS, it should be kept in mind that the capacity of
the human mind in simultaneous processing of different chunks of information is severely limited.
Therefore, it is also important during this process to think of ways for recoding and structuring of
information that utilize this limited capacity efficiently.
Information overload
If the supplied information exceeds the channel capacity of the observer mind, information overload
occurs. “Too much information can be the source of disinformation.” (Jumel 2001). Information
overload could occur in both folds of information, as a message and as a process. As a message,
information overload could also occur from the ambiguity of the information content, if the user
cannot understand the received message or is not sure about the accuracy of this piece of information.
This results from the increasing diversity of information sources, forms, and languages, which makes
it difficult to identify and interpret all relevant information (Rouse 1992). On the process-side,
information overload could result if the observer:
doesn’t know if the information exists,
doesn’t know where to find the information,
can’t access the information (Srinivas 2002), or
can access the information but the size of the information makes it difficult to consume the
relevant information. (Rouse 1992)
In the afore-mentioned Reuters’ study (1996), half of the respondents stated that they often or
frequently could not cope with the volume of information they receive, resulting in a form of
indigestion and sometimes the so called "information poisoning" (Rouse 1992). It is also evident from
this study that information overload has substantial effects on both business and individual levels. On
the individual level, two thirds of respondents associated information overload with tension and
dissatisfaction. More than 40% connected this stress with ill health. Heylighen (1999) argues that this
stress leads to psychological, physical and social problems. The psychologist David Lewis, who
analyzed the findings of this survey, called the resulting symptoms of information overload
"Information Fatigue Syndrome". He mentioned that the side effects of information overload also
include anxiety, poor decision-making, difficulties in memorizing and remembering, and reduced
attention span (Heylighen 1999).
11
On business level, the study showed extreme findings. About 40% of respondents said that they spent
considerable amounts of time just looking for information. Nearly half of respondents stated that
information collection distracts them from their main responsibilities. About 40% of respondents
thought that decisions were either delayed or adversely affected by "analysis paralysis" or by the
existence of too much information. (Reuters 1996)
Information overload could be minimized in PIS by considering the use of reasonable sized chunks of
information and to avoiding the use of large chunks. It could be minimized by structuring and
organizing the available information and knowledge in ways that reduce ambiguity and facilitate the
overview so that a user can find out with minimum effort if a specific piece of information is available
and how to obtain it.
The human use of information is selective
It is proved that humans use the information in a selective manner. This selective behavior is governed
with both conscious and unconscious factors such as (Schönwandt 1986):
if the information is supporting or is not conflicting with the person’s opinion.
if the information is unwished or unexpected differently.
how easy is it to recall the information from the memory.
how clear is the information representation.
1.6. Conclusion
This chapter is aimed at setting the working definition of the term “information” and exploring the
main characteristics of the human information processing. These two aspects are crucial for the
development of PIS.
In the working definition that is adopted in this research, information is understood in two folds. The
first fold emphasizes information as a message from any source that changes the recipient's knowledge
and/or uncertainty. The second fold implies the process of information in which the message is
encoded, communicated, decoded, interpreted and understood. For the development of PIS, the two
folds of information should be considered. PIS should go beyond processing information in the
conventional conception as messages to consider creating informative activities.
During the process of developing and implementing PIS, it should be kept in mind that the capacity of
the human mind in simultaneous processing of different chunks of information is severely limited.
Therefore, it is also important during this process to think of ways for recoding and structuring of
information that utilizes this limited capacity efficiently and avoid information overload.
12
2. Theoretical Bases of PIS
It is argued in this research that the theoretical bases of PIS should not be overwhelmed by a single
approach or theory. It is also argued that the adopted planning approach or the theoretical bases that
form the outline of a planning process influence directly and indirectly the use and the role of
information in this process. Consequently, different planning approaches have different perceptions of
the role and the use of information. To overcome these different views and to set the theoretical bases
for the development and implementation of PIS, this chapter attempts to figure out the main aspects
that should be considered in the design, development and implementation of PIS instead of looking for
the theory or the approach of planning that should be considered the base for PIS. These aspects are
related to the characteristics of spatial problems, planning processes and planning information. The
conceptual bases of PIS should consider these characteristics in addition to the afore-mentioned
characteristics of the human processing of information.
To achieve the afore-mentioned objective this chapter consists of two main parts. In the first part, the
term “planning” is explored, both in general and “spatial planning” as a sub-class of planning. Then
the use of information in different approaches of spatial planning is exemplary explored to illustrate
the above-mentioned relation between the theoretical bases of an approach and the use of information
in planning process that are based on this approach. The second part concentrates mainly on exploring
the main characteristics of spatial problems, spatial planning processes and those of planning
information. These three aspects are argued to be essential for the development and implementation of
PIS.
13
2.1. An introduction to spatial planning
The term ‘planning’ is often used and seems to be simple and straightforward, not only for planners
but also for everybody. However, this is not the case. ‘Planning’ is interpreted and used differently in
various disciplines. Hall (1992) stated that “Planners of all kinds think that they know what it means: it
refers to the work they do.” This could have been the end of the discussion, ‘planning is what planners
do’, but then, he added “The difficulty is that they do all sorts of things, and so they mean different
things by the word; planning seems to be all things to all men.”
This section is a short discussion of the term “planning” in general. This discussion will serve as a
base for approaching to the definition of “spatial planning”. In attempting to look into the meaning of
“spatial planning” using different definitions, it is argued here that each definition has a vision or
theory that presents its foundation.
As a general activity, the verb “to plan” is semantically interpreted in the following senses:
“To aim or to intend something”, i.e. to have a specific aim or purpose,
“To design something”, i.e. to arrange the parts of, or
“To produce a blueprint of something”, i.e. to draw or to make a graphic representation of
something (Dictionary.com).
Although these senses of the verb are frequently used, the common sense of the verb “to plan” is
interpreted as “to formulate or project the achievement of a goal”. This definition could be found in
different variations such as “to formulate a scheme or program for the accomplishment of something”
(Dictionary.com); “to devise or to project the realization or achievement of something” (Merriam
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary); “to think about and decide on a method for doing or achieving
something” (Cambridge Dictionary of American English). In this sense, “to plan” is interpreted as a
human conscious action to formulate, to devise, to project, to think or to decide to define a course of
action, a scheme, a program or a method to achieve some goals or to accomplish something in the
future.
Maurer (1973) argues that planning of any type is based on the assumption that the future events could
be influenced by intentional human actions to achieve a wished result. This assumption is based on a
primary assumption that humans are capable to use their freedom wisely to decide about future
actions.
It could be concluded that planning as a general activity has the following basic characteristics:
“To plan” is a conscious activity. Planning is not per se.

“To plan” is to presume about the future. Planning is future-oriented.
“To plan” means having a goal or an objective. There is no planning for the sake of planning.
Planning is goal-oriented.
14
“To plan” implies assembling actions into some orderly sequence (Hall 1992). Planning is
action-oriented.
“To plan” is an attempt to trigger something to happen that normally would not happen
without the planning; to hinder something from happening that would happen without the
planning; or to change how something will happen. “To plan” is attempting to change “What
is or what will be” to “What ought to be”. Planning is proactive.
As spatial planning is considered a sub-class of planning as a general activity, it should inherit the
above-mentioned basic characteristics of planning with a main distinction that it is “spatial”.
Semantically, the word ‘spatial’ is originated from the Latin word ‘spatium’. That is translated as:
space, distance, room or extent - unexpectedly, it also means time and time interval! (babylon.com).
The English word ‘spatial’ is interpreted as “relating to, occupying, or having the character of space”
(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). Hence, spatial planning should be, simply, that type of
planning related to space, about occupying space, or having the character of space. If we combined
this sense of the adjective “spatial” to the afore-mentioned four senses of “planning” as a general
activity, spatial planning is semantically interpreted as any combination of a phrase from each column
in the following diagram (Fig. 2.1).
Fig. 2-1 Different semantic senses of spatial planning
Although not all these semantic definitions are regarded as forms of spatial planning from the
viewpoint adopted in this research, almost each of the resulting combinations could be found, more or
less, in various spatial planning literatures (e.g. Keeble 1969, Faludi 1973, Bracken 1981, Maurer
1985, Friedmann 1987, Hall 1992, Naess 1999, etc.). A huge number of definitions of spatial planning
could be found in literature regarding the fact that application of spatial planning has evolved by time
and it is implemented differently in different regions, countries, and levels of planning. There is also
unlimited number of expressions that represent some sort of spatial planning, such as town planning,
city planning, urban planning, physical planning, regional planning, national planning, comprehensive
planning, master planning, etc.
In this research, spatial planning is understood as a process of formulating decisions about future
actions for resolving spatial problem or conflict. This process takes place in a network of
15
multidisciplinary actors under changing circumstances. A problem is interpreted as an obstacle. In the
case of planning, a problem could be interpreted, as an obstacle between what is the case and what the
case ought to be. A conflict is interpreted as mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing
needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2000) The task of
spatial planning is to propose solutions to overcome the gap between the “is-state” and the “ought to
be state” taking in consideration the different interests or in many cases the conflicting interests.
During the exploration of the role and the use of information in different approaches of spatial
planning in the following section, the perception of spatial planning in these approaches will be
discussed.
2.2. Information in different approaches to spatial planning
Although a thorough discussion of planning theory is beyond the scope of this research, the role and
the use of information in planning processes is usually governed by the theoretical bases upon which
such, a process is based. There is no spatial planning theory that is globally or permanently accepted.
Different planning approaches are discussed in literature, used in different countries and implemented
on different planning levels. As this section is mainly aimed at demonstrating the relation between the
use of information in a specific planning approach and the theoretical bases of this approach, four
approaches to spatial planning are reviewed, namely the classic approach “the blue print view of
planning”, the systematic approach, the systems approach “the cybernetic approach” and “planning as
a process of problem-solving”. Although a large number of approaches could be argued to be
important for this review, this selection is only exemplary and is not aimed at making a comprehensive
review of the relation between the use of information in different planning approaches and the
theoretical bases of each approach. In addition, these approaches are considered largely to be different
regarding the theoretical bases for each one. Each of these approaches embodies a different perception
of the real world and consequently a different perception of the role of planning in steering the
development in a specific area. This perception or view, furthermore, leads to different perceptions
regarding the role of the planner, the organization of the planning process and the use of information
in this process.
This section includes a brief introduction to main theoretical principles that differentiate each of these
approaches. After that the role of information in each of these approaches will be explored regarding
the form, processes and activities in which information is information used in this approach. These
aspects are based on a set of primary questions such as: How the planning process is organized in each
of these approaches? Is this process a plan-producing task or is it a continuous process? Is it a one shot
event, a periodical event or a continuous process? These aspects influence also the application of
information systems in each of these approaches. After this review, in the following section, these
aspects will be also discussed from the viewpoint adopted in this research. These questions are:
16
How is the planning process organized?
Chronologically, is the planning process continuous, one-time, or periodical?
How is information used in this approach?
What is the position of the plan in the planning process?
How these aspects affect the use of information systems?
It is important here to ensure again that the following discussion of diverse approaches to spatial
planning is mainly aimed at illustrating the relation between the role and use of information in a
planning process on one hand, and the adopted theory or approach in this process on the other. This
discussion is directly related to the basic question behind this chapter that implies: if the use of
information in planning processes differ according to the adopted theory or approach, what are the
main issues that should be considered in the development and implementation of PIS that are valid
beyond these different theories.
2.2.1. The classical approach “the blueprint view of planning”
The classical approach to spatial planning emerged from architecture. It was concerned with the
ordering of land uses and buildings in towns aesthetically whilst considering public health. Keeble
(1969) defined town planning as “The art and science of ordering the use of land and the character and
sitting of buildings and communication routes so as to secure the maximum practicable degree of
economy, convenience and beauty”.
The planner in this approach is an individual (or a group of individuals) who has a vision of the future
for a specific area. He attempts to apply his societal judgment to make a better future of an area
regardless of the extent of this area or the society related to this area. This classical/traditional
approach to planning, as in architecture, rested upon the belief in the ability of a human designer to
produce a solution to a problem (Bracken 1981).
Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City 1898 Howard’s Social City – the full concept of the garden city
Fig. 2-2 An example of the classical approach to planning (Hall 1992)
17
The planning process in the classical approach could be described as a process where the planner
visualizes the future of an area by attempting to manipulate the physical environment, while assuming
that the society behavior will adopt or will be controlled by this manipulation. In doing this, at least
the planner or the designer has the confidence that the proposed solution may work, although he
cannot say specifically how the solution was obtained or why it may work.
This type of planning could be classified under the “black-box” approach to problem solving. By
definition, in black-box processes the input and the output of the process are visible while the
throughput is not visible. However, in this approach only the output of the design or the planning
process, namely the plan, is visible while the whole process is hidden. The planning process, i.e. the
plan production, is a one-time event. When the plan is produced, the planning is over.
From an organizational viewpoint, this process is centrally organized. An individual or a group of

individuals supported by others, just to assist him/them to achieve his/their goal, which is to produce
the plan. The major objective of this type of planning is producing plans that give a detailed picture of
a desired future. Hall (1992) described this approach as the production of blueprints for the future
desired state of an area. The centerpiece of the planning is the plan. In other words, the plan is the
planning and the planning is the plan. It could be then argued that this approach is plan-based.
The main information process in the classical approach is the plan communication. The planner
transfers his image of the future - the solution or the plan - to others who should carry it out. The plan
is then the main piece of information. Consequentially, the use of information systems in this approach
is mainly oriented to the plan production and visualization. Here the planner, supported normally by
others, produces his/their vision of the future in the form of plans. The main computer applications
that might be used are CAD programs and visualization programs.
2.2.2. The systematic view of planning
The systematic approach was an attempt to move away from the black-box classical approach that was
based, to a great extent, on the intuition and the private judgment of the designer or the planner. It was
evident that the problems in the urban context have become far more complex to be a matter of private
judgment for even the most experienced designer or planner (Jones 1970). This shift from the black
box to a more systematic and externalized process was initiated by the high cost of error and the
difficulty to correct it, especially in complex urban contexts. By using the systematic process it is
assumed that the planner’s ideas would be subject to criticism and discussion before expensive
mistakes are made (i.e. glass-box vs. black-box in the classical approach).
One of the thinkers of this approach is the Scot planner Sir Patrick Geddes (1854-1932) who has been
called the father of modern town planning. Geddes has formulated the systematic approach to urban
planning, in a compact notation known as 'survey - analysis - plan'. The systematic approach implies
18
the following: Survey the existing situation; analyze the survey to find out the remedial actions that
need to be taken; fix a plan that embodies these actions. Different detailed or enhanced versions of this
concept were introduced and used by making the planning process iterative and inclusion feedback-
loops or sub-processes. Nevertheless, the core of the process is more or less the three-phase-process
systematic approach. A detailed and enhanced version of the systematic approach to spatial planning,
that was adopted in many countries for a long time and till now, takes the following form (Fig. 2.3):
“First the planner made a survey, in which s/he collected all the relevant
information about the development of their city or region. Then s/he analyzed
these data, seeking to project them as far as possible into the future to
discover how the area was changing and developing. And thirdly, s/he
planned: that is. S/he made a plan which took into account the facts and
interpretations revealed in the survey and analysis, and which sought to
harness and control the trends according to principles of sound planning. The
period between plans should be defined. For example, every five years the
process should be repeated: the survey should be carried out again to check
for facts and developments, the analysis should be reworked to see how far
the projections needed modifying, and the plan should be updated
accordingly.” (Hall 1992)
Fig. 2-3 The planning process in the rational planning approach
The main principles in the systematic approach are the claim of comprehensiveness, the use of
scientific methods in alternative evaluation and the application of the so-called “instrumental
rationality”. Therefore, this approach is also called in the English literature “the rational approach”.
The subject of rationality will be discussed in a succeeding chapter. The claim of comprehensiveness
and rationality in this approach has influenced the use of information in this. It could be argued, that
this approach is information based. The following are the main information processes in this approach:
It starts by the acquisition of adequate body information. Since Geddes formulated the
principles of the systematic approach, many planners consider this step of dominant
significance. Furthermore, this step in many cases overshadows the planning process. This
issue will be discussed in more detail in a later section.
In attempting to make a decision about different potential solutions or courses of action,
planners must communicate their thoughts with different political, administrative and public
19
bodies. This step presents the main shift from the black box to the transparent-box approach.
To externalize their ideas, planners should communicate with others in a suitable form using
text, graphics, illustrations, etc. This step is an information-loaded process. It could include
political negotiations, impact assessment of the different solutions and public participation.
After making a decision about the preferable or the agreeable solution, a plan should be
produced to communicate the planning results for example to get permissions for the plan
activities, and for its implementation during the plan period.
Then there is the follow-up of the plan where information is collected about the course of the
implementation of the resulting impacts of the plan activities. Based on this follow up, a plan
review or a new plan will be produced within a specific period.
It is widely accepted among planners in this approach that the ability to make decisions depends,
amongst other things, on the availability of information (Devas & Rakodi 1993). In describing the
weight that is given for information in spatial planning from this viewpoint, Bracken (1990) argues
that information has been and always will be the corner stone of urban and regional planning. This
lead in many cases to the belief that, planning is synonymous, not only with preparation of strategy,
but also with the acquisition of an adequate base of information (Bracken 1981). In this conventional
view of planning where rationality - instrumental, functional or communicative- puts information
collection and scientific analysis at the core of planning, it is assumed that a direct relationship exits
between the information available and the quality of decisions based on this information.
In this conventional view, planners arrange information in response to questions from decision-makers
or to solve problems that decision-makers have identified. This information may include - but is not
limited to: surveys, analytical reports, quantitative measures, identification of alternative courses of
action and costs-benefits comparisons of these alternatives in terms of feasibility studies, predictions,
forecasts and calculations. In this view, it was assumed that the planners’ job is to produce such
analyses or select and interpret those done by others, and introduce them to decision-makers in a
reasonable form, adding nothing beyond a professional opinion about their values and implications.
Executives are then to use this information to decide which course of action should be followed. Then,
to implement the policy more formal information is used (Innes 1999).
Schönwandt (1999) argues that for the systematic approach to function, planners must have perfect
information about: the planning task, the solution alternatives and the consequences of these
alternatives. In addition, they should be able to process all this information. Maurer (1988) argues that
this approach to planning is based on the hypothesis that it is important, possible and reasonable to
cover all types of spatial activities during the so called “the plan-production-phase”. He then
concluded from the viewpoint of decision logic that, the often-used sequence of work in spatial
planning - surveying, problem description, alternatives and plans - is wrong. It is practically
impossible in complex situations to define the endless information about the real world, let alone
20
collecting it. This process should be based on a hypothesis about the purpose for collecting this
information i.e. for which decision situation are they important. There is no actor - neither an
individual nor an institution - who can claim at any moment the possession of a perfect knowledge
about the problem situation and the consequences of the actions to be taken.
Although the systematic approach has evolved and adopted the instrumental rationality as a principle,
the plan is still its centerpiece and its main tool as in the classical approach. Different types of plans
could be found in different countries, in different levels of planning, and in different era, e.g. master
plan, zoning plan, etc. Hudson (1979) argues that the rational approach was vulnerable to criticism that
its plans never reach the stage of implementation. They are written and filed away, except in rare cases
when immense new sources of funding became available to allow the planner to design programs from
scratch.
As mentioned earlier, the rational approach tended to use the so called “scientific-methods”, hence,
one of the main tasks for planning research, in this approach, was developing analytical methods and
the corresponding computer programs and models for supporting the planning process. This type of
research is found in different writings, e.g. Catanese 1972, Bracken 1981, Meise & Volwahsen 1980.
These methods covered a very wide span of application areas ranging from analyses of spatial
phenomenon to long-term projections. The application of information systems in this approach was
mainly aimed at serving the above-mentioned scientific methods in areas such as:
Data organization and manipulation: e.g. Geographic Information Systems;
Evaluation processes: e.g. benefit-cost analysis, operations research;
Forecasting: e.g. trend extrapolation, econometric modeling, and regression analysis
Probabilistic models: e.g. Monte Carlo methods, Markov chains, simulation programs and
Bayesian methods.
Judgmental approaches: e.g. Delphi technique, scenario writing, and cross-impact matrices.
The subject of information systems in spatial planning is discussed in more detail in chapter (5).
While this approach has got a lot of consensus for long time, it also has a lot of criticism. Maurer
(1988) argues that the rational approach has only functioned when the problem was not more than
simple land use restrictions. He argues that the widespread acceptance of this approach emerged from
the sequential proceeding, which made the planning process similar to project development. This type
of organization allows the usual hierarchies in organizations to be adopted. Hudson (1979) also argues
that this approach is well suited to the kind of mandate that has a set of constrained objectives and pre-
defined a budget meanwhile it ensures that no one is allowed to stray too far out of line from the
mainstream. The higher organizations in the hierarchy determine the priorities and the lower ones
should adapt to these situations.
21
2.2.3. The systems approach “the cybernetic view of planning”
Witnessing the emergence of computerization in all fields of human life, a remarkable thinker, Norbert
Wiener, had anticipated in 1950 in his book ‘The Human Use of Human Beings’ that the automation
would liberate the human race from the necessity to do mundane tasks. According to Wiener, human
beings have possessed extremely complex communication and control mechanisms for long times –
the sort of thing the computer was then replicating. Based on this notation, and others, a new science
called Cybernetics was born (Hall 1992). This science suggests that many social, economic, biological
or physical phenomena can be viewed as complex interacting systems. This ranges from a human cell
to a space ship or national economy. Different parts of these systems can be identified; the relations
and interactions can be analyzed. Using the suitable control mechanism the behavior of the system
could be monitored and controlled against a specific goal set by the controller.
Further developments in the field of cybernetics, enlightened by the rapid development in the field of
automation and complex control systems, have suggested that if human arrangements could be
regarded as a complex interrelating system, they could be paralleled by similar systems of control in
the computer, which could then be used to monitor development and apply appropriate adjustments.
Essential for this notion to work is the assumption that the controller should clearly understand the
characteristics of the elements of the systems and the interactions among them otherwise interfering in
a specific part of the system might result in unexpected or unwished effects in other parts of the same
system.
The systems view of planning is based on the notion that all sorts of planning comprise a distinct type
of human activities, concerned with controlling particular systems. According to this assumption, all
planning is considered a continuous process, which works by seeking to devise appropriate ways of
controlling the system concerned, and then monitoring the effects to see how far the controls have
been effective or how far they need subsequent modifications (Hall 1992).
Spatial planning in this approach would be understood as a continuous process of management and
control over a particular system, urban or regional. These systems are interpreted as complexes in
which interaction takes place between different social groups (individuals, households, social
organizations and businesses). In addition, these social groups interact with the natural environment
and with the man-made environment that include buildings for homes, workplaces, and other
purposes, means of travel and communication, and facilities and services like parks, schools, and fire
protection. These activities and interactions are governed and facilitated by customs, laws, private
regulations, agreements, public taxes and expenditures (Harris 1995). Planners are in a continuous
state of interaction with the systems they are dealing with. This process could be described as goals-
continuous-information-projection and simulation of alternative futures-evaluations-choices-
continuous monitoring. This approach concentrates on objectives of the process by developing
22
alternative policies for reaching the objectives of the system. After tracing the possible consequences
of these policies, they should be evaluated against the objectives in order to choose a preferred course
of action. This process would be continuously repeated as long as the monitoring process shows
discrepancy between the planner’s intentions and the actual state of the system (Hall 1992). Hence,
this approach to planning is based on three basic assumptions:
The physical environment and the human interaction with it could be described in the form of
systems;
Human behavior could be shaped or controlled by manipulating the physical environment
(Naess 1999);
Assuming that planners have a clear understanding of both the physical systems and the
human interaction with it, they would be able, aided by devices that seek to model or simulate
the process of development, of controlling these systems (Hall 1992).
All these three assumptions are subject to critical questions concerning their application in urban
planning.
To model a system there must be, to large extents, abstraction and simplification. Many
writers following this approach attempted to develop models of the urban system of different
levels and countries, e.g. Wilson 1974 and Rondinelli 1985. However, while attempting to
apply the systems-view to human societies, to ecological environment and to spatial
phenomena, the questions of what should be abstracted and what should be simplified rose. In
other words, what should be ignored?
Attempting to establish a system of spatial phenomena includes the hypothesis that the
relations in the spatial context are deterministic. Further, more it assumes that what happened
in the past should happen in the future if the same condition exists.
Regarding the controllable behavior assumption, is it applicable to ecological systems and
human societies? Even if it is applicable, who will decide what could/should be controlled and
what not?
In planning and design, planners face problems that have never existed before. How to model
something that has never existed before?
Regarding the use of information in this approach, the best analogy that represents the highest level of
automation, was the “manned space flight”. In an expedition to the moon most of the adjustment to the
spacecraft was made not by the astronauts but by an extraordinarily complex computer-control system
on earth. This system did not consciously ‘see’ the spacecraft in order to pilot it. The spacecraft sends
information to the control system electronically, and the system responds by feeding this information
into models, or artificial simulation, about the course of the spacecraft in relation to the movement of
the earth and the moon. The system should then process this information; calculate the correct controls
to be applied automatically and automatically apply them (Hall 1992).
23
If this concept would be applied to spatial planning, the planner would be in a continuous state of
information processing and production. Using a computer system, he receives information about the
current state of the course of development in the area under control. Then he compares this
information with the objectives, which had been defined for the future development of the area. He,
thus, evaluates alternative courses of action and selects an appropriate series of adjustments that
should be applied to put the region again on course. The alternatives as well as the adjustment actions
are information that should be communicated with other parts of the system, human or automated, in
order to accomplish the needed adjustment. Such systems could be described as “control support
systems” (n-dim Group, 1998). Because of the concentration on achieving the objectives of the plan,
the alternative courses of control and taking action to reach these objectives, the plan - in the form of
detailed maps - was replaced by written reports.
Fig. 2-4 The planning process in the systems planning approach

(modified after George Chadwick in Hall 1992)
Application of information systems in this approach is described as follows “Against the background
the planner develops an information system which is continuously updated as the region develops or
changes. It will be used to produce various alternative projections, or simulations, of the state of the
region at various futures dates, assuming the application of various policies. Then the alternatives are
compared or evaluated against yardsticks derived from the goals and objectives, to produce a
recommended system of policy controls which in turn will be modified as the objectives are re-
examined and the information system produces evidence of new developments.” (Hall 1992).
Attempting to implement the concept of artificial intelligence to spatial planning in the form of expert
system is based on capturing the experts’ knowledge and organizing it into a set of rules in the form of
[IF X is the case, then carry out Y actions]. This type of systems in spatial planning was confronted
with several difficulties. Attempting to convert planning related knowledge to rules that could be
applied to different planning contexts, or even in the same context under different circumstances, is an
illusion as a result of the complexity and interconnectivity of spatial planning as well as its political
and social dimensions. In addition, the majority of urban planning functions cannot be standardized.
To a large extent, they are concerned with decision-making that is based on the virtues of the planning
situation or the problem. It is then apparent that such a situation is opposite to the situation in a
24
production line or in a spaceship. Based on empirical experiences in the field of expert systems in
spatial planning, Laurini (2001) mentioned that: “much has been done in this direction, but neither
totally relevant nor effective approaches appear to exist at this moment.” Furthermore, applications of
expert systems to spatial problem solving were limited to issues such as site selection, traffic control
or the resolution of environmental disputes. However, such researches that have attempted to find out
rules for master plan design, Laurini mentioned, have all stopped after few months due to the
impossibility of describing the rules of planning in verbal form and due to the difficulty to formulate
them as expert system rules. Van Helden (1994) also argues in the same context that spatial planning
functions are based more on information supply and analysis systems than on automation and control
systems.
2.2.4. Planning as a problem-solving process in a network of actors
The general function of spatial planning is suggesting of spatial structures for the living environment
of humans that is ought to be better than the existing one. However, facing the limited resources, and
the conflicting interests among the various concerned actors, the realization of spatial development
requires overcoming a series of problems and conflicts. A major part of the planners’ task is to solve
these problems or to find a resolution for conflicts. Hence the planning process includes the following
functions: exploring the solutions spectrum of spatial problems, coordination of the spatial activities
that have spatial impacts and preparing the actions that are needed to achieve this structure through the
time. These functions are aimed at supporting the main task that implies preparing strategies about the
spatial development.
To achieve this goal, the planning process is understood as a cooperative process in a network of
organizations and actors who have activities with spatial impacts (Scholl 1995). In this process,
planners are confronted with imperfect and uncertain objective and subjective information (Maurer
1995). This process should be organized in a way that considers the characteristics of the planning
task, the concerned actors and the nature of planning information.
To achieve the goals of spatial planning, the planning process should operate on both the strategic
level as well as the operative level. By operating on both of these two levels simultaneously, it
attempts to avoid operating on a very abstract level or being lost in a detailed issues leading to
fragmented actions without a strategy. Therefore, this process started by preparing an overview about
the various activities and decisions that have spatial impacts, to determine the conflicts among these
activities. This overview should be common for different actors in the region and it should be updated
systematically.
Throughout the problem solving process, planners should consider stepwise proceeding in more than
one cycle after each step; they should critically analyze the results of the earlier steps. Stepwise
25
proceeding is important in dealing with spatial problems, in order to find out if the process, so far, is
leading to a solution to the problem. Is the case clear enough to make a decision or is there still a need
for clarification? Where is more clarification needed? Where is detailed investigation needed? Which
options should be followed and which not? This process is called “self-reflection” (Dörner & Tisdale
1993). Self-reflection is important to correct the path of the problem-solving process in order to adapt
it to the changing circumstances, adjust it to the new generated knowledge during earlier steps, and
examine potential consequences of decisions and actions exemplary on test projects of detailed levels.
From this point of view, there is a basic shift in approaching planning. Here the planner is not the
creative artist as in the classical approach; he is not the scientist and the wise man as in the rational
approach, and he is not the technician as in the systems approach. He is, to some extent, all of these at
the same time. Nevertheless, mainly the planner is a human being with all the limitations of the human
mind. Hence, this approach gives special emphasis to the development of the planning methodology in
an attempt to systemize the planning process itself and to overcome the vulnerability of the existing
regular planning structures. Then, in this approach, planning is a process of interaction between the
planners with his creativity, limitations and characteristics on one hand and the planning situation with
its complexity, goals, dynamics, interconnections and interactions on the other hand.
The final plan will not be more than an overview of guidelines, and the detailed decision will be
corrected constantly according to the developments (Maurer 1995). During the process, there are
different plans such as test plans that examine different solution alternatives regarding the larger scale
of planning as well as detailed scale where this presents a chance to examine the applicability of the
proposed solution.
Regarding the application of information systems in the action planning, main emphasis is given to
developing the tools that support establishing and preserving the spatial overview of ongoing or the
planned spatial activities. This overview should be made available for different participating actors in
the planning scene to reach a common understanding about the planning context. Common
understanding does not mean that all actors must have the same viewpoint but at least they should
have the access to the same background. Another application of information systems is concerned with
organization and coordination of the planning process itself and the organization of the
communication process among the participating actors.
The viewpoint of “planning as a process of problem solving in a network of actors” represents a

starting point for exploring the characteristics of: spatial problems, spatial planning processes and
planning information as a starting point for defining the theoretical bases for the development and
implementation of PIS.
26
2.2.5. Comparison
Planning approach
Issue
The classical The systematic The cybernetic The problem solving
Planning process Production of plans that give a detailed Survey - analysis - plan - A continuous state of controls over A continuous process of interaction
picture of the desired future of an area. implementation - follow-up development of an area between the planner and the planning
situation in a net of organizations and
actors.
One-time event. Periodical process Continuous control process Rhythmic process
Information To visualize and communicate the plan. Acquisition of an adequate body of A continuous information processing Planning information is imperfect.
information. and production Information is organized in an overview.
Analysis and projection. Information is collected regarding the
Plan visualization. solution direction and its consequences.
Information systems Plan production and visualization. Data organization and manipulation, Controls, simulation and control systems Overview building, Process
evaluation, analysis, forecasting organization, communication and
coordination tools
The plan Planning is plan production. Planning is not a plan production but the Written objectives and guidelines The plan is an overview of action
plan is its centerpiece. guidelines
27
2.3. Characteristics of spatial problems
From the preceding section, it is clear that in each approach to planning, the role and the use of
information is different. It is argued here that the theoretical framework for the development of PIS
should consider the main characteristics of planning problems, planning processes and planning
information.
In the following section different aspects of spatial problems are discussed that affect the
characteristics of planning problems and how these aspects should be considered in PIS. The
following aspects will be explored: interconnectivities in the spatial context, the problem-space and
the solution-space and the time dimension in spatial problems. After that, different characteristics of
planning processes will be discussed. Then, characteristics of planning information that result from the
aforementioned characteristics of planning problems, planning process and the human use of
information will be discussed. All these aspects should be considered in setting the conceptual and
technical bases for the development and implementation of PIS.
2.3.1. Interconnectivities in the spatial context
Spatial planning as a process is aimed at solving spatial problems that lie within the context of a
multidimensional interconnectivity such as: spatial, technical, political, administrative, legal and
public interconnections. Differentiation of these dimensions of interconnectivity is essential for the
development of planning information systems. This importance emerges from the different legal and
formal frameworks among which these interconnectivities exist. These formal and legal frameworks
influence the information that should be included, the participating actors and the goal of the system.
These aspects influence, and in some cases govern, different aspects of the needed system. In this
section, three types will be discussed i.e. inter-level, interdisciplinary and inter-regional
interconnectivities.
For demonstrating these interconnectivities, a case study of the New Transalpine Railway project
NEAT (Neue Eisenbahn-Alptransversale) on Switzerland will be used.
a. Inter-level interconnectivity
The first dimension of interconnectivity in spatial planning emerges from the relation between
planning on a particular level and other planning levels. This covers both the higher levels of planning
such as: federal/national and international and the lower levels such as: local, city and urban planning.
This component could be called “inter-level” dimension.
28
Demonstration: Although NEAT is considered a Federal (national) project; it presents an important
component on the European level. It presents an important component of a larger European railway
network especially in the north-south axe from Rotterdam to Milan through the Alps and through
different European countries within the European Union as well as other counties outside.
Fig. 2-5 Interconnectivity among planning levels (explanation in text)
On the lower levels, different components of the project are realized on the regional level leading to
questions of allocation, i.e. where to allocate this development. Which region will get the benefits in
the form of better connectivity, more attractiveness for economic investments, and which region will
be disadvantaged by this development in the form of consumption of land, increase of noise and
inconvenience through the realization of the infrastructure? In many cases, the impacts of national and
regional activities affect towns and cities on the local level. For instance, if the railway line goes near
the settlement agglomeration, it will be then essential on the local level to investigate if the line should
go through the settlement or should bypass it, or should it be tunneled.
b. Interdisciplinary / inter-actor / inter-sectoral
The second dimension covers the relation between different actors in a specific region, who act,
participate, affect or might be affected by the development process. These actors may be classified, but
are not limited to political institutions, decision-makers, planning agencies, finance institutions, public
management authorities, public and private investors, the residents and different interest groups. The
complexity of this dimension could be further elaborated by concentrating only on one of the above-
mentioned classes of actors, namely planning agencies. Planning agencies may cover different sectors
of spatial planning such as housing, infrastructure, transportation, networks, agriculture, etc.
Moreover, planners from sectors such as socio-economic and environment planning. Each of these
actors has individual interests, tasks, privileges, and capacities. The importance of this dimension
emerges from the fact that each of these actors/agencies has different sector-specific policies which
have spatial impacts that are impossible to be limited to the planned sector. These impacts extend
29
directly and indirectly beyond the planned sector. This dimension could be called “inter-actor”,
interdisciplinary” or “inter-sectoral” dimension.
Demonstration: An example of this inter-sectoral interconnectivity could be clearly demonstrated in

the impact of infrastructure development on the settlement development, taking again the above-
mentioned infrastructure development as an example. If the existing network were modified to create a
bypass around the city to get rid of the expected extra traffic outside the settlement area, this would
have a direct impact on the settlement structure. Existing rail areas and stations will not be needed any
more inside the settlement opening new perspectives for the urban development of the area.
Meanwhile, the areas around the settlement will be underprivileged by the barrier effect from the
infrastructure line and the resulting noise. All these aspects should be coordinated so as to maximize
the benefits for the whole settlement and minimize the disadvantages.
Then, it could be concluded that the importance of this dimension results from its direct relation with
the success of the development activities both on the level of the spatial cohesion of the entire region
and on the socio-economic level in the form of maximizing the positive outcomes of the development
process and minimizing the negative impacts.
c. Inter-regional interconnectivities
The third dimension of interconnectivity in spatial planning could result from two aspects. First, the
spatial impacts of spatial activities that are considered region-specific while their impacts go far
beyond the borders of the region to affect other regions or vice-versa. Second, it could also result from
spatial activities that extend across the border of more than one region. This component could be
called “inter-regional” dimension.
Fig. 2-6 Inter-regional dimension of interconnectivity in planning (explanation in text)
Demonstration: This dimension could be illustrated clearly using an example of a region where a dam
will be built on a river. This dam project should be coordinated with the region downstream, as it will
affect its water resources and it should be coordinated with the region upstream where the water table
may increase. In the railway example, the same line could be located in different alternative paths. For
Canton ‘A’ alternative ‘1’ brings the maximum benefits, meanwhile this alternative brings negative
30
impacts for Canton ‘B’. Alternative ‘2’ that minimizes these negative impacts for region ‘B’ requires
very high cost and technical complications for region ‘A’.
Conclusion
Interconnectivity in spatial planning is not limited to the above-mentioned spatial dimensions. Spatial
activities are interconnected with political, social, ecological, and economic exogenous factors. These
exogenous factors influence the results of the planning directly. These variables could not normally be
controlled by the planning activities but they can by affected by them.
Fig. 2-7 Dimensions of interconnectivity on the regional level
It is important to mention that, not all the above-mentioned dimensions of interconnectivity exit in
every planning situation in the same pattern or degree. The degree of interconnectivity in a planning
situation is related to the number of dependent and interacting aspects that should be considered in this
situation. It is also related to the interconnectivity between the elements or components of the planning
context. However, it is not related to the number of aspects or components as far as they are
independent. It is likely, that more unexpected side effects and long-term effects of a plan might be
overlooked in situations with higher degree of interconnectivity. The degree of interconnectivity is
subjective and situation specific. It could not be measured in a specific unit (Dörner 1989). Contrary to
the interconnectivity, the scale of a planning situation is related to the number of the affected sides by
the planning activities and their consequences.
Because of interconnectivity in complex planning situations, it is also, to a large extent, not

transparent. In some cases, this opaqueness results in the form of overlooking important aspects or
important interconnections. In some cases, it results in the inability to get the actual state about the
subject matter of planning.
31
2.3.2. The problem-space and the solution-space
The problem-space in a spatial planning process is the field of the reality that planners or decision
makers define as the area that should be observed to understand the problem. The problem-space of a
problem is not only limited to the physical spatial context, but also includes the time dimension. The
time dimension in the problem-space extends in two directions. In the first direction, it extends in the
past to the limit to which the problem is observed. In the other direction, it extends in the future to the
extent to which extrapolations is needed. The time dimension is discussed in a following chapter. In
addition, the problem-space includes different political, economic and social aspects.
The definition of the problem-space is subject to the individual or the group decision of the
participating actors. In many cases, the problem-space is governed by the time, capacity and resources
available for exploring the problem. If a very wide field is defined as the problem-space, this might
result in losing the overview of what is really important or relevant. In this case, the process is
overloaded with irrelevant information and too many aspects. On the contrary, if the problem-space is
defined very narrowly, it might lead to ignoring important issues that might affect the results of the
planning or important relations. Consequently, this might lead to wrong identification of the problem
or wrong identification of the solution direction.
The problem-space should not be static throughout the planning process. It could be extended or
reduced according to the results of the problem exploration and the decision-making. Meanwhile it
could be specialized in specific areas where more information is needed. To minimize the danger of
ignoring something important or for using too much irrelevant information, the problem should be
observed on different levels of observations with different levels of abstractions.
Although in many cases the problem-space is considered the same as the solution-space, it is proved in
many cases that the solution of a problem could be found or at least could be optimized by widening
the solution-space of the problem. The solution-space is not limited to the physical spatial context; its
boundaries are limited by the limits of all possible fields of action that might lead to solving the
problem. In addition, it should include different areas that might be affected by the proposed solution
directly or indirectly. In other words, its boundaries are the possible fields of action and the expected
fields of consequences. Defining the limits of this space is also subject to the afore-mentioned criteria
in defining the problem-space
An example of a solution-space that opens new options for solving the problem beyond the problem
space could be found in the case of Südbahn that will be discussed in more detail later (section 6.1).
This case deals with the railway line connecting Vienna with the southern parts of Austria. One of the
modules of this line has an option going across the border between Austria and Hungary and moving
inside the Hungarian territories to enter the Austrian territory again (Fig. 2.8). If the solution-space
was limited to the same limits as the problem-space, such an option could not be discussed. Extending
32
the solution-space beyond the problem-space is not limited to the spatial dimension; it might include
different political, legal, economic and administrative dimensions. Meanwhile in many cases, these
aspects represent the limitations of the solution-space leading to excluding different options.
Fig. 2-8 an Example of the solution-space that goes beyond the problem-space (explanation in text)
The second important aspect about the solution-space might be observed on the long-term-effects and
the side effects of the solution. In many cases, aspects or areas that are not affected by the problem
itself might be affected by the proposed solution. Limiting the solution-space to the problem space,
might lead to overlooking the unwished consequences on other aspects or areas that are not directly
included in the problem-space.
Dörner (1989) made a metaphor that illustrates interconnectivity and the boundary of the problem-
space and the solution-space. He compared it with a chess game where the player should play with
dozens of pieces that are connected together with rubber threads. When he moves one piece, different
pieces would move together. Furthermore, some of his pieces and those of his opponent are in fog;
consequently, it is difficult to observe them precisely. In addition, other pieces, not only his own but
also those of his opponent, are moving according to specific rules that he does not precisely know or
just has an incomplete or wrong idea about.
For this complexity, Rittel (1982) describes such a planning problem as a “wicked” problem. A
wicked problem is defined as a problem that cannot be definitively described. Hendriks and Vriens
(1995) argue that getting a sufficient understanding of both the problem-space and the associated
solution-space in such a context suffers from 'technical complexity' and 'social context' of problems.
Technical complexity results from the ambiguity in the following aspects. Which criteria are relevant?
How these are to be combined? Which actions are reasonable? What may be their results? On the other
hand, the social contexts of problems add further confusion to the situation that results from the
existence of different or conflicting goals. Such situations are usually associated with the existence of
different parties, with different interests, different positions with varying degrees of power within the
33
decision making process and different access to information sources. For PIS to deal with this subject,
it should support representing the problem in different levels of abstraction and contexts.
2.3.3. The time dimension in spatial planning
The Latin word “spatium” which means “spatial” also means “time” as it was mentioned earlier.
Several aspects regarding time in spatial planning could be identified as following:
Planning is future-oriented. We live and plan in a four-dimensional space, namely the three
dimensional Euclidian space and the fourth dimension is the time. The main task of spatial
planning is to define where an activity should be allocated as well as when it should be
conducted, either absolutely or relatively to other activities. In addition, planning objectives
are always aimed at something that should happen or should not happen in the future. This
presents a critical dimension of planning processes regarding the time-lag between defining
the problem, developing a solution, making decision, and the realization of the plan activities.
Furthermore, the results and impacts of these activities could only be accomplished on the
long-term. Consequently, their impacts, positive or negative, could only be determined on the
long-term.
Spatial problems are dynamic. The interconnected aspects and the variables of the system are
not statistic; they are changing. The situation as a whole could not be considered as passive. It
is active and it has its own dynamics. This dynamic nature of complex planning situation
creates time pressure. The circumstances are changing as we are planning.
The status quo view of the problem situation is not enough to create an overview about the
situation. The trend of change in the past is also important. For example if a specific person
has 100 Euro today, it will be a different situation to know that he had 200 yesterday and the
day before 300, or that he had yesterday only 50 and the day before nothing. However, only
looking to the past and making extrapolations for the future is dangerous and mostly wrong
(Dörner 1989). It is the same as driving a car looking only in the mirror.
Fig. 2-9 Time as a dimension in observation
The exogenous variables that affect the planning context may be changing. Goals and
objectives in a specific planning situation may vary over time, as may our understanding of
alternative solutions, thereby causing a shift in the subject-matter of planning and its
resolution (Hendriks & Vriens, 1995). Furthermore, the positions of participant actors may
also be changing.
34
In such a dynamic context, planning information could not be collected only at the beginning
of the process, but planners should keep in touch with the subject matter of planning. PIS should
consider this aspect by allowing the updating of the information as it changes. In addition, it
should facilitate representing the problem on the time line in a context with other activities that are
taking place in the region.
2.4. Characteristics of spatial planning processes
In complex situations as in spatial problems with the described-above characteristics, the knowledge
and expertise needed to solve the problem are not available for one person. It is usually distributed
over many persons and organizations (Rittel 1982). In such a situation, planners are not experts in the
subject matter of the problem but they are experts in guiding the problem-solving process. The
planning processes in complex planning situations have, among others, the following characteristics:
The number of actors that might take part in a complex planning process is large. Scholl
(1995) argues that this number ranges from 30 to 50 actors. Furthermore, these actors have
differentiated roles and they are spread in various public and private agencies. They are from
variety of disciplines and have different backgrounds. In many cases, they have different and
in some cases conflicting objectives.
As mentioned above, the knowledge needed to solve the problem is distributed over many
actors. Some of these actors are participating in the process and some are not participating.
This distributed knowledge should be shared and communicated among the concerned parties.
Rittel (1982) argues that the expertise and ignorance in such a process are distributed over all
participants. He argues that there is symmetry of ignorance among those who participate
because nobody knows better by virtue of his degree or his status. The need to connect these
knowledge and expertise aims at maximizing the knowledge and minimizing the ignorance.
It was proved that specific social characteristics govern the behavior of human groups in
cooperation and interaction where different interests and backgrounds are dominating (Badke-
Schaub 1993). It could then be argued that the limitation of a planning organization or a group
is the accumulation of its members’ limitations plus the limitations of the group as a whole.
Hence, exploration and attempting to solve a planning problem in such a context set specific
requirements on the organization of the planning process itself. Such a situation requires the stepwise
procedure to minimize the risk of errors although it is not likely to ensure that error will be avoided. In
the following sections, these aspects will be discussed, aiming at defining how they might affect the
development of PIS and how they should be considered in this development.
35
2.4.1. Planning process from organizational viewpoint
In complex planning situations, there is no possibility to make the planning process as a routine. In
each situation, there are different circumstances that should be regarded. Different courses of actions
could be taken in different situations. In addition, the consequences of these decisions are uncertain. In
other words, there is no algorithm to solve such problems. Where using algorithm is not possible,
problem solving is left to human planners as individuals and mostly as groups.
Bearing in mind that even where routines were set, tested and used; where the most educated and
trained scientists were involved; where the highest complicated methods were applied; where the most
advanced technology were used, it is evident from many experiences that while human planners,
designers and decision-makers were the source of creativity and evolutions, they were also the sources
of fatal mistakes that resulted in catastrophes e.g. Challenger, Kursk, Chernobyl, Titanic, Colombia,
etc.
However, there is a tendency in public and large organizations to attempt to create operative structures
that meets the needs of the tasks in this organization in an efficient manner where rules and routines
are established and enhanced and their implementation is differentiated and specialized. However, the
detailed the administrative processes are determined and prescribed, the higher the danger of
bureaucracy and the less the margin to adapt to the changing circumstances. In such cases, fulfilling
the routines and the prescribed procedures become a purpose in itself. The main aim would be to
follow up the formal procedures and not to solve the problem. It is then evident that, planning task
should be differentiated according to the nature and characteristics of the planning problem. Planning
as a general activity includes three types of tasks: routines, projects, and concentration tasks (Scholl
1995).
Regarding the specific characteristics of each of these types, the needed organization of the planning
process to deal with them should be defined. Then to determine which tools and processes are suitable
for each situation taking in consideration the characteristics of the human planners, human groups and
planning situations.
Fig. 2-10 Typology of tasks (Scholl 1995)
36
If the same methods and processes are used for all types of planning problems and if the exiting
strategies and procedures are converted to stereotypes that are applied in all situations, this will result
in the what so called ‘Methodism’, i.e. using well known tools and methods for all problems, without
examining if they are suitable for the actual problem and the circumstances, or if they will lead to the
defined goal? (Maurer 1993b). In addition, there is also another tendency that is ‘Formalism’. It results
from concentration on fulfilling formal requirements of laws, rules and regulations, while solving the
main problem falls to the background. To overcome the danger of Methodism and Formalism, a
planning process starts by setting a general strategy about solving the problem and the goal of the
planning process. Then, planning process should be organized in a suitable way for the current
problem situation and not just using the same methods and processes to solve all problems. This
extends the possibilities beyond the formal planning processes. Some types of problems need planning
process that are not limited to the formal ones it requires more innovative processes to solve complex
problems and conflicts that are related to a variety of actors and organizations e.g. ad-hoc
organizations that attempt.
The used planning information system in each type of the tasks described above should be
corresponding to the organization of the process. Meanwhile it should be corresponding to the
organizational structure. It should also support connecting the participating actors, facilitating
information processing and communication according the process organization.
2.4.2. Objectives and goals in spatial planning
As mentioned earlier, there is no planning without an objective or more. Any spatial planning situation
should also have an objective or more. By having objectives, spatial planning is normative in nature, it
has a view to things that ‘ought-to-be’ something different other than the actual state – the ‘is-state’.
This normative view of spatial planning differentiates spatial planning from other spatial sciences that
have only a positive view to the space. Such sciences describe only the ‘is-state’ without attempting to
influence it. Objectives in spatial planning have the following characteristics:
The general objective of spatial planning is mostly related to providing a spatial structure of
activities that is assumed better than the existing pattern or better than the pattern that might
exist without planning.
In different planning situations, different objectives are stated. Objectives in spatial planning
range from allocation of activities, facilities or infrastructures and optimizing the relation
between these elements in space on one hand and assessing the spatial impact of different
policies on the other hand. Maurer (1988) extends the objectives of spatial planning to explore
potentials and conflicts of space. Several variations, subclasses and synonyms of this general
objective could be found.
37
Most of these objectives are human-centered. They aimed either at facilitating a human need
or at changing a human behavior.
Goals and objectives of planning could be stated at various levels of abstraction. In some
cases, objectives are stated in a very abstract level, e.g. making a city livable. On the contrary,
it could be stated in a very concrete level e.g. planning a residential area for a specific number
of inhabitants. Objectives in spatial planning might have a large scale, e.g. making a city
competitive on the international level to attract more investments. In such a case, objectives
should be divided into sub-objectives that are possible to be planned.
The objective of spatial planning is not only to describe the end-state or the wished-state. It
should search for ways to overcome the difference between these two states. It is not enough
for spatial planning to propose wished future without providing ways to reach it.
Most of spatial planning activities have various and sometimes contradicting objectives. In the
afore-mentioned railway example where multiple objectives exist, different pairs of
contradicting objectives could be identified. For example while decreasing the travel-time was
a prime objective for the whole system, adding more stops was considered an important
objective for other actors on the regional level, so as to increase the accessibility for many
inhabitants as possible. Another contradicting pair of objectives is increasing the capacity of
the railway line to maximize the number of running trains per day while keeping the noise on
an acceptable level. A third pair is the removal of the railway path to bypass the agglomeration
area meanwhile avoiding devastating the landscape. In such cases where multi-objectives
exist, the complexity of the planning situation increases as a result of the competitive
existence of more than one problem-space and more than one solution-space simultaneously
(Hendriks & Vriens 1995). To overcome this contradiction among objectives it might be
essential to change the sub-objectives, to define a balance or to set priorities (von der Weth &
Strohschneider 1993)
Another important aspect regarding the objectives in spatial planning tasks is the relation
between the scale and the complexity of the task. Hall (1992) argues that, there is neither
negative nor positive essential correlation between the scale and the expense of a planning
program on one hand, and the complexity of the objectives behind on the other hand. For
example the American moon-shot program, one of the costliest investments in the history of
mankind, had a fairly obvious single main objective
2.4.3. Planning and the plan-making
The importance of discussing this issue emerges from its consequences for PIS. If planning is the plan
making, then a planning information system should be mainly aimed at supporting the plan making
process and all the tasks related to it. On the contrary, if planning is not only the plan making, then the
38
plan will not be the core of the planning information system. Other information activities should be
considered.
There are three main views regarding the relation between planning and the plan.
There is the blue print approach where planning is the plan making (e.g. Geddes).
Contrary to this, another position assumes that planning does not essentially need the plan. In
this context, it is argued that the goal of planning is to achieve the desired effects and not to
produce plans. There is good planning without a plan. This position is not limited to spatial
planning, e.g. the famous U.S. general Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890–1969) said, “In preparing
for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”
Between these two positions there is a third position, which agrees that planning is not a plan
making process, but it needs the plan. Supporting this position, Hall (1992) argues that it is
impossible to think of spatial planning without some spatial representations. In this position, a
“plan” could be a very precise and detailed map, or a very general diagram.
Regarding the intensity and the level of details in preparing any plan, two extreme situations might
arise, namely “over-planning” and “under-planning”. Over-planning occurs when the plan is prepared
to a very detailed level. Although each eventuality would be considered in this case, the real action
could be delayed or hindered as a result of an unexpected factor. On the contrary, “under-planning”
occurs when actions are not connected to each other and the proceeding is without strategy. There is
no clear thread between different planning subjects. All actions are reactive and no single subject is
brought to an end. (von der Weth & Strohschneider 1993)
2.5. Characteristics of planning information
2.5.1. A definition of planning information
Planning information in general could be defined as any information needed, processed or produced
during a planning process. In applying the definition of information in the sense discussed in chapter
(1), it is important to study “planning information” considering the twofold definition of “information”
as a message and as a process. In the first fold, planning information are messages concerning the
planning problem or the context of the planning process that deals with this problem and changes the
recipient's knowledge and/or uncertainty; these messages could be from any source. In the second fold,
the planning process is defined as the processing and the production of information about a specific
planning problem or for the context of this problem. This covers all the messages that would be
processed or produced throughout the planning process. In this context, Rittel (1982) argues that
planning could be understood as a process in which the problem relevant information could be
produced and processed.
39
2.5.2. Main features of planning information in complex planning situations
Facing complex problems or conflicts, planners and decision makers have only an imperfect
knowledge about the subject they are dealing with. Imperfection is a result of incompleteness and
uncertainty of this knowledge. At the beginning of a problem solving situation planners have only a
partial knowledge about the subject. Meanwhile, the certainty of large parts of the information and the
knowledge, which they have, is not entirely guaranteed. Incompleteness and uncertainty of planning
information could be attributed to different reasons. The following are some of these reasons:
Information about the world is partial and uncertain,

Planning information is originated from different sources in different forms and languages,
The accuracy of this information is limited,
Information is not static it is changing,
The knowledge about the available information is also partial.
On the first level of observation, planners have partial and uncertain knowledge about different
aspects of the world such as; a) the knowledge about the existence of objects and the occurrence of
events in the world, b) the knowledge about the relationships among these objects and events, and c)
the knowledge about the rules that govern the behavior and interaction of these objects and events
The second source of imperfection and uncertainty in planning information emerges from the variety
of languages that are used in preparing and communicating this information. This variety of languages
is a result of the multi-disciplinary nature of spatial planning. This aspect will be discussed in more
detail in a following section.
The third reason is attributed to the unavoidable loss of details by abstraction of information, which
results from the simplification and generalization that are essential in coordinative activities. This
leads to limited accuracy in the objective knowledge and more limited accuracy in the subjective
knowledge about a planning situation (Maurer 1988). In this case, the creditability of this information
is questionable.
The fourth reason is related to the fact that the world is not static. As planners attempt to understand
real life problems, the nature and the characteristics of the problem, the "real issue," continues to
change. Consequently, the precision of planning information decreases quickly. Meanwhile, the
knowledge about the problem or the subject of planning or design evolves by attempting to solve the
problem or to work out the subject. This evolution continues as long as the project or the process does
(Conklin & Weil 2000). Hence, planning information is temporarily up-to-date. Its half-live period
ranges from 6 to 12 months (Maurer 1988).
40
On a different level of observation, what we know about our knowledge and ignorance is less than
what we do not know. Although people usually think that they know what they know and what they do
not know, there is a larger part of ignorance about what they do not know (Fig. 2.11).
Fig. 2-11 Knowledge about knowledge in complex planning situations (Scholl 1995)
2.5.3. The planners’ use of planning information
Facing these characteristics of planning information, planners have regarded the acquiring of a
sufficient body of data, properly transformed into relevant information as of major significance since
Geddes first formulated the systematic approach to urban planning, 'survey - analysis - plan'. This lead
to the popular misconception that: solving planning problems can be achieved in some way by the
mere accumulation of factual information. However, attempting to collect information without any
hypothesis about the purpose of this information or the solution direction for the problem leads to
observing information collection as a goal in itself. Bernstein (1996) described this tendency as
follows “The information you have is not the information you want. The information you want is not
the information you need. The information you need is not the information you can obtain. The
information you can obtain costs more than what you can pay” (in Bracken 1981). Consequently,
collecting and processing information have become major time-consuming tasks in many planning
situations that in many cases overwhelm the planning task itself. In many cases this tendency is
governed by the rule “You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough.” as
the English poet William Blake (1757-1827) once said.
The collaborative nature of spatial planning opens the possibility to use accumulative knowledge of all
the members of the group for a better understanding of the initial state of the problem. However, as the
amount of accumulative information of the group increases, the transparency of this knowledge
decreases. Furthermore, as a result of the volume, the diversity and the actuality of the information
that is communicated, collected, channeled and distributed among actors in a spatial planning process
immense resources are devoted to these information processes.
41
Bearing in mind that planning information is neither perfect nor comprehensive, the amount of
collected information does not essentially mean better understanding of the subject of planning or a
better chance for a better solution of the problem. Using large amounts of knowledge and information
that have built-in levels of imperfection and uncertainty results in the so called “information
indigestion” and sometimes “information poisoning” (Rouse 1992). It is important then in any
planning situation not to equate "more" information with "effective" information (Bracken 1990). It is
evident in many cases, that failure in planning is not the result of the lack of knowledge, capacity or
advanced methods but it results from what Maurer (1993a) called “elementary ignorance”. Elementary
ignorance happens when planners and decision-makers overlook basic and essential issues, for
example, when they accept the received information without evaluating its creditability by comparing
it with information from other sources. This applies specially to information that results from complex
analytical models, which have different integrated levels of imperfection, and forget using basic
common sense to review and criticize these results.
Nevertheless, planners and decision makers usually argue that the tendency to collect additional
information is aimed at enlightening the dialogue so that all of the parties in a debate will reach a
better solution of the problem or a better resolution of the conflict (Gottsegen 1995). However,
planning in general as well as in complex situations, as a human cognitive activity, is governed by
physiological factors of the human mind: in thinking, processing information, problem solving and
decision-making. Based on analyzing the human capacity and behavior in problem solving situations,
both in experimental form as well as in real situations, these limitations are empirically documented in
different writings*. Based on several experiments, Schönwandt (1999) raises an argument against the
argument of “more information for better solution”. His argument implies that the tendency for
collecting more information is characterized by an addiction to search for the information that supports
the adopted hypothesis and to ignore the information that contradicts with this hypothesis.
Consequently, searching for further information would be earlier stopped if the wished results are
achieved. He also argues that the evolving knowledge in a problem situation does not essentially lead
to a better decision, as decision-makers attempt to support their earlier positions, which they have
formulated under information deficiency regardless of the evolving knowledge. In these experiments,
unwished information has been totally ignored, disregarded in an early stage or has been devaluate.
From a different point of view, information plays an indirect role in planning by becoming embedded
in the thoughts, assumptions beliefs and values of decision-makers, planners as well as community
members, thereby influencing their problem definitions and hence their actions. Innes (1999) argues
that instead of saying that decision-makers and planners consciously use information to make a choice,
it is more accurate to say that their information frames limit the available choices.
*
e.g. Miller 1956, Schönwandt 1986, Dörner 1989, Strohschneider & von der Weth 1993, Tenner 1996 and Hussy 1998.
42
2.5.4. Rationality and planning information
For the development and implementation of PIS, the characteristics of planning information and the
planner’s use of information in complex planning situation should be considered. While it is irrational
to ignore them entirely, attempting to eliminate them is unreasonable. The rationality of spatial
planning is based on how this imperfect and partial information is handled (Maurer 1988). Hence,
aspects such as the perfection, certainty, precision and creditability of planning information should be
dealt with.
a. Facing the imperfection of information in spatial planning, it is not reasonable or possible, in

any problem-solving situation, to aim at getting a perfect knowledge about the situation before
attempting to solve it. However, it is important not to forget or to overlook an essential issue.
Hence, important and relevant information for the problem exploration and the problem
solving should be organized in a way that facilitates getting an overview about the situation
for the concerned actors.
b. Further information should be collected or generated, based on hypothesis about the needed
clarification of the problem situation or about the alternative course of action for solving the
problem. During the planning process, information is produced in the form of explanatory
documents or solution proposals. By exploring this information, further information would be
collected where more clarification is required or where the circumstances or consequences in
respect to a specific alternative should be examined. Taking in consideration the limited time
and resources that are normally available in any planning process, it is an important task for
planners to decide which information is needed and for which purpose.
c. There is information that exists, and information that must be generated through various
researches through different participative and consultative processes with other actors inside
and outside the process. It is another important part of the planners’ role to decide which
information could be obtained or generated regarding the available resources and how this
could be done efficiently. PIS should support the identification of available information from
that needed for solving the current problem.
d. Information that exists is normally explicit and documented. However, a large part of
information in planning is implicit. It is saved in the heads of different actors. It is an
important task for PIS to make the available explicit knowledge accessible with minimum
effort and cost for the participating actors by interconnecting this information from the
different sources. Then to facilitate externalizing the implicit knowledge and to convert it as
far as possible into explicit.
43
e. Planning information includes both objective and subjective information. Objective
information is the information that could be produced or understood in the same way
independent from a specific person and leading to the same results. Subjective information is
consequently the information that its origin is directly associated to a specific person. It is
important to emphasize that the differentiation between subjective and objective information is
not related to the truth of the information content, it describes just how this information is
produced.
f. Regarding the rapidly loss of actuality and precision of planning information, planners and
decision makers need to update their information systematically. PIS should facilitate updating
information in a relatively minimal effort and keeping the participating actors in contact with
the current state of information.
g. Planners should examine the creditability of their information be comparing information from
different sources with one another to check inconsistencies and contradictions, hence, to
produce more plausible information (Maurer 1988). This requires that planners should use
active information processing behavior rather than a passive one. PIS should facilitate
exploring the same information in different contexts and representations. It should also allow
associating of different pieces of information.
2.5.5. Language in planning information
In the simplest description, a language consists of symbols and rules scheme that governs the usage
and the understanding of these symbols, i.e. words and grammar. In this sense, language includes all
types of coded messages, graphical representations, arithmetical equations, algebraic formulas, etc. In
general, communication should be in the everyday language. However, the everyday language is
loaded with feelings, associations, and connected with images. It is thus clear that ambiguity in using
language starts at the same moment when a person starts capturing his thoughts, observations and
experiences. It increases when he attempts to express his preferences, intentions, and positions.
Argumentation, communication and coordination about decision alternatives, circumstances,

probabilities, and consequences of actions are only possible by means of some sort of language in the
above-mentioned sense. However, the use of language in spatial planning is governed by different
characteristics of the spatial planning.
Since the territory of spatial planning - by nature and legislations - is multi perspective and
interdisciplinary, therefore, information that is processed or produced in a planning situation is
from various professional backgrounds, e.g. legal, social, ecological, engineering, and
political, etc. Consequently, it is in different forms e.g. laws, regulations, norms, studies,
statistics, surveys, questionnaires, interviews, plans, decisions, recommendations, notes,
44
announcements, etc. Furthermore, several languages are used in the same planning context
regarding the different backgrounds of the participants. There are several professional
languages from different disciplines, political language, and colloquial language as well as
planning jargon.
This information is assembled in different formats e.g. tables, maps, texts, photos, etc. and are
saved in digital, electromagnetic or paper forms.
The planning process is collaborative and involves a large number of actors that would
participate, affect or be affected by the outcomes of the planning. Planning information is
characterized by being from different sources. It is produced by different individuals or
organizations with different qualities and often using different standards.
In addition to the above-mentioned complexity, there is the variety of the systems, the
methods and the procedures that are used by these actors.
Since the mutual understanding among communicating actors is limited in general by their common
language, it could be argued then, that these limitations are more complex on mutual understanding in
spatial planning. Considering these aspects, it is obvious that everyday language is not enough for
describing planning problems, solution alternatives and decisions. It is observed in different planning
and design situations that most complications in the process of information flow result from the
difference in standards and structure of information sets that each actor uses and stores (n-dim Group
1998). In other words, the absence of both the components and the rules of a common language hinder
information and communication in spatial planning.
Maurer (1988) compared this situation with the Tower of Babel where much is said, but a common
understanding in never reached, as each actor is talking in his own language. This complexity
consumes a lot of time and effort to just combine these different information sources or even make an
overview about its content, let alone to collect it. If an actor is not able to interpret the received
information, this information will be considered as non existing, irrelevant, or not understood and
consequently will not be considered while making decisions.
It is essential then for the development and implementation of PIS to set the foundations of a common
language that should help in overcoming these complexities and facilitating different information
processes in spatial planning tasks.
2.6. Conclusion
In all approaches to planning, information plays a critical role throughout the problem-solving
and decision-making cycle. It is used in identifying problems, developing proposals of
solution, argumentation about the proposed solutions, action formulation, implementation and
coordination of spatial activities. However, the role and the use of information in the planning
process is a reflection of the theoretical approach that is adopted in this process.
45
The following aspect should be considered in the development and implementation of PIS in
complex spatial planning situation:
∗ Characteristics of spatial problems,
∗ Characteristics of spatial planning processes,
∗ Characteristics of planning information,
∗ Characteristics of human beings in processing information.
Regarding the nature of spatial subjects in complex planning situations, the following aspects
should be considered:
∗ In complex planning contexts, there is a high degree of interconnectivity among different
levels of planning, sectors, actors, and regions. All these interconnectivities are not well
known in advance.
∗ Spatial planning subjects are not static; they are changing through time.
∗ There is a time lag between making a decision, the implementation of the actions of this
decision and the outcomes of these actions.
∗ There is also interconnectivity between the problem space and the solution space. The
side effects and the long-term impacts of spatial activities may extend beyond the wished
outcomes and the targeted space. They are unpredictable in many cases.
Regarding the characteristics of planning processes the following aspects should be

considered:
∗ Planning processes in complex planning situation could not be considered as a plan
making process; it is a continuous process of problem solving and conflict resolution.
∗ These processes are mostly conducted in a group of individuals or a group of
organizations with different backgrounds, views, interests and responsibilities.
Regarding the main features of planning information, the following characteristics should be
considered:
∗ limited accuracy,
∗ changing and losing precision rapidly,
∗ originated from different sources and in different media types.
These aspects play an important role in setting the conceptual and technical criteria for the
design, development and implementation criteria of PIS.
In each planning situation, these aspects should be studied before deciding the structure of the
required system: a) the interconnectivities and dynamics of the planning subject, b) the
organization of the planning process, and c) the nature of the needed and the available
information for this process.
46
3. A Typology of Planning Information
Any message that is processed or produced during a planning process that changes the recipient's
knowledge or uncertainty is considered planning information. In this sense, planning information
covers a wide range of information. It covers not only information describing features of the world and
information about plan actions but it covers also information about the alternative courses of actions,
information about the planning process, specialized information of planning as a discipline, etc. These
types of information are communicated among large number of actors that have different backgrounds,
different roles and different interests. This information is processed or produced in a variety of
information processes. Setting an order or a typology for planning information is considered a first and
an essential step towards laying out the conceptual framework for PIS. This typology is based on a
basic argument that implies that each type of information is used, processed or produced in
information processes. These information processes take place in a variety of planning information
domains. These three concepts, i.e. information domains, information processes and information
objects are argued here to be crucial for the development and implementation of planning information
systems.
These three concepts represent three levels of abstractions or three viewpoints of observation. The
concept of information domains is an abstract level of observation to establish the overall view of the
main areas where planning information is used or processed. The concept of planning information
processes is a procedural observation to identify the main processes in which planning information is
used, processed or produced. These processes might take place inside one domain of information in
the spatial planning process, or between different information domains. However, an information
process might take place between spatial planning as a super information domain and other
information domains such as the political domain. The concept of planning information objects is
based on an analytical observation to define the main objects of planning information and the
47
interrelations between these objects. In other words, it could be stated that there are information
objects that are processed or produced in different information processes in or between different
information domains.
Fig. 3-1 The concept of information domains, processes and objects
To set the above-mentioned typology this chapter is an attempt to discuss the following questions:
What are the main criteria that should be considered in identifying planning information
domains?
What are the main information domains in spatial planning?
What are the main information processes in spatial planning? What are the main
characteristics of each process?
Is there a set of common information objects that are often used in different planning
processes? What are the main characteristics of each of these objects?
How should these domains, processes and objects be considered and implemented in PIS?
By identifying the main domain, process and object of planning information, it will be possible to
define the requirements that are needed to handle the different types of information according to its
characteristics, the rules to use it and its location in the planning process. However, this typology is
neither static nor comprehensive. It is neither possible nor reasonable to identify and describe all items
of spatial planning information. In addition, the items of this typology could be changed or extended
according to the planning situation.
Introductory remarks about information modeling
From information systems’ point of view, information modeling is considered a basic step in
establishing an information system that supports information processing in a specific domain. After
distinguishing different classes of objects in these domains, their attributes and relations, the
information model for this domain will take the form of a comprehensive model for information in this
domain.
48
In information systems, there is a claim of comprehensiveness in establishing information models.
However, a comprehensive model or a global classification, in this sense, for information in spatial
planning is not possible, unneeded and even unreasonable. In different planning situations, different
classes of planning information will be important regarding the characteristics and the organization of
the specific planning contexts. The proposed typology in this research is therefore partial. In other
words, the aim of this chapter is to draw the core and the outlines of such a planning information
model that could be extended or customized regarding the planning context.
Some information systems that were applied in planning and design processes have attempted to make
an abstract structure of the information model for the planning and the design processes. This abstract
model attempted to focus on a single type of information entities. These systems attempt to steer all
types of information to fit in the mono-dimensional information model. The following are few
examples of these types of information systems e.g. Agent Oriented Information Systems, Task-
oriented Information Systems, Event-oriented Information Systems or Issue Based Information
Systems. Another major application that could be classified under this category is "Spatial or
Geographic Information systems" which concentrates merely on the spatial elements as the core
elements of the information system. While these approaches proved relative success in some
situations, they could not be the bases for a planning information system that attempts to support
different information processes in planning.
Hence, it is argued here that instead of attempting to establish a model for planning information, an
object language that supports the definition of different domains, processes and objects of planning
information is more reasonable. This language should serve to overcome the problem of the lack of a
mutual language among heterogeneous actors and to set the base for efficient planning information
flow processes. This language should have clear elements and rules meanwhile it should also be easily
extended and adjusted. It should have the possibility to include specialized knowledge and detailed
investigations (Maurer 1988).
3.1. Planning information domains
Identifying planning information domains is based on three main groups of characteristics that
distinguish information objects and processes in each of these domains.
The first group is related to the information objects in this domain regarding the content, the
coverage, the life span and the target group for each of these information objects.
The second group is related to the information processes that are needed and used in each
domain.
The third group is related to the participating actors in information processes in this domain.
49
These three groups of criteria influence directly the rules that should be applied in each of these
domains and the functions that are needed to deal with each class of objects in each domain.
The concept of planning information domains is applied on three levels of abstraction. On the highest
level of abstraction, spatial planning is regarded as an information domain that is related directly or
indirectly to other information domains such as the political domain, the social domain, the urban
management domain, the economic domain, etc. On a lower level of abstraction, different information
sub-domains could be identified in the spatial planning domain. In each of these information sub-
domains, different information objects and different information processes could be outlined. These
objects have interrelations within their domain as well as with other objects in other domains.
The following paragraphs include a short introduction to the concept of Ontology. Then a discussion
of the identified information domains in spatial planning will be introduced. Each of these domains
will be discussed in details after that.
Ontology as a base for identification of planning information domain
One of the important concepts that are used in defining the information domains in spatial planning is
the concept of “Ontology”. Ontology is a Greek word that means “the science of being”. It refers to
the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature and the relationship of/amongst beings. The most
widely used definition is “An ontology is a specification of a conceptualizations”. The concept of
Ontology is originated and was used in philosophy for several centuries. In the last few decades, it got
a lot of interest in the field of information systems, artificial inelegance and knowledge sharing. In
these fields, it is interpreted as: “A systematic account of existence”. Guarino (1998) defined Ontology
as “a hierarchically structured set of terms for describing a domain that can be used as a skeletal
foundation for a knowledge base” In this sense, Ontology is an explicit formal specification of how to
represent the objects, concepts and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and
the relationships among them.
Using a declarative language, Ontology represents the set of objects that could be found in a specific
domain. This set of objects is then called the universe of discourse. Ontology is classified into four
types (Guarino 1998):
Top-level Ontology describes very general concepts that are independent of a particular
problem or domain e.g. space, time, action, etc.
Domain Ontology describes entities used in a generic domain e.g. hydrology, traffic, city
planning, etc.
Task Ontology describes a routine task or activity e.g. task assignment, meeting coordination.
Application Ontology describes concepts depending both on a particular domain and on a
particular task. These concepts often correspond to roles played by domain entities while
performing a certain activity.
50
In this sense, Ontology is helpful in establishing the needed typology. It emphasizes the concept of
shared and common perception of domains of knowledge and the objects in a specific domain, which
facilitates communication of information among different participants in this domain. Hence, this
concept could be implemented to distinguish the different domains of information and knowledge in
planning. In addition, the concept of domains will facilitate the identification of the main sub-domains
of information that exist in any planning situation as well as the objects that could be found in each of
these domains.
Planning information domain
On the highest level of abstraction, spatial planning could be regarded as a domain among many other
domains, e.g. public administration, economy, etc. These domains are related to spatial planning either
directly or indirectly. These relations are not static. They change over time and are different from one
country to another.
Fig. 3-2 spatial planning as a domain in a larger network
If spatial planning is observed as a super-domain, several sub-domains could be identified. Different

approaches to identify its sub domain could be applied. The first approach is the classical approach
which is discipline oriented. In this approach, spatial planning domain would include sub domains
such as city planning, traffic, housing, infrastructure, etc. However regarding the interconnectivity of
spatial planning that was discussed earlier, this classification is needed but is not enough. For example,
in planning the earlier mentioned high-speed railway line, but it is not reasonable to consider
individual aspects of the spatial planning. In this example, the traffic planning is related directly to
spatial development. Its impact will affect other fields of infrastructure, housing, etc.
Based on the three groups of criteria that are mentioned above, namely: the types of information
objects in a specific domain, the information processes that take place in each domain, and the types of
participating actors in each domain, three domains of information could be identified in spatial
planning as follows:
51
The subject matter of planning domain includes information objects about features or things of
the real world. These features or things present the subject of the planning or they are related
to the subject of planning,
The process domain includes information objects that are related to a specific planning process
which deals with a specific subject-matter, and
The planning-knowledge domain includes information objects that are mostly specialized
knowledge. This knowledge exists independent of a specific planning situation. It includes
information objects such as laws, regulations, methodological knowledge, etc.
The relationship among these information domains in planning could be described as follows: a) a
planning process is organized to handle a specific planning matter, b) the subject-matter domain
presents the primary input to the process domain, c) during the process, knowledge from the planning-
knowledge domain would be utilized to propose alternative solutions and then decide the preferable
course of action, d) the output of the process domain would be the proposed solution, e) this solution
should be externalized to the implementation domain, f) actions in the implementation domain might
change the nature of the subject-matter by implementing the actions of the plan, and g) it might also
affect the planning discipline domain by creating new knowledge or theories of planning.
Fig. 3-3 Information domains in planning
Each of these domains will be discussed to define the different types of information that are processed
or produced in the domain. This step will support the identification of the specific requirements in PIS
to deal with these types of information and to support information processing in this domain.
52
3.1.1. The subject-matter domain
The subject-matter domain of planning includes information objects that are related to features or
things of the real world in a specific spatial context, a problem, a conflict or a subject. The subject
matter of a planning process could be in local or global context. Information objects in this domain are
not only limited to descriptive information about geographical features of the world, but also cover
ongoing activities, problems, conflicts, potentials and actors in an area. Most of these information
objects are about things or features that exist physically or logically apart from any planning process.
However, it might include information objects about the alternative solution of problems and about
resolution proposals of conflicts. Most of these information objects could be related to more than one
planning process.
Information objects in this domain could be classified into empirical, analytical and normative
information. More advanced combinations of these objects are needed to understand the relations and
the trends of these primary objects. Among these elements are the spatial overview and the
chronological overview. The following paragraphs include a brief discussion of each of these types.
This discussion is aimed at identifying the specific characteristics of each of them. This identification
will facilitate the needed functionality and the essential criteria that should be considered in the
development and in the implementation of PIS.
1. Empirical information objects
Empirical information objects are information objects about physical or logical elements of the real
world related to the subject-matter of planning e.g. natural or artificial features, problems, etc. They
also include elements related to the context of the subject matter of planning including projects and
activities that might affect, be affected by, be complementary to or contradicting with the subject-
matter of planning.
Empirical information includes information objects about 'what is', 'what was' or 'what will be' the
case. This type consists usually of empirical statements in the form ‘x is y‘, ‘x was y‘ or ‘x will be y‘.
Regarding spatial phenomena, this type of information deals with - but not limited to - physical,
chronological, social economical or ecological issues. If a specific discipline is solely concerned with
this type of knowledge, it should then be considered a branch of geography.
In other classifications (e.g. Rittel 1982), this type was called “factual” knowledge. I prefer to call it
empirical in the sense of ‘originating in or based on observation or experience’ instead of ‘factual’ in
the sense of ‘restricted to or based on fact’, where fact is defined as ‘a piece of information presented
as having objective reality’. (Definitions are based on Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary). In
spatial planning as in the real life, many observations and experiences inherit some level of uncertainty
53
e.g. people have considered the assumption that the earth is stationary, and that the sun is moving
around it as a fact for hundreds if not thousands of years.
For understanding and exploring spatial problems, empirical knowledge must be generated from huge
amounts of data and information. In many cases of spatial planning this type of knowledge is
overshadowed by data and information.
a. Information objects about spatial features:
Information objects about spatial entities are pieces of information about things that exist in the real
world in a specific spatial context. Spatial objects have a unique characteristic namely that they are
spatially referenced. Hence, spatial information objects are related to or referring to a spatial entity
including natural, artificial, virtual and conceptual elements. Natural and artificial (man made) spatial
entities are physical things that exist in the real world. While virtual and conceptual entities are non-
physical features.
Spatial Objects
Natural Artificial Virtual Conceptual

Primary (Bona fide) Suborinate (Fiat) Geopolitical
Surface Facility Border Project

Line Network Land parcel Problem
Node Settlement Potential
Theme
Conflict
Fig. 3-4 The subject-matter domain > Empirical information > Spatial information objects
Natural features are considered the primary spatial objects, as they exist in the world
independent of any other spatial feature or any other classes. The objects that are included in
these classes are called bona fide, which means real. This class includes all natural features
e.g. rivers, forests, mountains, etc.
Artificial features are considered subordinate spatial objects, as their existence is based and
related to other spatial and social entities. The objects that are included in this class are called
fiat. This class includes all man-made physical features such as settlements, networks, roads,
etc.
Virtual features are features that are not physical but very important for the planning, e.g.
geopolitical and administrative subdivisions. They are, normally, well defined on maps and
have references on the ground. They have in many cases power by law.
Conceptual features are matters about the real world that are not definitely localized in reality,
e.g. problems, projects, potentials, etc.
54
For PIS to deal with these elements without being overwhelmed by these spatial features, it should
consider the graphical representation and the spatial reference of these objects. However, it is beyond
the purpose of PIS to support spatial analysis and representation of maps. These tasks could be
conducted using a standard GIS program if necessary. For PIS, it is important to facilitate interface
with standard graphical formats to allow exchanging graphical data from other graphical and
geographical programs.
b. Social Information entities:
A social entity in spatial planning is an actor that is involved, participating in, affects or affected by
the planning process or the planning subject matter. A group of actors, that have something in
common, represents a party. Parties are classified into organizations and groups. The formal status is
the main difference between an organization and a group. An organization is a formal body while a
group is an informal body. An example of a formal group is the members of a specific public
organization while an interest group in the community subject to planning is an informal group. In
addition, there are functional parties that are groups of individuals for functional purposes in the
planning process e.g. mailing list.
Social objects
Individual Party
Organisation Group
Fig. 3-5 The subject-matter domain > Empirical information > Social information objects
2. Analytical knowledge
In planning, it is not enough to describe the subject matter of planning. There is a need for knowledge
about ‘why this is, was or will be the case’. This type could be called ‘analytical knowledge’. It takes
the form ‘x is y because of z’, ‘x was y because of z’ or ‘x will be y because of z’. If a specific endeavor
is solely concerned with analytical knowledge about spatial phenomenon, it is then considered as a
branch of spatial analysis e.g. regional analysis, urban analysis, etc. For the same subject different
analytical views could be available presenting different viewpoints or from different disciplines.
3.Normative knowledge
For planning to be needed, there should be a discrepancy between ‘what is the case’ and ‘what should
be the case’. Normally, planning will be needed when discrepancy is apparent or is expected to occur
in the future. This type of knowledge is expressed in normative statements in the form ‘x should be y’.
This type could be called normative knowledge. Rittel (1982) called this form of statements deontic
55
knowledge. Deontic by definition includes obligation and necessity (The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language). In most cases, principles and objectives of spatial planning are
normative rather than obligatory.
Conclusion
The importance of distinguishing these three types of knowledge, i.e. empirical, analytical and
normative, for developing planning information systems emerges from the fact that each type will
have different requirements and life time. For example, most people will agree on ‘what is the case’
but few will agree on ‘why this is the case’ or ‘what should be the case’. While it is possible to change
the level of details or representation of ‘what was or is the case’, it is more possible that different
viewpoints and positions will exist on ‘why this is the case’ or ‘how it should be’. In other words, for a
planning information system to deal with these differences, it should recognize the above-mentioned
differences.
Information about the following categories of primary objects is normally included in most of these
systems:
Natural elements (e.g. river or mountain)

Artificial elements (city, village, etc.)
Virtual elements (borders, administrative subdivisions, etc.)
Most of these types are spatial in nature. For representing a spatial object, there is a need for both
graphic representation and alphanumeric information. In addition, there are the interrelations among
these objects. Describing and representing these interrelations are important aspects in PIS. In addition
to these spatial categories, other important categories are crucial for exploring the subject matter,
namely:
Conceptual elements (potentials, problems, activities, projects limitations, restrictions,
conflicts, etc.)
Social elements (actors, interest groups, stockholders, etc.)
For these primary elements to be useful in exploring the subject matter of planning, different types of
abstractions are needed. These abstractions represent the relations, the interdependencies, comparisons
or key figures about the primary elements. Among these abstractions, the following two types are
proved to have an important role in exploring planning matters:
the spatial overview

the chronological overview.
These two aspects are discussed in detail in section 4.2.
56
3.1.2. The planning-knowledge domain
Planning knowledge is all the knowledge that is needed in planning. It includes what planners learn
including methods, theories, case studies, laws, etc. It is found in lectures, courses, professional
periodicals, handbooks, manuals, conferences, seminars, etc. This knowledge is fragmented, growing,
changing rapidly and is in different formats and standards. The tasks of a PIS, regarding information in
this domain, include the following main tasks:
to create networks of professionals and institutions dealing with similar problems for
exchanging experience and solution ideas,
to make this knowledge available for participants in the planning context and beyond in an
easy manner, and
to show where knowledge is missing and to promote producing it.
Normally this type of knowledge is related to a specific context, e.g. a country, a region, a specific
type of planning problems. It includes mainly the following types of knowledge: formal, instrumental,
case studies and Meta knowledge.
1. Formal knowledge
A legal framework governs spatial planning. It is difficult to think of a spatial development that could
be undertaken outside this framework. This framework covers both the content of the planning as well
as the formalities of planning. For planners in a specific context, the formal knowledge includes the
following aspects:
laws and regulations of different types that influence the planning for spatial development;
formal plans, e.g. land use plans and zoning plans, that have normally the power of law and
govern the development in a specific area;
norms and standards e.g. the sizes of different types of streets, the ratios of green areas to the
built up area, etc.
In addition to the spatial planning law, different laws about building, environment, traffic and
transportation and public health are directly related to spatial planning. Some of these laws regulate
the content of the development that could be conducted in a specific context while others regulate the
process of planning itself including participating actors, planning procedure, public participation,
objections, etc. These different types of formal knowledge should be available for participating actors
in a specific planning process or generally, in a specific spatial context, that has the same legal or
formal framework.
57
2. Instrumental knowledge
Instrumental knowledge is the knowledge about instruments and methods for problem solving or for
conducting a specific task in a planning context. This type of knowledge is normally documented in
guidelines, manuals, handbooks, textbooks, etc. It covers a wide range of aspect starting from
information representation, analysis, prediction and plan making techniques, to how to use different
computer applications used in this planning context. Planners normally have most of the knowledge
they need in mind. However, it is impossible for any planner to have all the instrumental knowledge
that he might need to conduct all the tasks that he might come across throughout his professional life.
Some of these instruments are widely accepted and used; others are limited for specific application
areas. Some of these instruments are changing with time while others are stable. Stable instrumental
knowledge are normally a form of logical knowledge that includes pieces of knowledge that are
proved using rules and laws of the used logic, e.g. algebra rules (x + y)2 = x2 + 2xy + y2.
3. Case studies
In most problem solving situations decision makers and planners use their individual experience or
group expertise in the form of implicit knowledge i.e. unspoken knowledge. They know it; they
understand it and they use it. This type of knowledge is normally personal and is used for sense
making, problem solving and gaining of perspective. This type of knowledge is also called tacit
knowledge as it is usually personally held and rarely documented (Choo 1998). The task of case
studies is, therefore, to convert this implicit knowledge to explicit knowledge in the form of written
documentations that externalize personal knowledge for others. The subject of case studies in spatial
planning is discussed in details in chapter 4.
4. The Meta knowledge
Meta-knowledge deals mainly with two types of information. First, it should answer the question
where each piece of information or knowledge is found. The task of PIS regarding this type of
knowledge is to support access to all types of knowledge using different contexts. Second, it will
include notational knowledge that is concerned with what each piece of knowledge means.
3.1.3. The process domain
As mentioned earlier in any planning situation, different actors are attempting to solve the planning
subject matter. For these actors to work together there is a process in which they organize their effort
to reach their goal. This process could be a formal or informal process. Although in some cases, the
participating actors in a planning process might be members of the same agency or organization, it is
usual that the spatial planning problems require cooperation among different organizations and
individuals. In any planning process different types of information, processes are embodied. These
58
information processes include, but they are not limited to the following, organization, coordination,
communication, decision-making, and documentation. Information in the domain could be then
defined as any information that is processed, used, or generated in the planning process. The process
domain usually utilizes information form both the subject-matter and the planning domains as the
input for the process and then produces different types of output such as the results of planning,
reports, publications, etc. In other words, information from the above-mentioned two domains are
considered the input to the planning process, while information in the process domain could be
considered the throughput of the planning process. The output from the process domain might
represent a part of the subject matter or the planning knowledge domain. For the same subject matter,
several process domains could exist simultaneously. This could occur if different teams deal with the
same matter or different organizations deal with the same problem from different viewpoints.
The importance of information in this domain emerges from the huge amount and the variety of
information that is circulated in this domain and consequently the overhead that is needed to deal with
it. In many cases, it gets less attention compared to information in the other information domains.
Different categories of participating actors have different roles and rights in this domain.
Information objects that are produced or processed in a specific planning process are typically internal
information that are not related to the problem itself or to the specialized knowledge of planning in
general. It is related to the planning process in the form of communication, organization and
coordination matters.
The lifetime of information in the process domain is largely limited to the time-span of the process
itself. However, this does not mean that information in this domain must be destroyed by the end of
the process. The coverage of information in this domain is normally limited to the process itself. The
main exceptions are the output of the process and the achieved information that might be kept for a
specific time for documentation purposes. It is important to classify the different information objects
that are processed in this domain. For this classification, different information processes are identified
and analyzed:
Organization
Coordination
Decision-making
Communication
Documentation
Each of these processes has specific characteristics and structure in general. However, each of these
processes has specific characteristics in spatial planning. In the following sections, the general
structure of each of these processes and its characteristics in spatial planning are discussed. Then main
information objects and processes are studied to figure out how it should be considered in PIS.
59
3.1.4. Summary of the planning information domains
Spatial planning
The subject matter domain The planning knowledge domain The process domain
Empirical Formal Organization
Analytical Instrumental Coordination
Normative Case studies Decision making
meta knowledge Argumentation
Communication
Documentation
Fig. 3-6 Spatial information entities partition
In each of these domains and sub domains different types of information objects exist as shown in the
following table:
Knowledge domain Types of knowledge Information objects

The subject-matter Empirical knowledge Spatial Natural elements (e.g. river or mountain)
domain Artificial elements (city, village, etc.)
Virtual elements (borders, administrative
subdivisions, etc.)
Conceptual: Potentials, problems,
activities, projects limitations, restrictions,
conflicts, etc.
Social Actors, interest groups, etc.
Analytical knowledge Why this is, was or will be the case.
Normative knowledge What should be the case (Goals and objectives)
The planning domain Formal knowledge Laws and regulations
Formal plans
Norms and standards
Instrumental knowledge Guidelines,
Manuals,
Handbooks,
Textbooks,
Case studies
Meta knowledge Location: Where each piece of information or knowledge is
found
Notational: What does each piece of knowledge mean
The process domain Organization Task statement
Participating actors
Process organization
Resources
Time organization
Coordination Actions
Goals and objectives of different phases and steps
Task assignment
Interdependencies and relations
Decision making and Idea, proposal, alternative, option and decision or plan and
argumentation argumentation positions
Communication Question / answer, request / replay, notes, announcement,

preferences, message, discussion issue
Documentation Documents, maps, links and media.
60
3.2. Planning Information Processes
As mentioned earlier, different aspects of spatial planning processes could be considered as an

information process in some way or another. In each of the above-mentioned domains of planning
information, different information processes could be identified. Using the information process
concept, each step in the planning process is based on information input from outside the process or
from previous steps in the process. Each step or phase is considered an information processing. The
results of the whole planning process could be considered as information output. Output from a
planning process might represent an information input for other processes for example the
implementation of the planning results.
An information process could be then defined as any process where information is processed,
communicated or produced. Consequently, spatial planning could be understood as a process woven of
different information processes.
Fig. 3-7 Planning as information processing and production
Exploring the different types of information processes in spatial planning is aimed at finding out how
PIS should support input, throughput and output of information that are needed, processed or produced
in the different information processes in spatial planning. It is also important to consider the
interconnectivity among these processes and how information resulting from a process is used as the
input for other processes, or how the throughput of another process includes several processes of
different types.
Information processes in spatial planning could be classified to different types regarding different
criteria. Among the possible criteria of classification, the following are considered the most important
for the development and the implementation of planning information systems:
the goal of the information process,

the nature of the information input,
the expected information output, and
the participating actors in the process.
In this section, the classification will be based on where a piece of information is produced or
processed in the spatial planning. However, as mentioned earlier it is not possible or reasonable to use
61
a general planning process for all situations and contexts. Therefore, this chapter concentrates on three
information processes that are essential for any planning situation, namely: decision-making,
coordination and communication. Further information processes are important in spatial planning and
could be supported by PIS such as argumentation, documentation, public participation, etc.
This section is an attempt to explore the basic information processes in spatial planning. Among
others, the following questions present key issues for this section:
Where in the planning process is information processed or produced?

Which information elements are used in each process?
Where are the bottlenecks of information during the planning process?
What are the main aspects that should be considered while developing PIS?
Aiming at identifying the fundamental elements that present the key components, in general, for each
of these processes, this chapter starts with a brief theoretical introduction to the general principles that
represents the base for exploring the main theories for each process. Then more emphasis will be given
to finding out how each of these processes is embodied in the spatial planning process and what are
the main characteristics of them. Exploring these information processes plays an important role in the
identification of basic information elements, main information functions and main rules that are
needed or shaped by each of these processes. This presents an important pre-requirement for the
development and the implementation of PIS.
3.2.1. Decision-making
Decision-making in general
If an actor (person, group, agency or organization) selects one from two or more alternative actions,
then he is considered to be deciding. A decision problem could be stated in the form of the following
questions “Which option or alternative should be chosen?” (Maurer 1985). From this short definition
of the verb “to decide” two main components of a decision problem could be distinguished, an actor
and alternative courses of actions. Each of these alternative actions has uncertain outcomes that might
be influenced by circumstances that we cannot control. Based on these aspects, the following
questions are then essential for describing a decision problem:
Who is the actor who should make the decision?

What are the alternative decisions?
What are the important circumstances that might affect the outcomes of this decision?
What are the expected consequences of each alternative decision?
What is the probability of each outcome that might result through a specific action and
circumstances?
What is the relative desirability of each result?
62
Decision trees are used to illustrate these components of a decision problem.
There is an actor facing a ‘decision node’.

He should make a decision between two or more ‘alternative actions’.
Any alternative that would be chosen is subject to uncertain events called ‘circumstances’. The
actor cannot change these circumstances.
Each of these uncertain events has a ‘probability’ to occur, which might lead to different’
outcomes’.
For the actor, each of these outcomes has a specific ‘desirability’. Desirability ranges from
much wished results to unacceptable.
Decision theory is concerned with how actors should weigh the known alternative actions, so as to
maximize their expected utilities, regarding the probability of each alternative, and the expected
outcomes of each alternative and its utility (Behn & Vaupel 1982).
For an actor facing a decision point, there is a basic decision to be made. He should choose amongst
the following alternative actions:
To do nothing;
To wait and collect more information and attempt to clarify the decision problem if he can; or
To select one of the known alternatives (Maurer 1985).
Fig. 3-8 Basic decision tree
This actor should then decide, taking into consideration, the expected outcomes, and the probabilities
of the uncertain circumstances, which he cannot influence.
If he decided to act, then he would probably achieve some desired utility. Meanwhile, he
might fail and have to afford the cost of this failure.
On the contrary, if he decided not to act, he might avoid this failure. Meanwhile, he might
miss a desired utility.
63
If he decided to wait and clarify later, then he should keep in mind how long is the time window for
this decision will be still open, and if he has enough resources to clarify the situation or not. Each
decision situation has a specific time span in which making a decision is still possible. When this time
is expired, the decision will have no effect. Meanwhile most real life decision situations are dynamic,
waiting is associated with uncontrolled change in the probabilities and the circumstances.
Fig. 3-9 four possible outcomes of a decision to act
Source: Schönwandt 1986
Fig. 3.9 illustrates a decision node where an actor should decide either ‘to act’ or ‘not to act’. It will be
easy for this actor to decide, if the ellipse would be located to a large part on one side of the success
criteria. If the large part of the ellipse is located above the success criteria line then it is easy to decide
‘to act’. Similarly, it will be easy to decide ‘not to act’ if the ellipse is located below the success
criteria line. On the contrary, an actor will tend to wait and clarify if the ellipse would be equally
located above and below the line. Regarding dynamics of the situation, it could be imagined that the
ellipse is moving in an unsystematic way, simultaneously the success criteria line and the decision line
are also moving.
Choosing between alternatives could be conscious or unconscious, rational or irrational. An actor is

then described to be making a rational decision if he fulfils the following criteria (Maurer 1985):
To describe the decision problem in a way that allows making a logical conclusion about the
set of available alternative actions;
To consider all available information and knowledge for clarifying the problem situation;
To collect more information only when the benefits, in the form of an improved decision, is
more than the cost, in the form of effort and delay of the decision;
For example, if an actor selected a specific alternative action by intuition or any other way, e.g.
throwing a coin, then he would not be making a rational decision even if his choice led to the desired
outcomes. In addition, he would not be making a rational decision, if he purposely ignored some of the
64
available information and knowledge, or if he kept on collecting information that will not change his
decision.
Fig. 3-10 Different ways to choose an alternative
Source: Pahl & Fricke 1993
Decision-making in spatial planning
In all the approaches to planning that were discussed earlier in chapter 2 as well as in any other
approach or planning theory, there are always alternative courses of actions to achieve a goal or a
desired state. The task of planning is to choose amongst these alternative actions. Different planning
approaches have different methodologies in describing and solving the decision situation. However, it
is impossible to think about planning, both spatial planning as well as any type of planning, without
thinking of alternative courses of action to achieve this goal. This applies to all scales of decision
situation from the small decision situations, such as choosing the road to work in the morning, to large
decisions, such as allocating an atomic power plant or sending a manned spaceship to the moon. In
other words, there is no planning without alternatives, i.e. if there are no alternatives, there will be no
need to plan.
Dror (1973) defined planning as the process of preparing a set of decisions on future actions, directed
towards the achievement of goals by preferred means. The basic decision problem in spatial planning
could be formulated in the following terms: given limited resources (time, capacity, personnel, money,
etc.), a variety of possibilities (alternative actions) and partial knowledge to choose the action with the
highest probable future utility. This should be done under uncertain circumstances “exogenous
factors” that could not be influenced (Maurer 1985). Decision making in spatial planning takes place
in different situations starting from the decision ‘to plan’, or how the process should be organized.
Different decision situations in the spatial planning will be briefly discussed hereafter.
65
a. “To plan” or “not to plan” this is the first decision
As mentioned earlier, ‘to plan’ is a cognitive activity and not per se. Then, in planning the primary
decision is to decide about the action of planning itself. An actor (individual, agency, organization,
etc.) faces a decision node by recognizing that the outcomes of the “is-state” are not desired. For
example, the living conditions in the city are deteriorated or will deteriorate, the environmental
pollution has reached critical levels or the urban growth is increasing over the green areas outside the
city. In addition, this actor will be facing a decision node by recognizing that the probable utility of the
“should-state” is more than the expected effort to achieve it. For example, the establishment of a new
city will create residential units and job opportunities, which would bring more utility than the costs
needed for achieving it. Consequently, he should choose among at least three basic alternatives:
‘To plan’,
‘Not to plan’ or
‘To wait, to clarify and to decide later’.
Generally, all the following cases are decisions from the viewpoint of decision logic:
To decide ‘not to decide at all’ is a decision;

To decide ‘not to decide now, to wait, to do nothing now and to decide later’ is a decision;
To decide ‘to collect more information, to clarify and to decide later’ is a decision;
To decide ‘to do nothing at all’ is a decision.
b. Decisions regarding the planning process: ‘How to plan?’
If the above-mentioned actor has decided to plan, then he has to make another decision about the
planning process. Facing the decision point about how the planning process should be organized,
amongst the different alternative courses of actions, the following are some examples that this actor
can choose from:
to plan by himself or in his agency,
to give the job to another agency or organization, or
to organize a planning competition.
Although this issue might seem to be a matter of organization, it is a clear decision situation. An actor
has to choose among different alternative actions. Each of these alternatives has different probable
outcomes. Some of them are positive and some are negative. Meanwhile, there are uncertainties that
could influence the results of his decision. Each aspect of organizing the planning process could be
stated in the form of a decision problem. For example, regarding the multidimensional and
interconnectivity in spatial planning, the number of participating actors in the spatial scene could be
very large. It is then important to decide which actors should participate, who is the actor that should
make a specific decision and who are the actors that could influence the circumstances or might be
affected by the decision outcomes.
66
c. Decisions about the subject matter of planning: ‘What to plan?’
Another aspect of spatial planning is the preparation of decisions over localization of spatial activities
as well as their meaningful mutual allocation to each other (Krause 1998). Regarding the spatial
subject of planning, there are alternative solutions for each problem. A planner or a group of planners
should select amongst these alternatives. By this decision, there would be an embedded decision about
who would get the benefits and who would bear the costs of planning decisions, or how a compromise
between conflicting interests would be achieved (Batley 1993). In this sense, spatial planning could
not be conceived only as the identification of problems and their resolutions but also as a process of
balancing conflicting claims on scarce resources as well (Cullingworth 1973).
d. Decisions about information in spatial planning
It is widely accepted among planners and decision makers that the ability to make appropriate
decisions depends, amongst other things, on the availability of information (Devas & Rakodi 1993).
This involves the following types of information:
Information about what exists and what is going on in the world,
What may be expected under certain specified conditions, i.e. the relations between
circumstances and the wished results.
What may happen if a specific alternative action is chosen, i.e. relations between the actions
and consequences of these actions,
Facing a decision situation, there are three main tasks, namely thinking, gathering and processing
information. Behn and Vaupel (1982) argue that most people devote 99 percent of their decision-
making time to gathering and processing information. This task takes different forms, e.g. talking to
people about the problem, reading relevant material, developing complex models or theories, or
carrying out elaborate chains of calculations. However, it is clear that gaining a full knowledge of any
human situation or social system is an immense task (Bracken 1981). A more commonly accepted
notation is rationality of decision making as mentioned earlier. Any actor in a decision situation is
faced by the opportunity to collect more information before making the decision, i.e. the third basic
alternative at any decision node “wait, clarify and decide later”.
The situations for an actor facing the opportunity to collect more information could be described as a
decision situation. In such a situation, an actor has different alternatives regarding collecting the
information, namely “to collect it” or “not to collect it”. This situation is combined with different
circumstances and different positive and negative outcomes, e.g. clarity, uncertainty, cost, effort, etc.
It usually makes sense to obtain information that could be obtained with no or very low cost, before
choosing an alternative action. However, if by obtaining this information, the chosen alternative action
will not be changed anyway, then, there is no reason to exert any effort in obtaining it. On the
contrary, if this information will make the decision obvious by improving the decision maker's
67
capacity to make a better decision, either by decreasing the uncertainty about future events or by
changing the probabilities of the outcomes, then he should collect this information. However, he
should balance between the cost of this information in the form of money, effort and time on one hand,
and the gained benefit on the other. The information would be perfect if it eliminated all uncertainty
and allowed a faultless prediction of the future (Behn & Vaupel 1982), i.e. in Fig. 3.9 the ellipse will
either move completely to the upper right corner or to the lower left corner. In such a situation, the
actor would be completely sure about the outcomes of his action. This situation is rare, if not
imaginary, in spatial planning.
Characteristics of decision-making in spatial planning
a. Networked & Interconnected
Taking in consideration the above-mentioned three aspects of decision-making in spatial planning, it is

argued here, that spatial planning could not be described as a single branch of a tree. It is a more
complex tree of sequences of decisions as shown in Fig. 3.11.
Fig. 3-11 Decision tree in a planning situation
Furthermore, by nature, spatial planning is not dealing with individual self-contained problems, but it
is dealing with a network of interconnected decision problems. It is seldom in spatial planning that a
problem and the decisions about it are not related to any other problem or decision (Maurer 1985). In
many cases, the outcomes of a specific decision represent a decision node for another actor or a
circumstance for another decision problem.
b. The time lag between decisions and outcomes
The impacts of spatial activities could only be noticed on the long-term. The time between identifying
a problem, making a decision, implementing this decision and realizing the outcomes of the selected
action is a long time. Sometimes this time could be decades e.g. a decision about building new cities.
This time could be called the time lag. During this time, the actor might have no influence on the
actions he had selected, unless he has considered this in his decision. He has also no influence on the
circumstances that might affect the outcomes of his action.
68
Fig. 3-12 The time lag between actions and outcomes.
Source: Scholl 1995
c. Long-term and side effects of actions
Most spatial activities have long- and side effects. Long effects result from the dynamism of the
spatial context and the changing social, technical, political and environmental factors that were not
considered during the decision making process. Side effects result from the interconnectivity between
the decision problem subject and other subjects that were not clear or were ignored during the decision
making process. The possibility to change these effects is limited. This issue was discussed in details
in an earlier section.
d. Success criteria of decisions
It is simple to compare the outcomes of decisions objectively if they could be described in the same
unit e.g. money. However, in complex situations such as spatial planning, different actors are
participating in the decision-making and different parties would be affected by the outcomes of the
selected course of action. In such situations, different actors would have different preconceived
success criteria that are directly related to the actor’s interest and background. In the afore-mentioned
example of the high-speed railway line in Switzerland, the outcomes of any decision could be
compared using different criteria such as travel time, noise, capacity, connectivity, and the image of
the landscape. For the railway corporation, the project would be considered a success, if the travel time
was optimized and the line capacity was maximized. Meanwhile, for a group of environment activists,
the same solution might be considered a disaster as it devastates a sensitive landscape. They might
consider it as a success if the track is changed to bypass the sensitive landscape, leading to increasing
the travel time. This pair of conflicting success criteria is a result of the different domains of
observation. A second dimension could be identified if we compared the position of a regional official
with the position of the residents of a village where the line is expected to go through or around their
69
village. For the regional official, the project would be observed as a success if his region got a direct
connection, which increases the accessibility of his region and hence its attractiveness for investments.
On the contrary, the residents of the village would consider it as a failure as they would have to bear
its negative impacts without any gain. This dimension is a result of the different levels of observation.
The same decision would be also observed differently regarding the other dimensions of spatial
planning that were mentioned earlier namely the inter actor and the inter region dimensions.
Therefore, it is apparent that success of spatial planning decisions could not be measured against a
mono dimensional success criterion that considers only the interests of one actor in any of the above-
mentioned dimensions.
PIS and decision making in spatial planning
From the above-mentioned aspects of decision making, in general, and in spatial planning in
particular, a PIS will inherit the different aspects of decision-making.
a. A primary set of decisions regarding the PIS would be needed as follows:
A decision about the need for a PIS, to decide to develop a PIS;

Decision about participation: who should participate?
Decision about information: which types of information should be included?
Decision about the technical issues: which techniques should be applied?
b. The second dimension is related to supporting decision making in planning by supporting exploring
different alternative courses of actions, the expected outcomes of these actions and the circumstances.
PIS should make this information accessible for the participating actors.
c. Dealing with the above-mentioned characteristics of decision making in spatial planning

argumentation among participating actors and with other parties is essential. The PIS should support
this argumentation be facilitating the following aspects:
To explore the barely tangible mass of information that is widely undetermined (subjective
and objective),
To sketch, to describe and to analyze sequence of decision problems, and
To define and to explain decisions (Maurer 1988).
Furthermore, PIS should also support exploring decision situations of spatial planning in the different
domains and levels that are related to the decision situation.
3.2.2. Coordination
The simplest definition of coordination is “the act of working together harmoniously”. However,
coordination theory defined coordination as "managing dependencies between activities performed to
achieve a goal" (Malone & Crowston 1990). Coordination theory concentrates on some basic aspects
70
of coordination processes, namely goals, actions, actors, and interdependencies. There must be one or
more actors, performing some activities, which are directed towards some ends or goals. The goal-
relevant relationships between the activities are interdependencies. (Malone & Crowston 1990).
For coordination to take place there must be some form of organization in the background.
Organization in the simplest definition is answering questions such as: what, how, who, where, when
and why? Organizational information in the planning process might include information objects about
the following subjects:
What is the task of the process? What are the goals and the expected outcomes?
Who are the participating actors? In most planning situations there are more than one actor.
Planning processes normally include different institutions and individuals. This might include
private, public and NGOs. Different actors in a process have different roles. There are the
roles of the city administration, the legislative institutions in the area, the interest groups and
other actors that might affect or be affected by the planning, etc.
How the process of undertaking this task will be organized? Is it a formal process? Is it
governed by clear rules? Is it an informal process?
Which resources are available for this process? Resources include personnel, time, finance and
capacity.
How the process will be organized over time? Is it a formal process with specific time
organization? What are the main milestones that should be considered in the process?
Concerning internal work organization, what are the main phases of the process? This
information is represented in the process time line. Different events are presented in the
process calendar.
Coordination in spatial planning
Milliken (1997) argues that design and planning are social processes between individuals who often
come from disparate professional backgrounds. These processes are inherently collaborative
processes, hence, requiring the negotiation and the reconciliation of different views, perspectives,
vocabularies and knowledge bases associated with a problem-solving situation. Consequently,
coordination in spatial planning deals with some essential aspects that are concerned with some basic
questions as follows:
Goals: identification of the overall goal. How to coordinate goals among the different actors
participating in an activity. Definition of goals of a planning process is a matter of discussion,
coordination and cooperation rather than a closed or one-actor task.
Actions: decomposition of overall goals to activities. How can overall goals be subdivided into
actions?
Actors: which actors will participate and how the tasks will be assigned. Witnessing the
withdrawal of official dominance of activities to private and non-governmental sector,
71
participating actors in spatial planning could be grouped into formal and informal actors. Laws
related to spatial planning define formal actors. They are distributed on different levels:
national, regional, and communal levels. Moreover, they are from different disciplines. In
addition, there are the informal actors, who participate indirectly or have no formal role, e.g.
individuals, interest groups, political parties, academic and research centers. Informal actors
have a changing role in spatial planning that affects the planning and decision-making process.
Task assignment: How actions are assigned to groups or individual actors?
Interdependencies: How to manage interdependencies? If there are no interdependencies, there
is no coordination. Interdependence between activities can be analyzed in terms of common
objects that constrain how each activity is performed. Interdependencies between actions
include prerequisite, shared resources and simultaneity, etc. How can resources be allocated
among different actors? (Malone & Crowston 1990).
Types of coordination in spatial planning
If we applied the above-discussed concept of coordination to spatial planning, three major types of
coordination could be distinguished:
a. Coordination of activities that have spatial impact
Although Maurer (1985) was describing the Swiss guidance-planning (Richtplanung) from a
legislative viewpoint when he stated that one of the main tasks of spatial planning is coordinating
activities with spatial impacts, it could be argued here that this could be applied to all planning
activities with spatial impact anywhere and on any level. Coordinating activities that have spatial
impacts is a continuous process that starts by finding out which activities hinder, conflict with, delays,
are essential for, or complementary to others. However, coordination between different actors should
concentrate on their spatial activities and not on wishes, hopes or expectations (Maurer 1985).
b. Coordination of the planning process itself:
Planning processes consist of a large number of sub-processes that are carried out, influenced, affect or
affected by autonomous actors (Stanoevska, et al. 1998). These actors normally are located either in
different organizations or in different interrelated organizational units in the same organization. In
public agencies, there is a tendency to isolation. This could result in the increase of the so-called
executive blindness and territorial domination, which lead tendency to concentrate on the urgent
actions and on the direct narrow scope of interest (Maurer 1988). However in planning processes,
these actors have to overcome their immediate actions and their narrow area of interest, they have to
deal with common tasks and shared resources. Therefore, they have first to coordinate the coordination
process itself (Maurer 1985).
72
c. Coordination of Information
For different actors or agencies to coordinate their spatial activities (decisions and actions) or to
coordinate the planning process, they have to coordinate their information and knowledge. What an
actor is doing or planning to do, may affect the decisions of another actor. What an actor knows or
thinks about, may affect another’s decision.
This information or knowledge is not limited to the traditionally used quantitative information in
planning but it includes related qualitative information such as: decisions, intentions, arguments,
additional explanation, description of ideas, etc. An extended discussion of this subject will be
introduced in a following chapter.
Dimensions of coordination in spatial planning
Two main dimensions of coordination in spatial planning could be distinguished, namely: horizontal
and vertical (Hahn 1999). Horizontal coordination takes place among different actors, sectors and
disciplines in the same region in order to negotiate and integrate domain specific plans into an overall
strategy. It also takes place among different interdependent regions, so that their different local views
could be brought together in a common view if they are compatible or to be redefined, if they are
conflicting. Horizontal coordination takes place on inter-communal, interregional or international
levels. Vertical coordination takes place among different levels of spatial units, e.g. national and
regional or regional and local. Each of these dimensions of coordination could take a positive or a
negative form. Horizontal coordination takes the positive form when different units of the same level
of planning or different actors in the same planning unit cooperate. This coordination could occur by
formulating common goals or by applying conflict resolution processes that go beyond formalities. On
the contrary, negative form of horizontal coordination takes place when one actor or more has/have a
bad reputation regarding cooperation or by the tendency to enforce his/their own interest over others.
Fig. 3-13 Dimensions of coordination in spatial planning
73
On the other hand, vertical coordination takes the negative form when the higher units attempt to
control the lower ones and figure out if they have fulfilled the guidelines for spatial planning or if
these guidelines are properly respected. Vertical coordination also takes the negative form, if the sole
aim of lower units will fulfill formalities stated be laws and regulations ‘Formalism’. On the contrary,
positive form of vertical coordination takes place when higher levels support lower units by financing
development programs or through capacity building for lower units then the vertical coordination is
not a zero sum for the lower units. It also happens when the interest reconcilement takes place among
different levels of planning. This reconcilement might sometimes require informal participation that is
not limited to the formalities. Communication under these circumstances is difficult because of the
long-term process; the wide rang impacts of spatial activities, the number of participants and the
different sources of information.
Characteristics of coordination in spatial planning
a. Complexity:
The first task of coordination in spatial planning is to define what should be coordinated. This
coordination takes place under the following circumstances:
The number of spatial activities in a region is normally large. In addition, there is a multi-
dimensional interconnectivity amongst these activities as well as with other spatial aspects.
This means that different urban development activities, potentials and problems are interacting
in the region simultaneously. Among these aspects, some might be disturbing, interfering,
connected, complementary, or prerequisite for another activity. In addition, the ownership or
the responsibility is spread among different authorities and actors because of the
interdisciplinary nature of spatial planning.
On the process level, the number of actors that might take part in a complex planning process
is large. Scholl (1995) argues that this number ranges from 30 to 50 actors. Furthermore, these
actors have differentiated roles and they are spread in different public and private agencies.
Regarding information, the amount of information is huge. Including objective and subjective
information, it takes different forms and formats. Its accuracy is limited and its content
changes.
b. Span and depth:
In spatial planning as a continuous process, coordination starts by the foresight before starting the
planning itself and continuous throughout the process until the implementation. For this continuity of
the planning process, the plan should be dynamic. The depth and the accuracy of the statements should
be actualized continuously. In addition, the unsolved problems, the open questions and the conflicts
should be actualized as they define the future tasks for the planning (Maurer 1988).
74
For planning as a continuous process, it is important to allow concerned public institutions from
different levels to check the planning in periodical systematic manner, and to express their views
regarding the necessity of coordinating a specific topic and the needed coordination (Maurer 1988).
In attempting to design the coordination process in a planning situation, the accuracy and the level of
details in the process are based on the problem situation. Hence, it could not be anticipated in advance,
as it is not possible to use the same coordination process for all planning situations. The context must
be considered and suitable processes should be organized.
The two extremes of coordination are to coordinate everything or to coordinate nothing. It is important
to emphasize that who attempts to coordinate everything, coordinates nothing. On the contrary,
ignoring coordination completely looking for the freedom and the dynamism will result in Chaos.
Freedom and dynamism require order. The failure of order (the Chaos) is the highest grade of the loss
of freedom (Maurer 1985). The need for coordination in this situation depends on the type and
intensity of relations among the different decision problems.
c. Coordination and other information processes in spatial planning:
All coordination processes require that some decision should be made and accepted by a group of two
or more individual actors or organizations. In other words, coordination starts by a group-decision to
coordinate. Then to coordinate between two or more actors, they have to communicate. That means
when a group starts to coordinate, the members of this group start to communicate, they share
decisions, they organize interdependencies and they share information. On the other hand, it is
important to distinguish the difference between coordination and cooperation. Coordination takes
place between interdependent actors in the same sphere (Selle 1997), i.e. interdependencies exist
among them. On the other hand, cooperation takes place among actors from different spheres, i.e. no
direct or clear interdependencies exist among them (George & Jones, 1999).
PIS and coordination in spatial planning
Coordination in spatial planning could be classified into coordination of spatial activities, coordination
in planning processes and coordination of information.
As far as the development of PIS is concerned, the following aspects are important:
How can the application of PIS support coordination on the afore-mentioned three dimensions
of coordination?
What are the main coordination activities that should be supported?
On the spatial activities' domain, PIS could support the coordination by illustrating the
interdependencies among different activities and aspects on the spatial scene, by establishing
an overview about these aspects, keeping this overview up-to-date and available for the
concerned actors. This might facilitate the early identification of conflicting interests and
75
expected problems. This overview should consider the different domains of observation that
were mentioned earlier. It should also consider the specific characteristics of coordination in
general, and coordination in spatial planning in particular.
On the process domain, coordination throughout the planning process often takes place
without special arrangements. However, for the development of planning information systems,
analyzing these processes is essential. It will be then possible to identify for which process the
application of PIS is needed. Then for these coordination activities to be implemented, it
would be important to categorize the actors who should participate in the coordination, the
goal and objectives of coordination, the tasks that should be conducted to achieve these goals,
the time plans, the interdependencies among these tasks and activities, etc.
On the information domain, it should consider the coordination of information elements. This
coordination includes the definition of the interdependencies among these information
elements as well as their interdependencies with information elements in other information
domains. The second aspect of information coordination is the coordination of responsibilities
among the participating actors.
In addition, there is the coordination of the content of this information on the Meta level in the form of
a common language. This subject will be discussed in more details in the coming chapter.
3.2.3. Communication
Communication in General
Communication is one of the most important processes that take place in organizations; it has major
effects on individual, group and organizational performance (George & Jones 1999). However,
communication has different perceptions considering the position of the observer. On one hand,
Claude Shannon in his work “A mathematical theory of communication” (1948) interpreted
communication as the transmission and reception of information. According to this point of view, the
main concern of communication is the reproduction of a message to one point either exactly or
approximately as the message is sent from another point. Semantic or logic issues of communication
are not a matter of interest. On the other hand, A. Richards from a humanistic perspective interpreted
communication as the generation of meaning (Griffin 1997).
Other definitions attempted to overcome these conflicting views, e.g. Friedman and Keeps defined
communication as “the management of messages for the purpose of creating meaning” (Griffin 1997),
or “the sharing of information between two or more individuals or groups to reach a common
understanding.”(George & Jones 1999). Consequently, communication takes place when a cognitively
meaningful signal or message that is involving some knowledge is transmitted between two or more
things in some natural or social environment. As the simple sharing of information is not enough for
76
communication to occur, reaching a common understanding is considered an essential defining feature
of communication. In other words, communication takes place by sharing of information to reach a
mutual knowledge between two or more actors. However, reaching a common understanding does not
mean that people have to agree with each other, but they must have a relatively accurate idea of what a
person or group is trying to tell them (George & Jones 1999). The lack of this common understanding
reduces the effectiveness of the group’s performance as well as the efficiency of its members.
Components of the communication process
George and Jones (1999) argue that communication processes include the following distinct
components (Fig. 3.14):
Sender: The individual, the group, or the organization that needs or wants to share information
with another individual, group, or organization;
Receiver: The individual, the group, or the organization for which the information is intended;
Message: The messages that a sender needs or wants to share with others. Communicated
messages could be visual, acoustic, electromagnetic, chemical, etc. Verbal communication
takes places when sharing information occurs through words, either spoken or written;
Medium: the pathway through which an encoded message is transmitted to a receiver;
Language: that facilitates both encoding, i.e. translating a message into symbols that a receiver
can understand, and decoding, i.e. interpreting or trying to make sense of a sender’s message.
Fig. 3-14 Components of communications process
Source: George & Jones 1999
When two or more things communicate, either in only one direction or in both directions, they
comprise a communication system. However, transmission of messages in such systems is subjected to
distortions due to uncontrolled random changes in the communication channel (Bunge 1999).
In general, four main functions of communication could be distinguished as follows (George and
Jones 1999):
Providing knowledge: a basic function of communication is to provide knowledge to the
members of an organization so that they can perform their jobs effectively and achieve their
77
goals. By providing knowledge about, for example, ways to perform tasks and about decisions
that have been made, an organization makes sure that its members have the information they
need to perform at a high level of work. By mastering communication in organizations,
members of these organizations have the information they need when they need it to achieve
their goals. (George & Jones, 1999)
Controlling and coordinating individual efforts: to manage interdependencies among the
members of the group, to eliminate duplication and to prevent one poorly performing member
from hindering other members from achieving the group’s goals.
Motivating organizational members.
Expressing feelings and emotions.
Communication in spatial planning
Regarding planning as decision-making or as coordination of spatial activities, it is essential that

participants in the process should communicate in some form. Therefore, in a spatial planning
situation, there will be a continuous communicative process involving these actors e.g. planners,
decision makers, developers, the public, interest groups, etc. In a hypothetical planning situation,
where in all the afore-mentioned dimensions of the planning process only four actors would be
involved in the planning process as following:
Actor A is a regional planning organization that is conducting a regional planning process
Actor B is a higher level planning agency, e.g. national planning authority;
Actor C is a neighboring region that might be affected by the planning outcomes and
Actor D is a local agency, e.g. transportation planning agency.
In the best scenario for this simplified communication process (fig. 3.15), assuming that each of these
actors knows which information is needed, where this information is available and which process is
needed to obtain it, clearly, the volume of information communicated among these actors might be
extremely large.
However, in a real planning situation, the number of involved actors, both directly and indirectly,
would be relatively large. As mentioned earlier, it is likely in a complex planning situation that up to
50 actors may participate in the process (Scholl 1995). Taking into consideration the complex nature
of spatial planning, these actors - public agencies and private actor - would have different roles,
different or conflicting- interests, various information policies and different priority (fig. 3.16).
78
Fig. 3-15 Communication in a simple planning situation Fig. 3-16 Communication in a complex planning situation
Modified after Elgendy 2000 Combined and modified after Stein 1994 & Elgendy 2000
In this situation, many uncertainties exist regarding the creditability of the communication process on
all the three domains discussed above. Would each actor communicate with all other actors to check
their activities and their future plans regarding the region? If this would happen, we should think about
how much information would be circulated and how many resources each actor would devote to
gathering and organizing this information. What will be the situation if an actor ignored
communication with another actor that might be affected by his spatial plans? This might happen if the
communication might affect his interests negatively.
These communication processes could be assigned to the three domains of information that were
discussed as following:
Communication about the subject-matter of planning includes aspects:
∗ Counseling about the identified problems or conflicts,
∗ Communication with other actors to coordinate actions or to request information,
∗ Reporting relevant events, offering opinions and advice (Foster 1985),
∗ Negotiations with potential investors,
Communication about the planning process such as:
∗ Communication of work plans and other organizational messages,
∗ Suggesting proposals to solve the problem or resolve the conflict,
∗ Arguing for or against particular proposals,
Communication of information and knowledge is concerned with:
∗ Communication of knowledge from similar cases,
∗ Communicating policy and plan action to the public,
These classes of communication processes in spatial planning are not sharply defined from one
another. They could be differentiated according to the basic characteristics of the communication
process, such as: the sources and the target of the communicated message, the number of actors who
participate in this communication and the type of the target group to whom the communicated
message is aimed. Some aspects that are important for the development of PIS are discussed in the
following paragraphs briefly.
79
a. External and internal communication
Communication processes in spatial planning could be classified according to the position of both the
sender and the receiver of the message in the planning process domain. The importance of this
classification emerges from the different requirements that each type requires. Two main classes could
be identified, internal and external communication.
Internal communication occurs amongst actors inside the process domain. In other words, if both the
sender and the receiver are participating actors in the process, then the communication is considered as
internal communication. However, internal communication is not related to the spatial locations of the
communicating actors. External communication takes place when an actor from one domain attempts
to communicate with another actor in a different domain.
Fig. 3-17 Internal and external communication
b. Extrovert and Introvert communication
In addition, communication processes could be classified according to the direction of the message. If
the message is outgoing, this communication is extrovert. If the message is incoming the
communication is introvert. This classification could be applied on both the actor level as well as on
the whole process domain level.
Fig. 3-18 Extrovert and Introvert communication
c. One to one and one-to-many
If the communicated message is addressed to a specific receiver, then the communication is considered
a one-to-one communication. On the contrary, if the message is sent without a specific intended
receiver, then the communication is considered a nonselective one-to-many communication. In
between these two cases, there is the focused one-to-many communication where the communicated
message is aimed to a target group, which is not definitely known but identified by its characteristics.
80
One to one communication Nonselective one-to-many communication Focused one-to-many communication
Fig. 3-19 one-to-one and one-to-many communication
d. Formal & Informal communication
In traditional planning, communication is closely connected to the planning process that belongs to the
responsibilities of individual organizational units in public administrations. In this type of
communication, it could be said that it follows the course of files that moves from one person to
another to fulfill the formal requirements. Selle (1997) described this process as “corridor
communication” where each participating actor reviews the subject matter of communication
consecutively. This process is structure-oriented and process-oriented. It is characterized by reducing
the content of the subject matter to fulfill formalities that are specified by the laws and the regulations.
This could be described as ‘Formalism’ of communication, which is time consuming and leads in
many cases to solutions that are the mere accumulation of the results of the process steps, which in
many cases has no effect in the reality.
Fig. 3-20 problem-orientated and process -orientated communication
This type of communication is usually not effective when the problem is cross border of
administrative subdivisions or on the city level when a private investor practices pressures to realize
his development at a faster pace other than that used in public administration. In this case, public
administration is forced to focus communication process in a more effective way, e.g. in round table
meetings, where the most important actors can communicate directly in a focused manner with more
problem solving orientation rather than with process-orientation. Also in blockade situations where
conflicting interests or viewpoints exist, traditional and formal communication processes do not lead
to solving the problem. In such situations, innovative and appropriate communication processes should
be implemented. This problem-orientated communication is not easy for public administration as it
confronts its routines and puts its formal processes into discussion (Selle 1997).
81
d. Communication and language
In each of these categories, communication requires that communicated messages should be

transmitted in a language that is understandable to the group’s members (Malone & Crowston 1990).
The language used in communication is a decisive factor on the quality and the result of
communication. George & Jones (1999) stated that communication is effective when members of the
communicating group or organization share information with each other and all parties involved have
a relatively clear understanding about what this information means. Communication is inefficient
when people are not quite sure what the information they do receive means. Maurer (1985) argues that
the limit of common understanding among members of a group is the limit of their common language.
Establishment of this language depends on the ability of the actors to identify the common objects and
interdependencies among them. This language includes common objects in all of the subject matter of
planning, the process and the information domains.
e. Public participation and information
Planning from the top becomes less popular as nobody wants to be ignored while others plan at him
(Rittel 1982). Public participation is stated in planning laws in different planning cultures. For
example In the Swiss law for spatial planning (RPG Art. 4, Abs.1), it was declared that the public
should be informed about the targets and the course of planning. Similarly, Märker and Pipek (2000)
stated that in Germany whenever a planning process is conducted, some sort of public participation is
obligatory by virtue of the law. This is valid regardless of whether it is concerned with building a new
street or a railway, or planning a new industrial or commercial area. The applied planning procedures
should assure that the public interests of the local community are not violated. Those planning
procedures include different participation opportunities for citizens. For example, construction plans
of a specific land parcel (Bebauungsplan) have to be made publicly available for a specific period. In
addition, it should be explained in a way that makes it clear for normal citizens. Furthermore, local
authorities should invite those who might be affected by the planned activities as well as related
stakeholder organizations. During these participation measures, there have to be opportunities to
influence the decision through written objections or at hearing sessions as prescribed by the federal
laws. The responsible authorities should consider the results of the participation procedures during the
decision making process for the project.
However, the fundamental aspects of such participation processes were criticized for several reasons.
First, the claim of availability of the plans in the city hall for discussion is questionable. This offer was
criticized as being only selective, as only some groups of individuals will benefit from it. Even if the
public administration makes an invitation, this invitation process could sometimes be selective.
Second, the comprehensiveness of the supplied explanations is usually questionable. Due to these
factors, the level of participation in such processes is usually quite low (Märker & Pipek 2000).
82
While public participation is a formal requirement, public information could be used to clarify that a
specific behavior is better or reasonable than others, for example using public transport instead of
private cars as a part of traffic planning (Schönwandt 1999).
PIS and communication in spatial planning

PIS could be used to support different types of communication in spatial planning in the
subject-matter domain, in the process domain and in the information domain.
Implementation of PIS should support innovative ways of communication that facilitate
problem solving beyond the formal process-oriented communication.
During the development and implementation of PIS, the differentiation between internal and
external communication is essential. In addition it should support both introvert and extrovert
communications.
The differences between focused and nonselective communication is also important to be
considered in PIS.
For communication to be efficient using PIS the afore-mentioned common language among
participating actors is essential.
83
3.2.4. Summery of decision-making, coordination and communication
Decision-making Coordination Communication
Weighing the known alternative actions, to maximize

their maximal expected utilities, regarding the Managing dependencies between activities performed Sharing information between two or more individuals
Definition
probability of each alternative, and the expected to achieve a goal. or groups to reach a common understanding.
outcomes of each alternative and its utility.
Process
Goals Sender
Actor
Actions Receiver
Alternative actions
Components Actors Message
Circumstances (have probability)
Task assignment Medium
Outcomes (have desirability)
Interdependencies Language (encoding and decoding)
In spatial
planning
84
3.3. Planning information objects
The abstraction that could be applied using Ontology is needed for the highest level of typology or the
conceptualization level. The procedural approach is essential to describe different information
processes in spatial planning. However, on attempting to describe more detailed levels, the need for a
less abstract description emerges to describe each object and identify its characteristics and
relationships with other objects. This step resembles the process of object identification in the object-
oriented languages. A short introduction to the basic concepts of object-oriented languages will be
introduced and how it will be applied in the development and implementation of PIS.
3.3.1. Object orientation
In information systems, the traditional view to programming was mainly concerned with developing
programs that are viewed as logical procedures. These procedures take input data, process it, and
produce output data. The programmer’s task was seen as developing this logic. On the contrary,
object-oriented programming (OOP), as its name suggests, is oriented to objects instead of actions. It
is hence oriented to information rather than to logic. This shift consequently resulted in a shift in the
programming process. Its main emphasis shifted to find the objects rather than to write the logic that
manipulates them (whatis.com).
This typology should help in facilitating different information processes in spatial planning tasks by
identifying manageable units of information. Hanage (1995) stated “When you start to try and manage
your information, you'll find that you need to break it down into 'manageable' elements - You can then
think about ways to collect, store, process, and disseminate it in each area.“
For a specific domain, objects present the building blocks of the language needed in this domain.
These objects are organized in classes that have a common structure. Each class of objects could be
described using a set of attributes. Different types of relations exist among the object in a domain. The
concepts of object, class, attribute and relation will be discussed hereafter from the viewpoint of
planning information.
Information objects
An information object is understood as a piece of information about some actual things. These
actual things might be physical, virtual or logical. Information objects could be called
elements, units or entities.
An information object is described as ‘a capsule of information’ that has its unique
identification, and its own attributes; the information itself is the content of this capsule.
85
The concept of information objects could be applied to the representation of physical or
logical things. ‘ROAD’, ‘CITY’, ‘PERSON’, ‘MEETING’, ‘REPORT’ or ‘BUILDING’ are
different examples of possible objects that could exist in the planning domain.
Classes
If a family of objects has a set of common attributes and relations, then they are called a class.
In this sense, the class ‘PERSON’ includes all the persons in their general role as a person.
However, subclasses could be created from a general class, e.g. a class ‘AUTHOR’ is a
subclass of ‘PERSON’. A member object of the class ‘AUTHOR’ will inherit all properties of
the class ‘PERSON’ in addition to the specific properties for this subclass.
A class of objects could be about a family of things, events or processes.
It might include structural, behavioral, grouping, notational things.
Fig. 3-21 the concept of object classes
Attributes
Any object has a set of attributes describing its characteristics. For example, the object
‘PERSON’ is described using attributes such as ‘name’, ‘age’ and ‘address’. The object
‘ROAD’ is described using attributes such as ‘number of lanes’ and ‘maximum speed’.
The value of a specific attribute is limited to the span of values of this attribute for the
described object. An attribute’s value domain is defined by the type and the span of values that
could be given to this attribute. For example, the value domain of an attribute ‘A’ is defined as
an integer between x and y or the value domain of the attribute ‘author’ of the class
‘document’ is defined as a member of the class "AUTHER".
Attributes are classified into two categories: internal and external. Internal attributes are
attributes that describe the characteristics of the object. External attributes describe how the
object behaves and interacts in the application e.g. is it publicly or exclusively accessible, is it
available to edit or not?
Regarding the variety of planning situations, different attributes might be available or needed
for some instances of a specific class while they are not needed for other instances. This will
allow the afore-mentioned applications of extended and specialized knowledge to be used
where needed. Hence, an attribute should be defined either as mandatory or optional. If all
attributes are defined as mandatory, then for all objects of this class all attributes must be
86
given, which is not reasonable in most cases. On the contrary, if all attributes are defined as
optional this could lead to the missing of basic attributes that are essential for identifying the
object. Hence, in the catalogue of attributes of a specific class, each attribute should be
identified if it is mandatory i.e. must be defined for all instances of this class, or optional.
Different types of measurements for an attribute’s values could be distinguished as: nominal,
ordinal, interval or ratio. Nominal is a qualitative value, which is non-numerical and has no
ranking e.g. land uses (residential, industrial, etc.). Ordinal measurement is similar to the
nominal one but has a ranking e.g. density of residential areas (high, middle, low). Interval
attributes’ values are numerical ordinal values that have a reference e.g. distances. Ratio
attribute’s value is a ranking numerical internal scale.
Relations
Classes of objects normally have mutual relations, which represent connections or associations
between two or more classes of objects e.g. a ‘ROAD’ is located in a ‘STATE’, a ‘MEETING’
‘is moderated by’ a ‘PERSON’ or a ‘PERSON’ ‘is a participant in’ a ‘MEETING’.
Fig. 3-22 The concept of Entity / Relation
In general, relations could be temporal, logical, organizational, spatial, etc. as follows:

Temporal relations take the form of “x AFTER y”, “x BEFOR y”, etc.
∗ Logical relations include different types of dependencies e.g. generalization “x IS A y”,
dependency “x IS A RESULT OF y”, essence “x IS REQUIRED FOR y”, partition “x IS
A PART OF y”, etc.
∗ Organizational relations include such relations as association “x IS A MEMBER OF y”,
ownership “x BELONGS TO y”, “x ASSIGNED TO y”, etc.
∗ Spatial relations are either topological or proximal. Topological spatial relations describe
the adjacency, connectivity and containment e.g. “x LOCATED IN y”, “x PART OF y”,
“x SURROUNDED BY y”, “x BETWEEN y and z”, etc. Proximal relations among
spatial objects describe the closeness of non-contiguous features.
A relation could take the following forms regarding the number of objects involved in this
relation: one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many or many-to-one. A relation could be an
object-to-object, even-to-event, or event-to-object. As in attributes, a relation could be
mandatory or optional. It could also be exclusive, recursive or multiple.
87
Information functions
In general, information entities or objects are handled through information functions. An
information function is described as a set of actions where information objects are created,
declared, communicated, processed, manipulated, documented and stored or even destroyed.
An information function interacts with information entities through protocols that regulate this
interaction according to a rules scheme. This rules scheme defines how different functions
should manipulate information.
An object can have several well-defined interfaces offering the needed attributes and relations
to a process, hiding other attributes and relations.
In classifying planning information, two aspects should be considered. The first is searching
for the basic objects of planning information, its characteristics, attributes and their
interrelations with each other. The second is concerned with information functions that will be
applied to the information objects.
An example of object definition
Fig. 3-23 The concept of Entity / Relation – an example
3.3.2. General attributes of planning information objects
To deal with the diversity of information objects and access rights in a multidisciplinary environment
as in spatial planning, different aspects should be considered during the definition of information
objects such: the type of the message, the source of the message, the location of the message in the
process, the subject-matter of the message and the content of the message. In addition, different
characteristics will affect how a specific information object will be dealt within the application. These
aspects are considered as general attributes that apply for all information objects in spatial planning.
a. Formality: “formal information” vs. ”informal information”
Formal information is the type of information that is required by or produced according to laws or
regulations. This type of information is usually well defined. It has a specific source, specific
categories of content and specific receivers (although it may be unlimited in number). The process of
producing and processing such information is largely regulated by laws. Most of formal information
takes the form of different types of plans, laws and regulations e.g. spatial planning law, land use plan,
or zoning plan of a specific area. Informal information is all information that is needed, processed,
88
produced throughout a planning process that is not specifically defined by laws and regulations. This
type of information presents the majority of planning information. It also presents a higher complexity
regarding the amount of information and the absence of regulations.
b. Macro and micro information objects
Macro information is large chunks of information - that include smaller pieces of information - micro
information. Micro information is the smallest piece of information that has a meaning for its recipient
in a specific context, e.g. spatial planning law includes different chapters dealing with different
subjects. Each chapter includes different paragraphs that also deal with different cases. For a specific
planning situation, some of these paragraphs might be important while the rest of the law is not
relevant. If the law will be dealt with as a single chunk of information it will not be possible to access
a specific piece of information easily. PIS should recognize this difference and allow grouping of
micro information object into a macro one and vice versa.
c. Stability of the information object
The stability of an information object is described using two pairs of characteristic “static information”
vs. “dynamic information” and “Hard information” vs. “Soft information”. Static information objects
will be for a very long time stable with no change e.g. the spatial planning law. A law will normally
take a long time to be changed, in some cases decades. This type of information is considered a static
information object, as it will not be changed in the process. An example of a dynamic information
object, it could be the state of approval for establishing a large infrastructure project, e.g. an airport or
the planning for a new residential district in a city. If the airport is approved it would affect the plans
of the residential area regarding the resulting noise of the air traffic. An information object that
describes such a subject will be updated in short terms. This type of information is considered a
dynamic or temporary. The main consideration regarding how a planning information system deals
with these different types will result in: which information function should be available to manipulate
a specific information object according to its type?
d. Object composition
Another classification could be according to the composition of an information object or its position in
the hierarchy of information objects.
Primary information elements: The main characteristic of a primary information object is that
it stands alone and does not refer to other information elements. In other words, a primary
information object is about something that exists independent of other things that are
represented as information objects e.g. the class actor.
89
Secondary information: A secondary information object does not stand-alone; it refers to one
or more of primary information objects. In other words, a secondary information object
represents something whose existence is dependent on other things that are regarded as
primary information objects, e.g. a document.
Ternary information elements: The main characteristic of a ternary information object is that it
refers to one or more of secondary information objects. In addition, it could also refer to other
primary information objects. In other words, an information object in this category is about
something whose existence is dependent on other things that are regarded as secondary
information objects. An example for this category could be an event, which is related to a
specific subject, in a specific place with participating actors.
e. Access context
Access context is related to the context where an information object is circulated. Three types of
information objects could be distinguished regarding these criteria, namely internal, external and
transferable. Internal information objects are limited to internal participants in the planning process,
e.g. meeting protocols or agendas. In some cases it is even restricted to only a sub group of
participants e.g. a confidential note. External information objects are information objects that are
produced or processed outside the planning process but are related to the process e.g. different articles
about the subject-matter of planning which is only linked to the PIS. There is third type information
that is transferable information. A transferable information object is an information object that is
externalized from the internal process to be publicly available or to be exchanged with some external
actors.
The main concern of PIS regarding these criteria is to facilitate presenting information objects in the
corresponding context. In addition, it should support facilitating the different access rights for each
group of users to the different information objects.
3.4. Conclusion
The need for studying the typology of planning information as a first step towards a common
language in spatial planning processes emerges from different aspects:
∗ The territory of spatial planning is multi perspective and interdisciplinary. The
information that is processed or produced in a planning situation is from various
professional backgrounds.
∗ The planning process is collaborative and involves a large number of actors that would
participate, affect or be affected by the outcomes of the planning.
90
∗ Planning information is characterized of being from different sources. It is produced by
different individuals or organizations with different qualities and often using different
standards.
The needed language for planning information consists of two basic components. The first
component includes the objects or the vocabulary of this language. The second component
consists of the rules that govern how these objects should be used, i.e. the grammar. It is one
of the basic steps in developing PIS to identify these two components of the used language.
Each type of information is used, processed or produced in an information process. These
information processes take place in a variety of planning information domains. These three
concepts, i.e. information domains, information processes and information objects are argued
to be crucial for the development and implementation of planning information systems.
Three main information domains could be identified in spatial planning. These domains are:
∗ The subject-matter domain of planning: includes information objects that are related to
features or things of the real world in a specific spatial context.
∗ The process domain: includes information objects that are related to a specific planning
process which is dealing with a specific subject-matter,
∗ The planning knowledge domain: includes information objects that are mostly specialized
knowledge, which exist independent of a specific planning situation. It includes
information objects such as laws, regulations and methodological knowledge.
The identification of these domains affects the development and implementation of PIS in the
following aspects.
∗ Each of these domains includes different classes of information objects that have different
attributes, coverage and live time.
∗ In each of these domains, different information processes are required.
∗ The target group in each of these domains is different.
Spatial planning is a process woven of different information processes. An information

process is any process where information is processed, communicated or produced.
Information input in planning processes includes normative and empirical information.
Planning produces information output based on input. The major output information is
decisions and proposals of actions regarding the planning problem. Throughout the planning
process, different types of coordination and communication information are produced and
processed.
91
Analysis of the information processes in spatial planning regarding the participating actors in
the process includes: information producers, information providers and information
consumers.
Different information processes are identified in the spatial planning. Among these
information processes that are considered essential for any planning situation are decision-
making, coordination and communication.
Decision-making
Facing alternative courses of action to achieve a goal or a desired state, the task of planning is
to decide amongst these alternative actions. Different planning approaches have different
methodologies in describing and solving decision situations.
The basic decision problem in spatial planning could be formulated in the following terms:
given limited resources (time, capacity, personnel, money, etc.), a variety of possibilities
(alternative actions) and partial knowledge to choose the action with the highest probable
future utility. This should be done under uncertain circumstances “exogenous factors” that
could not be influenced.
Decision-making in spatial planning could be described as a complex of sequences of
decisions. Each decision presents a circumstance for other decisions.
For PIS to support decision making in spatial planning it should facilitate exploring different
alternative courses of actions, the expected outcomes of these actions and the circumstances
that might influence these outcomes. Then, it should make this information accessible for the
participating actors.
Coordination
Spatial planning as a process is a social process among individuals who often come from
different professional backgrounds. These processes are inherently collaborative processes,
hence, requiring the negotiation and the reconciliation of different views, perspectives,
vocabularies and knowledge bases associated with a problem-solving situation.
Coordination in spatial planning could be classified into coordination of spatial activities,
coordination in planning processes and coordination of information.
Regarding coordination of spatial activities, PIS should support illustrating the
interdependencies among different activities with spatial impacts on a specific spatial context,
by establishing an overview about these activities and then keeping this overview up-to-date
and available for the concerned actors. This might facilitates the early identification of
conflicting interests and expected problems.
PIS could support the coordination of the planning process, by coordinating the process and
the various activities in such a process. It is important to categorize the participating actors, to
92
identify the goal and objectives of the process, the tasks that should be conducted to achieve
these goals, the time plans and the interdependencies among these tasks.
Communication
PIS could be used to support different types of communication in spatial planning in the
subject-matter domain, in the process domain and in the information domain.
For communication to be efficient using PIS, a common language among participating actors
is essential.
Implementation of PIS should support innovative ways of communication that use problem-
solving communication rather than the formal process-oriented communication.
For PIS to support communication in spatial planning, it should consider the differences
between each pair of the following types communication: internal communication vs. external
communication, introvert communication vs. extrovert communication and focused
communication vs. nonselective communication.
An information object is understood as a piece of information about some actual things. These
actual things might be physical, virtual or logical.
If a family of objects has a set of common attributes and relations, then they are called a class.
Each class of objects has a set of attributes and relations that describe the characteristics of this
object.
In spatial planning, a variety of information objects could be identified in different information
processes and in the different information domains. Some of these objects could be reused in
different planning situations and some are specific for a certain planning situation.
93
4. Conceptual Bases of PIS
In the preceding the chapter main emphasis was devoted to setting an order to deal with the variety of
planning information by identifying the main information domains, information processes and
information objects in different spatial planning situations. This chapter is concerned mainly with
setting the conceptual framework of PIS. The first step to set this framework is to determine the pre-
requirements that should be considered in PIS based on the afore-mentioned characteristics. Then it
will facilitate defining the basic criteria that should be considered in evaluating different technical and
conceptual possibilities for the implementation of these systems.
As a preliminary step to achieve this aim, this chapter starts by exploring the meaning of the term
“system”. Then the basic pre-requirements of PIS will be introduced and discussed. Afterwards the
basic criteria that should be considered in the development and in the implementation of PIS will be
discussed regarding the specific characteristics of the spatial problems, the planning processes and the
characteristics of humans in processing information. These criteria should be considered in the
conceptual, the technical and the operative aspects of PIS. After that, the proposed general structure of
PIS will be introduced. This general structure includes the basic components of PIS that would be
essential for supporting planning information processes under different circumstances.
4.1. Introduction to “systems”
The discussion of the term “system” is aimed at finding answers for the following questions: What is
meant by the word “system”? What are the criteria that should be available in something to be called a
system? What are the basic components of any system? This discussion will start by exploring the
semantic meaning of the term ‘system’. Then it will be discussed from the point of view of the
systems theory.
94
Semantically, the word “system” could be understood in three senses: a set of elements, a set of
methods or a set of principles . Different dictionaries give different definitions for these three senses as
well as combinations of more than one sense. Here is a survey of different meanings of this term.
Sense 1: a system is defined as a group of independent, but interrelated, elements comprising a unified
whole (WordNet 2001). Several alternatives of this sense in different dictionaries are summarized in
the following table.
→ comprising
→ forming → a unified whole
→ set → connected → components → organized in → a complex whole
→ collection → independent → elements
A → group of → interrelated → items → operate together
→ → interacting → devices
combination → related → artifact → for a common
→ organized for purpose
→ designed to → work as a
coherent unit
The common aspect in the above listed group of definitions is the basic concept of a set of things
(components; elements; items; devices or artifacts) that are connected or related together. Some
definitions just emphasize that the set of elements should form a unified whole to be a system. The
second group of definitions went beyond the unified whole to emphasize on the aspect of a common
purpose of the set of elements.
Sense 2: a system is defined as a method or a set of procedures for achieving something (Encarta,
1999). Here is a survey of different alternatives of this sense in different dictionaries.
→ way
→ process → doing → things
A → procedure of → obtaining → an objective
→ set of procedures → achieving → something
→ method
This sense goes beyond the previous one. It concentrates on the functional aspect of a system rather
than the structural one; it concentrates more on how a system works than on what a system consists of.
In other words, this sense considers a system as how something operates to achieve its predefined
objective.
Sense 3: here a system is defined as a complex of methods or rules governing behavior (WordNet,
2001). The following table includes a summary of different alternatives of this sense in different
dictionaries.
→ methods
→ rules
→ complex → governing behavior
A of → ideas
→ scheme
→ principles
This sense is a step further than the preceding one. It concentrates on the scheme or the set of rules that
defines how a set of components should behave in a procedure to achieve its goal or objective.
95
While these three senses are dealt with, semantically, as alternative meanings of the term “system”, I
would prefer to consider them as various aspects of any system. Any system should inherit the three
aspects: a set of components, a set of methods and a set of rules. In addition, a system should have an
objective.
Systems theory goes beyond these semantic definitions to focus on the arrangement of and relations
between the components of a system which connect them into a whole, rather than reducing a system
to the properties of its parts or components (Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). Hence, a comprehensive
definition of the term “system” could be: “a combination of interdependent - or independent but
interrelated - components that are organized in a complex whole, that operate together to achieve an
objective. Meanwhile in achieving their objectives, these components follow a set of methods or
procedures. In addition, it is governed by a scheme of principles and rules. From the above-mentioned
definition, four main components are defined as primary in any system. These components are:
an objective,
a set of components,
a set of methods or procedures, and
a scheme of rules that governs how system’s components behave.
This discussion leads to several questions regarding PIS such as: What are the goals and the objectives
of PIS? What are the tasks that PIS should support? What are the main functions that are needed to
accomplish these tasks? What are the main components of PIS? In the following sections, these four
aspects will be discussed.
4.2. Aims and tasks of a PIS
The general aim of PIS is to support different information processes in spatial planning. Rittel (1982)
argues that the search for better planning systems is identical to the construction of better planning
information systems. However, discrepancy of perception among information specialists and planners,
regarding the application of information systems in planning, is apparent in many planning situations.
In different situations, it was clear that reaching a common perception was complicated, and was
reflected on the unsatisfactory results of the project. The traditional concept of implementing
information systems is sooner confronted with the vague formulated requirements of planners (von
Rotz 1989).
Confronted with the new developments of the informational society, it is the planners’ burden to
review their theories and instruments to meet the evolving and the new requirements of planning and
meeting the ever-changing circumstances of planning for spatial development. Considering the nature
of spatial problems and the characteristics of spatial planning process, it is important for planners to
96
distinguish routine and non-routine information processes in spatial planning, and then support each
type with the appropriate tools.
The main difference between PIS and commercial produced general purpose information systems
emerged from the basic argument which implies that: each planning information system should by
based on a hypothesis about the problem that should to be solved, the participating actors in the
process, the types of information that are required to make the needed decisions.
In general, planning information systems are aimed at facilitating planning information processes in a
specific planning context. That includes allowing different participants, in a specific planning context,
to participate in handling and communicating different planning information in a collaborative
manner. However, the sole accumulation and storage of planning information are not enough to make
PIS useful as a supporting tool for planning processes. It is generally known that the application of
information systems to decision-making and design processes, in the form of putting data and
information on a computer, is not per se an advantage for the process and in some cases it is a burden.
The main task of PIS is to promote structuring planning information while dealing with the
unstructured and informal information that represent an important part in planning.
However, it is important to ensure that structuring and networking of information is not a goal in itself
but it is a way to a further goal that is giving an aid for planning process as a whole. To bring the
appropriate aid, PIS is thought of as a part of the planning process where tasks are accomplished,
information is organized and stored as a part of the processes and not as an additional and separate
task. This will enable using information systems in new ways by evolving from being a facility for
accumulating and preserving information to a platform for networking and sharing knowledge that is
processed and produced in a planning process (Conklin 1996). This platform should network different
information processes in planning. In doing this, it supports keeping different actors in touch with the
planning situation and the actual available knowledge. Consequently, it facilitates the collaborative
exploration of planning problems. In addition, PIS should allow identifying where information is
missing. In conducting these tasks, PIS would act as the nervous system and the memory of the human
body. It would be a multi-dimensional, multi-level, multi-disciplinary, multi-tasking, multi-media
system and “multiparty environment”.
To accomplish this general aim, a PIS in a specific planning situation should fulfill a set of specific
objectives. These objectives could vary from one situation to another. In different planning situations
different objects, functions and rules schemes could be included in the system. To achieve this aim, a
PIS should support different tasks related to information such as: collaborative exploration of planning
matters, organization of information in the planning process, facilitating recalling and exchanging of
planning knowledge, collaborative exploration of solution direction and the development of plan
proposals, etc. These tasks are briefly introduced in the following paragraphs.
97
a. Collaborative exploration of planning matters
For decades, it was enough to use cartographic representation to establish the overview of a specific
problem. It was possible to link further documents and information. However more and more
information that is not possible to organize, link or call in the normal ways, is creating an obstruction
for many planning tasks (Maurer 1988). Regarding the complexity of spatial problems, and the
increasing mass of information that is related to these problems, PIS should support exploration of
planning situation in different contexts and from different perspectives. For exploring spatial problems
without overloading all participating actors with masses of information and overwhelming them with
details, two types of explorations are important: 1) the spatial and 2) the chronological overviews.
1. The spatial overview: Understanding problem situations and solving them could not be achieved by
the sole collection of information. It is important to ensure that the main task of PIS, in the subject-
matter domain, is not to support the pure accumulation of descriptive data sets. This might lead to
losing the overview under the pressure and the bulk of details, number of events, and the impact of
professional, political, and personal conflicts. If the overview is lost, this might lead to the failure of
judgment of the situation, and then to steer the planning in the wrong direction (Maurer 1995). Taking
the interconnectivity and the nature of planning information into consideration, the task of PIS is to
facilitate exploring the subject matter of planning, searching for problem solution or conflict
resolution.
This overview should include the ongoing activities and the existing problems and potentials in the
planning area and then try to keep this overview up-to-date. For this overview to be useful, it should
be organized in a way that presents the interdependencies and relations among the included elements.
It also includes key figures that present indicators about the circumstances of the subject matter (e.g.
population of a city, number of jobs and consumption of residential area per capita). In creating this
overview only major issues and activities, which are relevant and have importance to the region,
should be included so that planners, decision-makers and other actors are not lost in huge and
irrelevant information. When more specialized information is collected for a specific part of the
problem this will not overload the overview as it will be organized on a lower level of the hierarchy. It
should also ensure that no specific issue is ignored when making a decision with spatial impacts.
This overview would allow different actors to integrate these components in a comprehensive and
integrated overview on the region. This overview should be available for all participating actors in the
process including decision makers, planners and investors. It would act as a tool to overcome the
regional conflict across-border and across-organization by interconnecting knowledge from different
actors and making it accessible to others and then keeping it up-to-date so that actors have access to
the current state of knowledge. However, in establishing such an overview in a collaborative manner,
it must be considered that different actors have different access rights.
98
Fig. 4-1 An example of the spatial overview about spatial activities in the upper Rhine valley case study
Source: http://www.isl-projekte.uni-karlsruhe.de/oberrhein/
An example of the spatial overview: This example illustrates the spatial overview of different activities that have
spatial impacts in the Upper-Rhine valley region. It illustrates planned and ongoing project, problems and conflicts.
(This case is discussed in details in a different paper: Elgendy, Engelke & beck 2001)
99
The needed overview would include information about ongoing activities, problems, conflicts and
potentials in the area as outlined here below:
It should represent the ongoing activities and their impacts on other activities either positively
or negatively. Positive impacts could be in the form of added value to the region. On the
contrary, negative impacts might take the form of urban, ecological and social costs. These
ongoing activities are not limited to spatial development projects, but they cover different
types of activities as well as ongoing planning processes. These planning and development
activities could be in the subject area as well as in other areas that might affect the subject
area. They also include the adopted work programs of different actors that have or might have
spatial impacts.
Observing ongoing activities on a region in an integrated manner aims at maximizing the
benefits by promoting synergies among these activities. It also aims at minimizing the
conflicts that might emerge from these activities by coordinating spatial activities in this area.
It should include major problems in the region and the nature of each. Then to allow
participating actors in defining priority areas of action which facilitate the efficient use of the
limited resources (investments)
It should include development potentials in the area. These potentials should not only be
limited to the existing potentials but also they should predict expected potentials in the future.
This overview should be available for all concerned actors in this area to keep an eye on what is going
on in the region before making a decision with spatial impacts. To create this overview and to define
what are the major issues that should be included in the system, main actors should define these issues
and which information should be included according to their needs. That means a system that serves
all cases, will not be suitable. A system should be developed to fit the regional circumstances and the
needs of the potential users.
Such an overview should help the concerned actors in:
maximizing the benefits, minimizing the conflicts and defining the gaps in their activities;
estimating the positive or negative effects of the ongoing activities on both the existing and
future conditions,
defining how to integrate these components together in a comprehensive manner regarding the
overall strategy for development in the area,
setting priority areas for action to optimize the use of the limited resources.
2. The chronological overview: Spatial activities are normally realized over several years and
sometimes over several decades. Different activities are found in different implementation phases
others are still in planning phases. The chronological overview is a representation of both ongoing and
planned activities on the time axe. It includes phases of different projects and plans as well as planned
activities. It will be then possible to observe how the region will be in different phases of development
100
and then to be able to realize if conflicts or bottlenecks could happen in the future. It also includes
main events in the future that are related to spatial development e.g. for specific activities it will be
needed to define what is needed to be done, to realize a specific activity. The chronological overview
represents a similar function as the spatial overview but on the time line. It includes aspects such as:
When different activities or phases will start or end?

Which dead lines should be considered?
Are there interdependencies with other activities or decisions regarding the time dimensions?
When different potentials are expected to be available for developments?
b. Organization of information in the planning process
By implementing PIS in the process domain, it should support the planning processes by facilitating
coordination, organization, communication and documentation in the planning process as mentioned
earlier. In this domain, PIS should deal with information objects such as: documents, directories,
addresses, timetables, events, meeting protocols, announcements, etc. The directory component, for
example, should contain a list of the development-related organizations in the area. It might include a
list of relevant legislations. To support all the above-mentioned information tasks, it will be also
essential that PIS supports the internal communication among the involved actors in the process. In
addition, it should support external communication with external actors.
It is also important for PIS to facilitate exchanging planning information between the different levels
of applications. There is the personal planning information system where a planner organizes his
personal information. Then there is the planning information system for a group of actors who are
conducting a planning task together. A third level would be the public part of the system, where parts
of the planning information are published for the public to give them some information about the
planning task, to support consensus building for a specific development or for public participation.
There are also several project information systems.
Fig. 4-2 Different levels of application of PIS
101
c. Facilitating recalling and exchanging of planning knowledge
By implementing PIS in the planning knowledge domain, it should facilitate the management of
planning knowledge that is used or produced in planning situations. In addition, it should facilitate the
recall of other experiences. It should support visualization, different searching tools, and graphical
interface to browse this information.
Case studies are normally related to a specific spatial context and a specific type of problem. However
lessons learned form these case studies, either form success or failure, could be useful for other
situations. Case studies should then be organized both spatially as well as typologically. A user in a
planning situation will be able to browse these cases to find out if some cases might help him for
conducting his task. This leads to an accumulation of knowledge, which in its turn leads to saving time
and effort by avoiding the solving of each problem as a unique one.
Fig. 4-3 An example of a PIS that facilitates the exchange of knowledge and experiences
Source: http: http://www.isocarp.org/projects/case_studies/case_int/index.htm
ISoCaRP Case studies internet platform is developed by: Elgendy, Engelke. This internet platform is aimed at
facilitating the exchange of knowledge and experiences among the participants in ISoCaRP conferences. These case
studies are from different countries and are dealing with a different theme each year.
(This case is described in details in Engelke 2002)
d. Collaborative exploration of solution direction and the development of plan proposals
As mentioned earlier, the planners’ task is to solve the spatial problems and to resolute conflicts that
are related to spatial activities. It will be essential for PIS to support the exploration of solution
alternatives and the argumentation about these alternatives.
102
4.3. Conceptual criteria of PIS
The primary function of PIS is to facilitate an information platform that supports processing and
production of different types of planning information during different information processes in
different information domains. Consequently, it should allow different participants in a specific
planning context to disseminate, exchange, maintain and use related knowledge to this planning
context. To achieve this aim different aspects should be considered. These aspects are related to the
afore-mentioned characteristics of spatial problems, spatial planning processes and planning
information as well as the characteristics of humans in processing information. These characteristics
are discussed here below.
The main characteristics of planning subjects that should be considered in developing of PIS include
the following aspects:
Spatial problems have different types of interconnectivity such as a) the interconnectivity

between different levels of planning, b) the interconnectivity between the problem space and
the solution space and c) the interconnectivity among different spatial activities.
Planning problems and spatial contexts are not static. They change during the planning
process. This aspect is related also to the time lag between an action and the outcomes of this
action in the spatial context.
Regarding the planning process, PIS should consider the following characteristics:
Planning is a continuous process that takes place normally in a collaborative environment
among a large number of actors that are spread over different organizations.
These actors have different backgrounds, interests, roles, responsibilities and rights in
planning process.
These actors need different requirements of planning information and they usually have
different rights and duties with respect to this information. Three groups of actors could be
identified regarding their information suppliers, information consumers, and information
administrators,
Regarding planning information, the following aspects play an important role in the development and
implementation of PIS:
The needed information and knowledge to solve a complex spatial problem are neither
completely available nor clearly known at the beginning of the process.
The planners’ perception of a specific situation evolves as they attempt to solve the problem.
Different types of information are obtained from different sources with different formats and
qualities. It is important to understand the background of the information and to understand it,
103
Available information is not static, it changes throughout the process. It loses its precision
rapidly.
In addition, PIS should consider some specific characteristics of the human’s processing and the use of
information, such as:
The capacity of the human mind in simultaneous processing of information is limited.
Different methods of recoding information should be considered to add more dimensions to
information.
The human perception of information is associative. Different pieces of information are not
used in a fragmented manner. It is then important to consider the relation between different
pieces of information.
The human use of information is selective.
It is essential that PIS should be designed, developed and implemented keeping in mind these
characteristics. These characteristics affect the system structure, the system organization, the functions
and the system content.
Regarding the system structure, it should connect distributed participating actors and information.
Meanwhile it should facilitate decentralized management of planning information with minimum
effort and maximum efficiency while considering the different responsibilities and rights of the
different groups of actors. In addition, it should be open to other information systems in the process to
make use of available information and to avoid duplication of information production.
Regarding the system functionality and content, an additional set of criteria is considered important
namely: hierarchy, modularity, interactivity, association, etc. These criteria affect the
conceptualization level, the technical development and the operational measures of PIS. The following
set of criteria is essential in the development of PIS:
It should link fragmented and distributed information;
It should utilize access for different actors apart from time and place;
It should support different types and formats of planning information;
It should facilitate updating information with a minimum effort;
It should sustain different access rights to information;
It should facilitate accessing the same information in different contexts;
In the following sections the conceptual criteria that should be considered in the development of PIS
are explored to illustrate why each of them is important and to identify how each criteria might affect
the system structure, organization and content.
104
4.3.1. A decentralized and interconnected system
PIS has a main function that is to facilitate networking different information processes, which are
normally conducted in a scattered manner by a variety of actors. It should be principally possible in a
PIS that each actor can autonomously use, communicate and recall different types of planning
information, regardless of his location or time and with minimal or no need for help from a central
support point. However, the concept of decentralization does not mean the absence of order. It is
essential, to differentiate between participating actors according to their roles in the process.
The concept of decentralization is applied using the following rule "different places, different times
and different roles". This rule is not only applied regarding the participating actors in the system but it
is also applied on the information level. This leads to the concept of planning information system as a
platform that links planning information of different agencies and actors within a specific planning
context. Each actor participates with his own information and knowledge by making them available to
other actors according to the agreed upon access scheme. So that each actor will maintain his specific
information while all participants have access to the information at any time according to their access
rights. Decentralization is applied on the following three aspects: a) the supply of content, b) the
management of content, and c) the access to the content.
The configuration of decentralization in PIS should be decided regarding the different circumstances
including the target and the scope of the planning process. On one hand, there are fully central systems
where central supply, central administration and central access are applied. On the other hand, there
are systems with high levels of decentralization: distributed supply, distributed administration, and
distributed access. Between these two cases, there are different combinations that could be applied.
Fig. 4-4 Centralization of a PIS (to the left case A and to the right case B)
Figure 4.4 illustrates two different configurations of PIS in respect to the concept of decentralization.
On the horizontal axe, the centrality degree increases from the left to the right. While on the vertical
axis the number of the users is plotted. In each graph, each of the three activity groups is plotted
according to the centrality grade and number of users participating in these activities. In both cases,
administration is limited to a small number of users, which is reasonable. In case 'A', administration is
105
central while in case ‘B’ administration is decentralized while it is also limited to a few number of
users. In case ‘A’, regarding information supply, it is centralized and limited to a relatively small
number of users while in case ‘B’ a larger number of distributed users are participating in supplying
information.
4.3.2. An open system
Although information systems are used in planning and decision making for several decades, different
agencies adopted different information technology policies, which created more problems in the
process of information flow in the planning process. Murdick describes this situation as "islands of
mechanization" (van Heldn, 1994). For PIS to be integrated in the information landscape in a planning
process and to avoid creating an additional island of mechanization, it should be designed as an open
system. From a systems theory viewpoint, a system is considered an open system if it interacts with
the surrounding environment. This interaction has two components: input, that is what enters the
system from the outside, and output, that what leaves the system to the outside. In this process, the
system is not passive. It applies some processes on the input to produce the output, this process is
called the ‘throughput’. A system has a boundary that distinguishes what belongs to the system and
what not. All things outside the system’s boundary, where interactions with the system occur, are
called the system’s environment (Heylighen 1998) as shown in Fig. 4.5.
Fig. 4-5 The concept of an open system
In the environment of a planning process, different information systems are implemented in the daily
work of different actors, it is essential for PIS to be an open system from both ends. In the input side, it
should be able to import information from different available systems. From the output side it should
have functions to import results and information to be used and manipulated in different stranded
programs. A PIS is not a replacement of existing information systems but it aims at connecting these
different systems. PIS acts as a hub that connects distributed information and actors. As an open
system, its main aim is to facilitate and support information flow throughout the planning process.
106
4.3.3. A dynamic system
As discussed earlier, spatial problems are not static, they change during the planning process. In
addition, they have interconnections that are partially known. Moreover, the planners’ knowledge of
the problem situation evolves as the problem is explored (Rittel 1982 ). To deal with these
characteristics, A PIS should be designed in a way that allows initiating the system with a core set of
information elements, functions and users. Throughout the system's lifetime, the system is extended
and adjusted according to the requirements of the situation. Furthermore, the experience that is gained
through implementation should be considered in extending the system. For this dynamism to be
possible, the system’s structure should be flexible in a way that allows adopting new and changing
circumstances without the need to change the whole structure or to create a new system. Additionally,
the information included in the system is changing. In planning, creating the overview to the subject
matter is a part of the task. Keeping this overview up-to-date is the more difficult part of this task. For
keeping the collaborative overview up-to-date, each participating actor should be responsible for
updating the information related to his discipline. This should allow all participating actors to get the
current state of the planning subject matter. It is then essential to define which aspects are dynamic
and which ones are static and then to give the corresponding users the right to update them.
4.3.4. A hierarchal system
In complex planning situations, many aspects and interconnections should be observed. Each of these
aspects could be observed in different levels of abstractions and different levels of details. it is
impossible for any actor to observe all these aspects in full details at the same time. This might lead to
overloading his capacity of processing information and might lead to losing the overview to the
important issue. The concept of hierarchy plays an important role for the organization of information
in such a situation. The proposed hierarchy might take any of the following forms:
from smaller to larger,

from simple to complex,
from abstract to detailed.
The concept of hierarchy is similar to the concept of super-systems and subsystems in the systems’
theory. It supposes that in many cases where several systems interact together, they could be
considered as a super-system while the single systems are considered as subsystems. In observing a
super-system that consists of several subsystems, it would be complex to be aware of all the
components of these subsystems.
107
Fig. 4-6 Hierarchy in the systems theory
As illustrated in figure 4.6, a complex set of interactions and relations could be occurring between
subsystems inside this super-system. However, they could be observed in different levels of details
and using different levels of abstractions. At the higher level, more emphasis is given to the abstract
observation, encompassing view of the whole, without paying attention to the details of the
components or parts. On the contrary, at the lower level, a multitude of interacting parts could be
observed but without understanding how they are organized to form a whole. In the general level of
abstraction, these details will represent a burden on the observer or at least will have no value for him.
Therefore, in a general level of abstraction, it could be enough and reasonable to observe only the total
input and the total output of a system without considering how inputs and outputs are distributed
among subsystems. This point of view considers the system as a "black box", something that takes
input, and produces output, without considering what happens between the input and the output. In
contrast, a system is considered a "transparent box"; if the internal processes in system could be
observed. However, the black box view could be helpful also in situation where the internal details of
the system could be observed but are not important (Heylighen 1998).
Taking in consideration the amount, the multi dimensional nature and the dynamism of planning
information, as well as the nature of planning problems, is then essential to consider a hierarchical
structure of information in PIS (Maurer 1988). The hierarchical organization of planning information
facilitates the following aspects:
Using this hierarchical organization of planning information, exploring the subject matter of
planning in general terms - to achieve the initial overview - and then to delve into details of a
specific element, are possible. It will be possible using this hierarchical organization to use a
low grade of precision for information where it is sufficient and to use a higher grade of
precision where it is needed and available. Meanwhile it facilitates representing different types
of interconnections on the corresponding levels of observation.
It allows planners to view the same problem or issue in several different contexts, thereby
offering the potential to generate alternative approaches to a problem by viewing the
108
information in a “new light”. This allows a better problem analysis by accessing the problem
from different levels.
Every solution could be observed as a problem at a lower level of abstraction, and every
problem may be seen as an alternative solution at a higher level of abstraction (Hendriks
&Vriens 1995). By exploring the proposed solution in different levels of abstraction it would
be possible to examine this solution against general strategies on the higher levels and to
examine their impacts on less abstract levels. Observing the solution on different levels of
abstractions minimizes the danger of overlooking important issues that might lead to unwished
side effects of the solution or higher costs because of ignoring important issues.
Similarly, goals can be stated at various levels of abstraction in spatial planning. Using this
hierarchical organization of information, general goals are examined on different levels of
observation, to check their validity on less abstract levels.
This hierarchical organization ensures that the planner will not be overloaded with many
details that are not needed. This will be a possibility to overcome the earlier mentioned limited
capacity of the human mind in processing information.
4.3.5. A modular system
Modularity in PIS is applied on three levels. The first level is the separation between the information,
functions and representation. This separation is needed regarding: the rapid change in the field ICT,
the nature of planning information as well as the different access rights to information and tools for
different user groups. It should facilitate the following aspects:
Each component of the system could be upgraded or modified without affecting other
components.
The application of new technical approaches to specific components is possible without
affecting the rest of the system.
Updating and extending the information without affecting the presentation and the
functionality are also possible.
The second level of modularity in PIS is applied on the functionality level. The tools and functions in
PIS are organized in a modular manner. This facilitates, on one hand, the definition of essential and
optional components in each situation. On the other hand, it facilitates giving each user the
corresponding functions and tools according to his access rights.
The third level of modularity is the content level. The modular organization means that each piece or
parcel of content is defined as a module. This modularity facilitates organizing, accessing and
maintaining the content. It also facilitates the production of different presentations based on the same
content. Different modules are organized into a matrix of properties regarding the content, and other
characteristics of the module. For each module, the accessibility property should be defined as well as
109
different operative requirements such as, where is it published and who is responsible for maintaining
this module. In addition, a database of the modules will be essential to organize these modules.
4.3.6. Associative organization of information
The humans’ perception of the world has an associative manner. The human mind does not work with
separated elements of information; rather it works with association (Bush 1945 in Shiffer 1992). When
it calls or processes a piece of information, it calls other pieces of information that are associated with
the main element. It is an association of thoughts, in accordance with a complex web of trails carried
by the brain (Streitz 1992). This associative nature of the human mind has been observed in different
contexts e.g. Collins and Loftus1975 and Murdock, 1982 (Shiffer 1992).
An example of these associations could be the thoughts of any person about a specific city, e.g. when
Paris is mentioned, it is for many people, associated directly with different elements of information in
the mind such as France, Eiffel tower, the river Seine, the Champs Elysees, Montmartre, names or
famous writers or café shops, etc. From this example, it is important to note that association generally
is characterized with the following aspects:
Association is an individual matter. It is based on personal experiences. What makes a

reasonable association to a specific individual might be irrelevant to another. It is usually
subjective and in some cases wrong.
Association occurs among information of different types and of different scales. In this
example, a city as an element was associated with wholes and parts, to natural and man-made
features, as well as social and human aspects.
Association is a not a static state. It is directly related to the context of the situation. For
example, if Paris is mentioned in the context of a conference about traffic and environmental
problems in European cities, it is not expected that when the speaker mentions the change in
Carbon dioxide emissions in Paris that the audience will make the association with Sartre.
Association is positive when it supports a piece of information with relevant pieces of
information regarding the context. It will be negative and distracting if the association occurs
between irrelevant pieces of information regarding the context. This could be explained
regarding the capacity of the human mind in processing information, which was discussed
earlier in chapter 1.
After a specific limit, association might turn to be negative, even if the associated information
is relevant, i.e. the speaker in the above-mentioned example has associated the main piece of
information with too much relevant information. Though the information is relevant, these
associations will turn out to represent a burden rather than an advantage.
The opposite of association is fragmentation, where each piece of information stands alone with no
relations to any other relevant pieces of information. This fragmentation of information could be found
110
in old or poorly designed databases where information is divided into records that are not related to
each other.
For design and development of planning information systems, the subject of association and
fragmentation plays a major role. It is the duty of planners to define what should be associated with
each other regarding the planning situation. In addition, regarding the capacity of the human mind in
processing information will also be important to define where and how much association is needed.
4.3.7. Information in multi context and multi representation
Information representation plays an important role in forming the receiver’s comprehension of the
received message. The following aspects are among the most important factors that might affect this
comprehension:
The message representation shapes the meaning that could be extracted from its content.
Employing different senses in receiving the information enriches the receivers’ understanding
of the information.
Viewing the same information in different contexts allows the receiver to recognize the
meaning of the piece of information relative to other pieces of information.
The same piece of information could be represented in different representations, using different
formats and in different contexts. For example the representation of the population increase in a city,
could take alphanumeric, tabular, graphical or geographical forms. The same information could also
be illustrated as a simulation. Meanwhile this piece of information could be represented in different
contexts. It could be relative to the total area of the city. It could be also represented relative to the
absolute or the relative annual consumption of land compared to other cities.
The validity of a piece of information for the receiver is context-specific. A receiver interprets the
received information relative to his needs at that moment. It is more likely that the receiver would find
the information acceptable if its representation and content make it easy to understand and interpret.
(Rouse 1992).
It will be important in PIS to implement different methods that facilitate the representation of the same
information in different formats and in different contexts according to the user’s convenience. In
addition, it will be important in the information structure to organize the information in a way that
allows changing the information representation. If the information is saved in a static representation, it
will not be possible to change this representation. To facilitate this dynamic representation the
modular structure of information and the split between the information and the representation are
essential aspects. It will be also important to organize the associations between different pieces of
information to allow the representation in different contexts.
111
4.3.8. Supply modes of planning information
The supply mode of planning information could be observed from two different viewpoints. The first
is related to the comprehensiveness of the supplied information. The second is related to the way in
which the information is supplied or obtained.
Inclusive vs. selective.
Taking the amount and varieties of information that could be available in a planning situation; it will
be a burden on the system and on the users to include all possible information. If the volume of
information grows too much, it will be difficult to keep the overview on the important information. It
is important in PIS to select which information should be included in details and which should be only
included in an abstract form.
Push vs. pull.
Information could be communicated in two main modes according to the relation between the receiver
and the communicated information, i.e. the “pull” and the “push” modes. In the “pull” mode, the user
should proactively request the information when he needs it. On the contrary, in the “push” mode,
information should be supplied to a target group of users without their request. Under the push mode,
the possibility is higher that the users would receive information that are not relevant to their interest,
or that they receive the information not at the right time for them. In this case, it is likely that they will
ignore the received information. Under the pull mode, the user will not be subject to distraction by
such information. Meanwhile he could lose important information if he does not take the initiative to
seek for it. (Srinivas 2002)
For the development and the implementation of PIS, both modes are important. Important information
could be pushed to the target group in a compact form with only the main information. The users
should request the rest of the information when they need it.
4.4. The proposed general structure of a PIS: Components of PIS
Representing a general structure of PIS is an attempt to define major components of PIS that might be
needed to accomplish planning information processes under different circumstances. It also attempts
to represent the relation of these components to each other and to different groups of actors. Four main
components are considered the structural fundamentals of PIS i.e. planning information, functions,
rules scheme and user interface. In addition to these components there are the common components of
any distributed information system i.e. hardware and networking facilities.
112
Fig. 4-7 Main components of a planning information system
The above-mentioned four main components of PIS are further divided into sub-components. The
organization of PIS structure into components and sub-components facilitates the definition of the
required and optional parts regarding the circumstances of the system application. In addition, as
information and communication technology is witnessing continuous innovations at a very fast rate,
this structure will be developed regardless of specific techniques or programs. This split between the
presentation, information and functions will permit the following aspects:
It allows the enhancement of each component and the adoption of new techniques without
affecting the functionality or back-end techniques
In case of adopting new technologies in the back-end, the presentation and the information
will not be affected.
It facilitates different presentations based on the same information.
Updating and extending the information without affecting the presentation and the
functionality.
A brief discussion of these four main components of a PIS: the information, the functions, the rules
scheme and the user interface, are introduced here below.
a. The information space
Planning information that is used in any planning process should be based on a set of hypothesis about
how the current problem or conflict should be solved. This information has the following
characteristics:
It is related to the different information domains in spatial planning as mentioned earlier.
It covers different aspects of the planning process (time, space, resources and organization).
It includes normally different media types (i.e. text, images, audio, video, maps, etc.).
It is usually distributed spatially.
Based on the hypothesis about the problem solution and the process that is needed to develop this
solution, the first step in developing a planning information system should be the definition of the
113
planning information domains, processes and objects that should be considered in the system. Then to
define its characteristics, attributes and its interconnectivities as discussed in chapter 3. This step
presents setting the foundations of the common language for that specific planning process or subject.
Topologically, the information space includes basically three sorts of information objects. First,
structured information that is organized in a database. Second, information that is combined as
documents of different types and of different media types. Finally the Meta information, information
about information that is not available e.g. links or literature index. Each of these types might be
present in each of the earlier mentioned three domains of planning information.
Structured information could be described as classes of objects. Different information objects

are dealt with as instances of these classes. A class of information objects will include
elements of information that are structurally similar i.e. having a common set of attributes.
Different classes of information objects are mentioned in chapter 3.
Documents are chunks of information that have a common subject and are combined in a
specific layout. A document might be a text, a photo, a video, or any type of media. In PIS,
documents are considered a class of information objects that has specific attribute, relations to
other classes and supports specific methods. Normally, a document is represented in a PIS in
two forms i.e. the document itself and meta-information about this document. A document
could be related to any of the above-mentioned information domains. For example, a
document that contains assessment of different solution alternatives will be related to the
subject matter of planning because it is related to the content of a specific planning situation.
Another document that contains the spatial planning law or planning regulations in a specific
area is considered related to the discipline domain as its content effects are beyond the subject
matter of the planning. Similarly, a document that contains the protocol of a project group
meeting will be considered a part of the process domain as it has mainly a direct
organizational nature, while a document that contains the literature list for a specific subject
will be classified under the meta-knowledge domain.
In addition, there are different pieces of information that are not directly available in the
system. The system includes it only in the form of Meta information or information about the
original information. One of the main tasks of PIS is to support meta information
b. The functions
Planning information systems are not collections of documents and information. They require a set of
tools and functions that is needed to allow planners to accomplish their information tasks, and to
interact with different types of available information objects. These functions and tools could be
grouped into three main groups:
114
A set of primary and secondary functions that is needed to handle both structured and
unstructured information. This set of functions could be standardized and used in different
situations. This group of functions includes database management, media management, user
management and visualization.
A set of tools and functions that considers different information processes which are needed in
spatial planning such as coordination, communication, decision making, etc as discussed in
chapter 3. For example, for coordination, there should be tools to deal with interdependencies
and resources. For decision-making, there should be a tool to deal with alternatives and
circumstances. This set of functions has similar framework in different processes, but it should
be adjusted to meet the specific needs and characteristics in each planning situation.
Tools for simulation and analysis. Each tool or function has a similar structure; it should be
developed and examined for each specific situation regarding the circumstances of the current
case.
c. The rules scheme
For different components of a system to interact inside the system with each other as well as with
other elements in the system’s environment, a rules scheme that governs these interactions is essential
for the functionality of the system. For information system and consequently for planning information
system, a rules scheme is considered the grammar of the system’s language. It aims at setting the
common accepted use of the system’s object language i.e. what is allowed to be said in which
situation, or if something is said in a specific context; how it should be interpreted? This scheme
consists mainly of two groups of rules, namely declaration rules and access rules.
Declaration rules are a set of rules that governs the declaration of different information
objects including the object definition and its attributes including data types, value domains
and validity rules of different attributes.
The second group of rules includes the access rules of different users. Using these rules, the
system deals individually with each user or a group of users according to his/their
permissions; hence allowing him to handle only permitted information and using only
permitted functions (i.e. a public user can only see public documents and should have no
access to restricted documents. He can search for available information but he is not allowed
to delete or edit it). An Authorized user can use input and editing functions. Some users could
have access to some specific tools, while other users can have access to all the tools. In
addition, some users can edit specific information, e.g. regarding specific theme or spatial
context, while another user might have access to edit everything.
The concept of the access scheme is only possible if the system is structured in a modular way. The
concept of modularity will be discussed later in this chapter. While this scheme should be very strictly
respected, it should be organized in a very simple and understandable way and concentrates only on
115
essential rules. It should be also flexible and easy to handle. In an environment where different actors
have different and sometimes conflicting interests, the rules scheme should not be regarded as an
obstacle. Rather, it should be viewed as the light sign in a complex traffic intersection that allows
different vehicles to move smoothly though with relative constraints. The absence of these rules,
which might mean the absolute freedom for all users, will result in a chaos that leads to total
malfunctioning of the system. However, it is important to consider in setting this rules scheme not to
exceed the optimal density of rules. Too many rules will reduce the efficiency of the system and
restrict users’ efficiency. In addition, if the formal rules are too tight and very complicated then it
could be said that the optimal density of the rules was exceeded resulting usually in a tendency to
overcome this situation by using informal rules.
d. The user interface
The user interface is the main component of the system that is directly available for the end user. It
presents the gateway for all users to the system content and function. Therefore, it will be important to
keep it human-centered by concentrating on the issues of practicability, acceptability, and validity
Rouse (1992).
This user interface should be personalized according to access rights and preferences of each user.
Consequently, he gets only access to the functions and information that he has a permission to use.
The user interface allows browsing, viewing and manipulating different information types. It should
support alphanumeric, tabular, graphical and geographical modes. The interface is considered more
advanced if it facilitates exploring the same information in different modes and in different contexts,
which allows more understanding of the subject matter of planning. In this context, Rouse (1992)
argues that: “People tend to interpret the validity of information in a very context-specific manner
relative to their needs at the moment. People are also more likely to find information acceptable if its
format and content make it easy to understand and interpret.” It allows interaction where further
associations are available and needed. It should facilitate exploring the information in different
contexts to improve the planner’s perception of the problem. It also connects the distributed
information from different sources of the participating agencies. The user can also search in these
distributed databases simultaneously using different criteria and extracts information about the
matching elements. To achieve such integration among different sources of information, common
standards will be essential.
4.5. Conclusion
PIS is a tool that is mainly aimed at supporting the different information processes in spatial
planning processes.
116
To achieve its aim, it should be able to support all or some of the following information
processes in planning.
∗ exploration of planning situation in different contexts and from different perspectives.
This exploration should be accessible to all the participating actors in the process. Their
access is organized by the rules scheme
∗ exploration of solution alternatives, and argumentation about these alternatives.
∗ organization of planning processes and coordination of planning efforts.
∗ management of the planning knowledge that is used or produced in a planning process.
∗ internal communication among the involved actors in the process and external
communication with external actors.
∗ coordination of spatial activities in a specific area.
The definition of the processes that are needed in a specific planning situation is a matter of
negotiation among the participating actors. In some cases, coordination of spatial activities
could be the main task. While in other cases the main task would be exploring the subject
matter of planning in a specific situation or organizing the planning process. It might also be
mainly oriented to organizing the planning knowledge in a specific domain.
The basic components of PIS are:
∗ The information space that includes different classes of planning information,
∗ A set of functions and tools that facilitates handling the information and conducting the
information processes,
∗ The rules scheme that regulates the use of different information objects in the form of a
grammar and the access rights of different users, and
∗ The user interface that facilitates the interaction between the user and the information
space using the functions and the tools according to the access rights.
To deal with the afore-mentioned characteristics that represent a set of pre requirements in the
design, development and implementation of PIS, different aspects of the systems should
reflect these aspects e.g. in the system structure, system organization and information
organization.
The system should facilitate accessing the information independent from place and time.
However, it should consider the access rights of the various types of participating actors.
Regarding the system structure and organization, the systems should be decentralized,
interconnected and open to other information systems. Regarding the information
organization, the information should be organized in a modular, hierarchical and associative
manner. Based on these criteria, PIS should support accessing the same information in
different contexts and in different levels of abstractions.
The system should be designed in a way that allows initiating the system with a set of
information and function that could be extended and updated.
117
5. Technical Bases of PIS
“A computer is just a glorified pencil. Einstein once said, "My pencil is

cleverer than I". What he meant could perhaps be put thus: armed with a
pencil, we can be more than twice as clever as we are without. Armed with a
computer, we can perhaps be more than a hundred times as clever as we are
without; and with improving computers there need not be an upper limit to
this.“ (Karl Popper 1981)
Normally, human information and knowledge are stored in the long-term memory of individuals. The
long-term memory of human beings has a relatively large capacity as opposite to the short-term
memory, which is limited to a specific amount of chunks of information as mentioned in chapter 1.
However, for information and knowledge to be externalized from the individual memory, it should be
communicated with others. In ancient times, communication between two individuals or among a
group of individuals required meeting at the same time and at the same place. For example for an
ancient scholar to communicate his knowledge to his students, he should meet them in a specific time
and in a specific place, otherwise no communication could occur. This type of communication used to
be the only possibility for communication before the invention of writing and printing. However, for
communication, to take place in different times and places, it needs to be stored outside this individual
memory, in the form of books or any other type of media. In the absence of this external storage,
people should travel to meet the individual who had the knowledge or the information, which
consequently would severely limit the accumulation of human experience in the form of knowledge
and information. To overcome this limitation, human beings developed the writing systems
(Encyclopedia Britannica 2000). As the amounts of accumulated knowledge grew, humans have
developed the library systems to collect this knowledge in some central place and then organize it and
make it accessible and usable for different users. This process, though manual or paper-based, is the
118
basic form of a system for information. It includes the basic components of a system in general, i.e.
components, procedures, rules scheme and a goal.
This chapter starts by a general introduction to information systems, and then more concentration will
be devoted to its applications in spatial planning. Afterwards, functions and technical criteria of PIS
will be introduced. Then possible techniques for PIS will be discussed and the general structure of PIS
will be presented form a technical viewpoint.
5.1. An introduction to information systems
5.1.1. Definition, components and functions
The term 'information system' is used in a multifaceted manner in different disciplines and literatures.
It is broadly used as a synonym for 'database system', 'information processing system’ and 'data
processing system' (Bracken 1990). Fundamentally, a system, whether computerized or not, which is
designed for the purposeful and meaningful processing of information, is considered an information
system. Specifically, such a system accepts input in the form of data, and then processes it by
composing, organizing or structuring different data items to produce information as output. The main
purpose of such systems is then to collect, organize, store, process and display information in all its
forms (raw data, interpreted data, knowledge, and expertise) and formats (text, video, and voice) to
support operational tasks and decision-making tasks (Encyclopedia Britannica).
To accomplish its task, an information system should include the following main functions:
Accept data input,

Manipulate it in some way from data to information using different processes e.g. conversion,
organization, structuring, modeling, visualization, etc.
Produce information as the output.
Fig. 5-1 The basic concept of an information system
An information system does not consist only of the commonly known components: information,
software and hardware; it also includes the people and the procedures that are related to the system.
Bracken (1990) considers the main purpose of information systems is the production of 'uncertainty-
reducing' information products. He describes it as a value-adding processor, adding 'meaning' to data.
119
Regarding the development of planning information systems as a subclass of information systems, it
would be then important to discuss the following questions: what are the main characteristics of input
in respect to planning information? Which input processes should be available both to support input
from other systems as well as to support direct input from individuals? Which rules scheme governs
this input? Which functions are needed for which purposes? Who are the actors who should use the
system? Which procedures would be governing the system? Which procedures would be supported by
the system? Which types of outputs are needed?
5.1.2. Typology of information systems
Among the major questions in this study are: what is the difference between PIS and any other
information systems? Why is the study of PIS needed? To approach this subject, it is important to start
by discussing the different types of information systems in general and especially those related to
planning and decision-making on one hand, and those concerned with spatial information on the other.
Generally, information systems are not easy to be classified because of their diversity and the
continuous evolution in this field.
Different classification criteria were used for different purposes and in different stages of
technological evolution. Here are three of these approaches with a brief discussion of each:
The conventional approach: Conventionally information systems used to be classified

according to different pairs of criteria e.g. manual vs. automated, interactive vs. off-line or
real-time vs. batch-processing (Britanica.com)
The application approach: Information systems could be grouped into specific areas,
according to their fields of application (Britanica.com 2000) e.g. offices, factories, libraries,
hospitals, etc.
The functional approach: Information systems could be classified, regarding their purpose,
into the following main classes (Bracken 1990 & Batty 1984):
∗ Function oriented-organizational systems: these systems are characterized by being
organized to serve a particular function. They are mainly designed to assist users in the
execution of their tasks and functions by attempting to structure or even automate their
decision-making tasks. This ranges from routine tasks such as airline or railway ticket
reservations to the most complex functions in the professional and scientific domains.
o Support of managerial and administrative functions (serve internal functions of
the organizations)
o Support of operations and services (support the purposes for which these
organizations exist)
∗ Subject-oriented information utilities: These systems are organized around a subject
theme and are designed to serve users with specific types of information.
120
However, these different approaches to classification are not completely separated from one another.
The same information system could be classified using different sets of criteria. For example, the
online archive of a city planning department that includes different plans of the city for public access,
could be classified according to the conventional approach as automated and interactive; according to
the application approach it will be library-oriented and according to the functional approach it will be
subject-oriented. Each of these classifications could be found in the field of spatial planning. The
following section introduces these different types of information systems in spatial planning.
5.2. Information systems in spatial planning
The study of information systems in planning could be approached from both the side of innovations
in information systems as well as the side of planning theory. From the information systems
viewpoint, three major developments could be distinguished, i.e. the main frame, the personal
computer and the Internet. Each of these developments has influenced the application and the use of
information systems in planning. From planning theory viewpoint, four approaches are distinguished
as mentioned earlier in chapter 2, i.e. the classical, the systematic, the systems and the action
approach. Each of these approaches has different requirements and applications of information
systems. This section is an attempt to discuss these two viewpoints of the application of information
systems in spatial planning in a cohesive way to define how innovations in information systems have
affected the use of these systems in planning and in some cases and how it affected planning theory.
5.2.1. The mainframe era
During the early 1960’s, the first wave of information systems’ development took place by the
introduction of large mainframe computers, which were characterized by the capability of running
relatively large amounts of data through a predefined systems to produce a pace output. However,
these early commercially produced mainframes were very expensive, very large and maintenance-
intensive. In addition, users had no direct contact with the computer. Only members of the data
processing department used the computer directly. Most users submitted simply lists of data or a set of
punched cards to the operator. Then, predefined computing operations ran on these cards, in batch
mode. The user should come back later to collect a printout. In a later development, researchers and
specialized users were encouraged to learn a programming language such as FORTRAN (FORmula
TRANslation language) so they could create their own programs that should also be submitted to the
operator for processing (The Online Planning Journal 2000)
Application of these systems in spatial planning was mainly oriented to processing population and
transportation data or to spatial modeling, that resembles some aspects of the real world either for the
analysis of spatial patterns or for forecasting future developments (Batty & Densham 1996). Based on
121
the paradigm that modeling ecological and social aspects of the real world in the form of systems is
possible, these applications were the major tools in the systems’ approach to planning. However, this
approach and the application of information systems were criticized as being a failure for two reasons.
The first is the dissociation of this planning theory from the reality of the organizational and political
world in which planning takes place (Barrett & Leather 1984) and that the systems’ approach is not
relevant to planning decisions which have social implications. The second was a result of the failure of
information systems in predicting and analyzing the patterns of future land use or issues based on
spatial data.
5.2.2. The personal computer era
During the 1980’s, the personal computer was introduced as a revolution in information systems. This
shift from the large mainframe to personal computers (PC) resulted in a similar shift from the top-
down approach that was based on remote, large-scale, database computing (Batty & Densham 1996) to
a bottom-top approach based on networked, distributed computing. The PC with its desktop size made
it possible for many users to enter directly their information: to use pre-programmed software, to save
their information locally and to have a graphical representation of data. During this era, the application
of information systems in the form of PCs in spatial planning witnessed a proliferation of tools,
models and software packets that were aimed at supporting the scientific methods of the systematic
approach. The application areas of information systems in spatial planning in this era ranged between
operational, data organization, analysis, modeling, visualization, decision support and expert system.
Hereafter is a brief description of some of these applications.
i. Modeling: the focus of computer modeling in spatial planning was mainly oriented towards either
urban analysis for explaining urban structures or exploring and predicting the effects of planning on
urban development. Generally, modeling could be classified into two main types. The first is graphical
modeling (visualization) that includes the representation of either existing or planned urban structures.
This modeling ranges from 2D simple plans to complicated 3D animated models. The second type of
modeling is the mathematical modeling (simulation) which normally attempts to represent the logical
structure of patterns of human behavior and the natural environment (Lloyed-jones & Erickson 1996).
However, Simmonds (1986) describes those exploratory models as being only concerned with
exploring logical possibilities rather than realistic and likely outcomes. In addition, while most
computer models used by planners have been developed for structured-problems, most of the decision-
making in planning deal with semi-structured and ill-defined problems (Langendorf 1985) and in some
cases with undefined problems at all. Hence, in a complex planning or decision-making situation there
is a need to start with exploring the problem in a way that supports understanding the circumstances,
the possibilities and the limitations before attempting to force the problem into an existing model.
122
ii. Geographical information systems: GIS is a System of computer software, hardware, data, and
personnel that is aimed at manipulating, analyzing and visualizing information that is tied to a spatial
location. This development in the field of GIS was accompanied by a shift from mathematical
modeling to the visualization, the representation, and the manipulation of spatial data in quite
straightforward ways. In terms of planning and problem-solving processes, the application areas of
GIS were limited. Batty & Densham (1996) argue “to date there has been very little emphasis on
formal analysis, simulation and modeling and hardly any at all on design and decision-making aids.”
The main application areas of GIS in planning could be grouped as follows:
Management and monitoring of urban activities;

Optimization of site selection process;
Undertaking impact assessments;
The maintenance of cadastral and other geographic data;
Production of maps and plans; etc.
Despite the considerable progress in GIS science and its relevancy to urban and regional planning, the
applicability of its results is somewhat limited. This limitation could be attributed to the concentration
of GIS on geographic details, which might overload the planner with details that hinder developing an
overview of the problems. For planning, on the contrary, geographical details should be in the
background, but correctly represented and well controlled (Batty & Harris 1992). In addition, GIS has
a primary emphasis on the analysis of spatial processes and phenomena. Meanwhile, it does not
directly address the specific needs of the planning process and focus only on narrow planning issues
and/or only on one aspect of the planning process (Nedovic 2000).
The following table includes a comparison of some basic difference between PIS and GIS regarding
the nature of the system, the type of information included in the system and the functions the system
should conduct.
PIS GIS
Nature Normative Positive
Purpose Aiming at changing space Aiming at describing space
Information Information that is processed or produced during a Information describing the earth, its
planning process. It covers information about space, features and peoples’ activity on it.
time, organization, etc.
Relation Related to a specific planning context, process or Related to a specific spatial context.
subject.
Orientation Process-, problem- or subject-oriented Space-oriented
Processes Collaborative exploration of planning problems Visualization
Coordination Buffering
Communication Network analysis
Decision making Overlaying
Documentation Site selection
Development Iterative / explorative Comprehensive
The system can start by a core information and The system should be complete to
function and grow with use be useful
123
It is evident that considering GIS as the prime or the sole planning tool is not rational for GIS or
planning. GIS is useful for specific procedures but not for all procedures. Batty and Harris (1992)
argue that although GIS, if properly considered, provides very important types of support and control
to many activities, they are limited by their nature to fail if they are used as the exclusive tools of
analysis and planning. They support the organization of information in certain ways, but not
necessarily in ways, which then support every type of production of knowledge or intelligence.
iii. Expert systems: Generally, an expert system is a computer program that simulates the judgment
and behavior of an actor – individual or organization- that has expert knowledge and experience in a
particular field (whatis.com). Fundamentally, an expert system consists at least of a knowledge base
and a set of rules. The knowledge base contains the accumulated experience of a group of experts in a
specific domain while the set of rules defines how the knowledge base should be applied to each
particular situation that is described to the program. The application of expert systems is oriented
towards repetitive situations in a specific domain, i.e. in a factory, in a specific specialization of
medicine or in chess. These fields are considered among the best-known expert systems. In such
fields, a set of specific symptoms indicates a certain problem or a direction of the problem. If a certain
problem is identified, the expert system should propose the solution. If the information is not enough
to identify a clear solution, the system will supply only a direction for the solution. In this case, the
system will request further information to narrow the scope of the problem.
For applying expert systems in spatial planning, the planners’ experiences in a specific field would be
condensed into a knowledge base of logical inference, which can be formally processed by the
program. Different attempts were conducted to extend expert systems by using weighting or
quantification methods. These methods would be applied on the different factors and their estimated
probabilities of occurrence (Lloyed-jones & Erickson 1996). However, it is apparent from analysis
that the majority of spatial planning functions cannot be standardized. Most of these functions are
concerned with decision-making, based on the circumstances that differ from case to case. This means
that they cannot be automated by using expert systems. This implies that the functions rely on
information supply systems more than on automation (van Helden 1994).
Regarding the types of problems that an expert system can deal with, its application areas in spatial
planning would be mainly in fields such as systematic land use plans where the planning process is
well-structured and governed with clear laws and regulations. An example of the application of expert
systems in spatial planning is the project "Intelligent Land-Use Plan" that was conducted in the
university of Kaiserslautern in Germany (Streich 1999). This project was aimed at developing a
system for legally binding land-use planning (Bebauungspläne). This system supports the plan's
development process and assists users to understand the plan and work with it. In this type of plans in
Germany, there are specific requirements and specific content to be included in the plan. Such a plan
should include the type of land use, the intensity of building etc. The proposed expert-system should
124
define working steps needed to produce the plan, interdependencies among these steps, how each step
should be performed and the essential background information for each step (e.g. legalization).
iv. Other applications: the above-mentioned three examples are few examples from a wide range of
information systems applications in spatial planning. Further applications are found in management
and administrative uses, communication support system for report writing, graphic presentations and
inter- and intra departmental communication of information and information supply systems which
include the straightforward supply of data and information to the public, city officials or other actors.
5.2.3. The Internet era
The Internet as a network of networks connecting hundreds of millions of computers and users
throughout the world emerged in the late 1980s and extended at a fast pace throughout the 1990s and
the beginnings of the 21st century. Similar to the shift that accompanied the change from the
mainframe to the PCs i.e. from top-down to bottom-top approach, the Internet has changed the
people’s use of computers as well as how they work. While in the era of the PC the main aim was to
work efficiently and produce professional documents, the Internet changed this priority towards
communication and collaborative work.
Regarding the use of the Internet supported applications in spatial planning, it is important to outline
the difference between planning functions and other disciplines that are directly related to it but could
not be considered planning, i.e. geography, spatial analysis, urban management, facility management,
visualization, city marketing, etc. This emphasis is attributed to the widespread confusion between two
groups of applications. There is a variety of Internet-based applications dealing with subjects such as
city official sites, online citizen service, online city marketing, visualization of urban areas, project
presentation, mapping and web GIS. All these applications could not be considered planning
applications as long as they are not related to spatial planning, for example in exploring problems,
developing solution alternatives, argumentation about these alternatives, decision making, follow up of
planning actions, organization of planning processes, etc.
As for all aspects of social and economic life, the Internet opens new horizons for spatial planning.
New questions are becoming tangible. New challenges are becoming apparent. In dealing with the
Internet, planning research adopted different approaches.
The first approach dealt with the Internet and its cyberspace as an extension of the real world.
The second considered the Internet as a communication and work environment that might
affect the physical space. Hence, concentrating mainly on how the Internet will affect how
people’s life, work and move and consequently how it will affect the built environment.
The third approach concentrated on how the Internet could be used to present planning
information and support public participation.
125
The fourth approach regarded the Internet as a potential working media for collaboration,
hence, how the Internet could be used as an innovative platform for planning processes.
For spatial planning, the Internet - with its connectivity and flexibility - presents a possibility to work
independently from place and time, meanwhile it allows a relatively efficient access to information. In
addition, the Internet presents an optimal means of supporting planning processes where distributed
and independent actors are working together while being dispersed over different organizations.
Furthermore, this networked collaborative work could be useful for creating networks of professionals
and experts from different countries who are dealing with similar interests. The main areas of
application of the Internet as a supporting tool in spatial planning could be grouped as follows:
Collaborative exploration of planning problems;

Public participation and information;
Communication and coordination in the planning process;
Visualization of plans and plan alternatives;
Web-GIS as far as it is concerned with planning situation, and not pure mapping;
5.3. Technical aspects regarding the proposed general structure of PIS
In this next section, PIS will be discussed from information systems’ viewpoint. Starting by an
introduction of the technical criteria that are essential to fulfill the conceptual criteria presented in
chapter 4. Afterwards the technical basics of the systems will be presented aiming at illustrating how
the proposed structure of PIS could be realized. The chapter will be concluded by a comparison of the
basic differences between PIS on one hand and other systems on the other.
5.3.1. Technical criteria of PIS
Taking in consideration the afore-mentioned characteristics of spatial problems, planning processes,

planning information and the capacity of humans in processing information, different sets of
conceptual criteria are defined in the preceding chapter. These characteristics and the resulting criteria
affect the technical basis for developing PIS as following.
Regarding the nature of planning problems and planning information, the proposed technique
should consider the following criteria:
∗ Planning deals with different types and formats of information, hence it should allow a
simple multimedia environment;
∗ Planning deals with fragmented and distributed information resources, hence it should be
capable of linking and connecting;
∗ Planning information is dynamic, it is changing and growing, thus it should facilitate
updating information with a minimum effort;
126
∗ Planning problems are multifaceted and interconnected, therefore it should facilitate
representing the same information in different contexts;
Regarding the nature of planning processes that could not be organized in routines, the
proposed technique should regard the following aspects:
∗ Planning processes are collaborative in nature with actors from different organizations,
therefore it should facilitate access for different actors apart from time and place;
∗ Not all actors have the same role in the planning process consequently it should sustain
different access rights to the system; and
∗ Planning processes are generic in nature. In each case, different circumstances are
dominant. Hence, PIS should be adapted to fulfill the different requirements that might be
needed in different processes.
Based on the above-mentioned criteria, the Internet and its innovative technologies present a potential
medium for establishing PIS as it fulfils principally each of the above-mentioned essential criteria for
the proposed system.
It supports different types and formats of media while using regular and simple standards;
It links fragmented and distributed information from different sources (Hypermedia);
It facilitates access for different actors apart from time and place with different access rights;
It facilitates online updating of information with a minimum effort;
Using a well structured concept, the same information could be accessed in different contexts;
Using standard programming languages, the system could be extended or modified.
It could be said that the Internet supports the basic rule that was discussed earlier which implies that
the supply and the use of information in planning processes should fulfill the following criteria
"different places, different times, different media and different roles". The proposed structure of PIS
uses the Internet and its innovative technologies as the technical base for the system. These techniques
include among others the World Wide Web (WWW), hypertext, hypermedia, dynamic web pages,
databanks, etc. Each of these techniques is discussed briefly in the following sections.
5.3.2. The Internet
The Internet is a worldwide system of computer networks - a network of networks in which users from
any computer can, if they have permission, get information from any other computer. It was conceived
by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the U.S. government in 1969 and was first
known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANet). The original aim was to
create a network that would allow users of a research computer at one university to be able to "talk to"
research computers at other universities. A side benefit of ARPANet's design was that, because
messages could be routed or rerouted in more than one direction, the network could continue to
127
function even if parts of it were destroyed in the event of a military attack or any other disaster
(whatis.com). Figure 5.2 illustrates the concept “the network of networks”.
Fig. 5-2 The concept of the internet as a network of networks
The Internet as a platform offers different possibilities for communication such as Electronic Mail (e-
mail), Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Telnet and File Transfer Protocol (FTP). However, the most widely
used part of the Internet is the World Wide Web (abbreviated "WWW"). Although all these techniques
are useful and may be needed in some planning situation, the proposed PIS attempts to simplify the
requirements on the end users. It attempts to minimize the technical overload for planners and other
participating actors, so that their main focus should be on the planning process and not on the planning
information systems that support it. Therefore, the main emphasis was devoted to minimizing the
technical requirements on the end-user; hence, for the majority of functions of PIS the WWW will be
the technical environment.
5.3.3. The World Wide Web (WWW)
The World Wide Web is defined as “the universe of network-accessible information, an embodiment
of human knowledge” (The World Wide Web Consortium, W3C). Its outstanding feature is hypertext,
which allows the instant cross-referencing between different information resources in the web. The
WWW consists mainly of two types of computers. On one hand, there are servers i.e. computers that
include web pages and serve it upon request. On the other hand, there are clients i.e. programs
installed by the end user to communicate with the Internet usually know as browsers. Between these
two components, there is the network infrastructure that connects all these computers together.
Fig. 5-3 Server – Client Architecture
128
Communication between clients and servers could be described in the mechanism:
Authors of web pages publish it on a server,

If a user wants to browse a specific web page, he should type the address of the Web Page
(URL) in the address box of his browser, or just click the link if the page is linked from a
different web page.
The browser sends the query to the web server where the web page was published
The web server processes the query and sends the response to the client
The web browser interprets the web page on the screen
Fig. 5-4 the mechanism of WWW
5.3.4. Hypertext and Hypermedia:
The outstanding feature of the World Wide Web is the use of “Hypertext”. The first half of the term,
“Hypertext” - hyper - is used by many scientists and mathematicians to describe “extended” (Fraase
1989, in Schiffer 1992). The term “Hypertext“ was first used by Ted Nelson* around 1965. He
explains the term as a body of written or graphic material interconnected in such a complex way that it
could not conveniently be presented or represented on paper (Ted Nelson).
The concept of Hypertext is based on the idea of using nodes inside a body of text. These nodes are
called "hyperlinks". These links can reference and relate different parts of the same document as well
as between different documents. These links allow a non-linear organization of pieces of information
in an associative manner and constitute a networked structure (Streitz, 1992). Shortly, “Hypertext” is
the organization of information units into connected associations that a user can choose to make.
(whatis.com, 2000).
*
Ted Nilson is the inventor of Xanadu system which is a set of ideas and a software design project for a universal system of
electronic information storage and access. He is credited with inventing the term Hypertext, an idea that is a central part of
Xanadu. Conceived in the early 1980's or perhaps slightly earlier, Xanadu in some ways seems to have anticipated the Web
and such ideas as groupware, group writing, virtual Organisation, and information . (whatis.com, 24.8.2000)
129
Hypertext
The concept of
Hypertext is based on
Ted Nilson the idea of using
nodes inside a body of
The term “Hypertext“ text that can be
was first used by Ted referenced and related
Xanadu system Nelson * around 1965. to each other.
He explains the term as
follows ".. a body of These nodes are called
Ted Nilson is the inventor of written or pictorial
Xanadu system which is a "links ".
material interconnected
set of ideas and a software
in such a complex way
design project for a
that it could not
universal system of
conveniently be
electronic information
presented or represented
storage and access. He is
on paper''
credited with inventing
the term Hypertext , an
idea that is a central part
of Xanadu. Conceived in
the early 1980's or
perhaps slightly earlier, Hypertext
X d i
Fig. 5-5 The concept of Hypertext
Hypertext consists of two main components. The first is the units of information “the documents”
which will be linked. The second is the links that relate these documents.
In addition, the Web does not only support hypertext, but also it supports different types of media in
the form of hypermedia. Media as a general term is commonly used to describe methods of
information presentation e.g. objects, complex graphics, pictures, video, audio, virtual reality or
animation. (Shiffer 1992) Hypermedia, as a term, is derived from hypertext. If the nodes contain or
relate to multimedia contents, the organization of information will be considered hypermedia rather
than hypertext (whatis.com 2000).
It is important to draw a distinction between hypermedia and “multimedia” at this point. On one hand,
multimedia is simply the technological basis to display different media types, e.g. showing video,
editing audio, etc. On the other hand, hypermedia is the organizational structure behind the
information. In other words, hypermedia is the method of organizing information of different media in
an associative manner, while multimedia does not have any underlying organizational structure per se.
(Shiffer 1992)

Media as a general term
commonly used to describe
q methods of information
presentation e.g.
- sound,
- complex graphics ,
- pictures ,
- video,
- animation

Fig. 5-6 The concept of Hypermedia
130
Why Hypertext and Hypermedia are used as bases for PIS?
The concept of hypertext is based on organizing and displaying associated information in a manner
that facilitates the non-sequential retrieval of information. As related pieces of information are
connected by links, users would be able to follow associative trails across the collection of information
in the sequence and the level of details that is best suited to their needs (Encyclopedia.com).
Furthermore, hypermedia technology facilitates combining different information formats into an
arrangement that allows the fast cross-referencing of various concepts or issues. Thus, a variety of
subject-related information, such as maps, texts, statistics, graphics, videos and news articles can be
organized in an association. (Shiffer 1992)
5.3.5. Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML)
H-T-M-L is an abbreviation that stands for Hyper Text Markup Language. It is the major language of
the Internet's World Wide Web. Web Sites and Web Pages are written in HTML. It is used as a
platform for an open system that could be extended to connect with other types of Internet techniques
that might be used for specific areas or projects.
The mechanism of HTML (fig. 5.7)

The user requests a web page or a media file from a server either by typing the address of
the page or by clicking a hyperlink in a page in his browser.
The browser interprets the selection and makes request from an appropriate server
The server accepts the request from the browser and checks if the requested resource or
page is available and if the user has access to it.
The server sends the requested media and text to the browser to be interpreted.
The user sees the requested web page or the requested media.
Fig. 5-7 The mechanism of HTML
131
Structure of HTML files
As HTML is the language of the Internet, which is the medium for implementation of PIS, it is
essential to discuss it briefly. HTML files are plain-text files, so they can be edited on any type of
computers e.g. PC, Mac or UNIX. HTML is a markup language but not a programming language that
could be used for writing applications. HTML is just a set of markup symbols or codes inserted in a
file intended for display on a World Wide Web browser page. The markup tells the Web browser how
to display a Web page's content (words; images; etc.) for the user. Each individual markup code is
referred to as a tag. It only aims at representing content and not triggering commands. Here below is
an example of HTML file. To the left is the source code and to the right is how this code is displayed
in the browser. (Fig. 5.8)
A HTML file starts with the tag <html> and ends <\html>. This pair of tags tells the
browser that the current file uses HTML as a language. Structurally, a HTML file consists of
two main parts, the head and the body.
The head includes elements that should not be viewed in the browser but it includes Meta
information about the document and in some cases, it includes scripts and styles.
The body includes the content that should be presented to the user.
The head includes such tags as <title>, which tells the browser the title of the page. The
browser interprets this tag and presents the title in the right position at the top of the browser’s
window.
The body includes tags that are used for representation of the content. Each tag accepts a
specific set of attributes that controls the representation of the content inside the opening and
the closing tag.
It is important to note here that media and text files are processed
Fig. 5-8 Basic structure of an HTML file
Using pure html means that the user will get the content of the web page from the server without
changing the content of the page. The client’s browser parses the HTML code and converts it to plain
text or images. The user can then click on a hyperlink to call the media file or the web page linked to
132
it. Other than the hyperlink, the user will have no other interactivity with the web page as far as its
content is pure html. Another limitation of HTML is the absence of positioning in the form of
overlaying a specific element over another or positioning it at a specific location.
5.3.6. Dynamic generation of web content
As mentioned-above, pure HTML gives no interactivity beyond hyperlinks, which consequently limits
the use of web pages for applications that need rich interactivity or dynamic structure of content. To
enable dynamic generation of web content, two approaches could be adopted: a) server-side b) client-
side. Server side dynamic generation of web content takes place on the server as result of a specific
request from the client before sending the content to the client. Client side dynamic control of web
content occurs after receiving the web page from the server. However, dynamic preparation of content
on the server does not essentially mean that interactivity will be available on the client and vice versa.
Technically, both of these two concepts represent potential bases for the development of PIS.
Dynamic generation of web content on the server allows users to define what they need from a large
amount of information without needing to go through the whole information. For example, a user can
select specific elements of a database according to some search criteria of his selection, or to select
how the information should be represented e.g. in a table or in a graph. One of the applications of
these techniques is Active Server Page (ASP). ASP pages are HTML pages that include one or more
scripts (small embedded programs) that are processed on a Web server before the page is sent to the
user. An ASP page involves programs that run on the server, usually tailoring a page for the user.
Typically, server-side scripts in a Web page use the user’s input or request to build or to customize the
page on the fly before sending it to the client. Dynamic generation of web content could be extended
by integrating a database that includes structured information. In this case, the whole application runs
on Active Server Pages (ASP) environment, which runs most of the operations on the server and sends
standard HTML to the client.
Client side dynamic web pages allow the representation of content in a dynamic manner including
interactivity in the form of controlling visibility, representation and positioning of the page content
without the need for a further requests from the server. These techniques allow for example,
overlaying of different layers of information above one another and then controlling the visibility, the
content or the position of these layers. This could be achieved using Dynamic Hyper Text Markup
Language (Dynamic HTML or DHTML), which technically could be explained as a combination of
HTML, cascading style sheets – a technique for the positioning and the representation of HTML
content - and scripts - small programs written in a scripting language e.g. JavaScript. It will be then
possible, using DHTML, to control positioning and layering possibilities of HTML elements in a web
page and then to change styles, positions or the visibility of its contents using scripts. The main
difference in the mechanism of DHTML from that of the HTML mentioned above is the possibility to
133
interact with the web page through the web client after parsing its content without needing to make
new request from the server.
Combining the flexibility of hypermedia as a representation medium with concepts such as hierarchy,
modularity and association, will allow organizing planning information in ways that consider the
characteristics of planning processes that are essentially non-linear, and the characteristics of planning
information. It should facilitate innovative ways for capturing, organizing, representing, restructuring
and summarizing planning information. For example, planners would be able to browse the
information according to their needs, in more details when it is needed or in an abstract manner when
it is enough. In addition, using the concept of modular structure will make it possible to use the same
piece of information in different contexts and representations. Using the concept of association will
make it possible to give the user higher interactivity with the information he is using.
However, in using this flexibility, it is essential to consider that too much interactivity and association
lead to losing the concentration. Parts of the information should be static with no interactivity where
the user should concentrate on the presented information with no distraction i.e. passive parts. On the
contrary, association with further information or interactivity is needed when it adds value to the
subject in the form of feedback or links with other pieces of information i.e. active parts. Such
interaction would be 'intelligent' and 'enlightened' when it avoids distracting the user with unwished
messages. It is important, to define which parts should be passive and which ones should be active.
It is important to mention that this technical general concept fulfils one of the predefined criteria of
PIS in which any user could access the platform by using only a standard web browser. Therefore, the
Internet and its innovative techniques are used as the base for the proposed system, as they fulfill each
of the above-mentioned criteria. However, in using the Internet, the following criteria are considered
to be important:
using standard markup and scripting languages,

keeping a cross browser platform,
no use of specific programs. For example, the database could be established using almost any
standard database application, the scripts could be written using any scripting language, and
could be generated using standard applications (WordPad for example),
the use of specific programs that need plug-ins should be limited if not completely avoided in
the platform.
134
5.4. Realization of the proposed structure of PIS from a technical viewpoint
From the technical viewpoint the four structural components of a PIS, i.e. planning information,
functions, the rules scheme and the user interface, are also dealt with in a modular manner. The
following figure (Fig. 5.9) illustrates these four components, their interrelations and sub-components.
Fig. 5-9 Structure of PIS from a technical viewpoint
The diagram is read from bottom up. Different types of planning information are saved either in a
database or as documents of different media types. The functions are a set of tools to facilitate
information manipulation, file and media management, analysis and simulation, etc. The rules scheme
includes declaration rules and the access rights. The user interface is the area where the user can use
the functions and tools to process the information. Each of these components will be discussed from
the technical viewpoint to define the specific technical requirements for each component. Then to
define which techniques could be used to fulfill these requirements?
135
5.4.1. The information space
Topological, five different types of information could be identified. The importance of distinguishing
these five types emerges from the various requirements that are needed for each one of them. The
three types are:
primary information objects that deal with information that could be organized in one or more
databases,
documents of different media types,
Meta information about information that is not directly accessible in the system but available
elsewhere,
graphical information objects that include different layers of graphics and layer sets,
logical information objects that represent a logical relation between different pieces of
information to produce secondary information.
a. Structured information
Information that could be classified into classes of objects is dealt with as structured information.
Each class is described using a set of attributes and relations. The first step in developing a
PIS is the definition of the set of classes that are needed or should be processed in the system.
The concept of object classes could be applied to a variety of objects in the three information
domains in spatial planning. In the subject matter domain, “PROJECT”, “PROBLEM” and
“POTENTIAL AREA” represent some examples of classes of information objects. In the
process domain, “ACTOR”, “EVENT”, “DECISION”, and “MESSAGE” are important
classes of objects. In the planning knowledge domain “LITERATURE”, “ARTICLE”, and
“LAW” are also some examples. All classes should be registered in a class registration table.
Then, each class should be declared using a class declaration table that includes the set of
attributes and relations that describes the instances of this class.
The instances of each class are saved in a separate table in the database. The structure of each
table is corresponding to the declaration of this class.
Fig. 5-10 classes declaration scheme
136
The class declaration table includes different fields that are used to define the attributes and relations
for each class of objects.
The field “Att. Name” includes the title of the attribute.
The field “Att. Type” defines the type of the attribute e.g. String, Integer, Date, Boolean, etc.
“Att. Multiplicity” defines the attribute multiplicity i.e. if this attribute accepts a single value
or multiple values.
“Value List” is the span of values for each attribute.
∗ If “Att. Type” is “Relations“ the “Value List” should be “Member of” another class. For
example for the class of objects “PROJECT” the attribute “located in” indicates a relation
with the class of objects “DISTRICT”. In this case, the “value span” of this attribute is
“Member Of ‘DISTRICT’”. This type is used to link different classes of objects.
∗ If “Att. Type” is ‘List’, then the “Value List” should include all possible values of this
attribute. Consequently, this attribute accepts only an option form the ‘Value List’ array,
e.g. the attribute “subject” of the class “DOCUMENT” should be selected from a specific
list of predefined subjects. This list could be extended if no logical restriction is apparent.
∗ If the “Att. Type” is ‘Boolean”, the “Value List” might be a pair of values such as
true/false, 1/0, yes/no, etc.
∗ One of the important attributes for many objects that might be needed in spatial planning
is the positioned object. Positioned objects, as any other class of objects, have different
attributes according to the class. The main distinction of such a class of objects is their
spatial reference. They are related to a specific location on the earth, which is needed to
position them on maps. This class is important to facilitate the graphical representation of
spatial elements that is needed for exploring planning contexts.
The class declaration table contains other fields, e.g. ‘is Primary’ that defines if this attribute is
obligatory or optional. The list of attributes could be changed according to the circumstances
of the planning situation.
Class name = ‘CLASS X’
ID Att. Name Att. Type Att. Multiplicity Value Span
1 Attribute 1 String 1
2 Attribute 2 Relation n Member Of ‘CLASS Y’
3 Attribute 3 Date 1 Date
4 Attribute .. List 1 Value 1, value 2, value 3, …., value m
5 Attribute .. Boolean 1 True/False
n Attribute n Positioned element 1 xyz
Fig. 5-11 Basic classes definition table
For each class of objects a similar declaration table is needed. This process could be understood as the
definition of the object language that should be used in the context of the planning process. It includes
the primary elements of the language, the classes of objects, and the rules for using these objects, the
class declaration.
137
It is important here to note that the object definition process, as described here and used in PIS, differs
from the conventional information modeling process in a main aspect. Traditional information
modeling is thought of as a comprehensive process that deals with well-structured information
processes e.g. in routine tasks as in hospitals or libraries. On the contrary, the above-mentioned
process is iterative and could be conducted at any phase of the lifetime of the system by adding new
classes of objects, by modifying the list of attributes or by changing the value span of a specific
attribute in this list.
This difference is essential due to the nature of planning information on one hand and to the
explorative nature of planning processes on the other. Hence, none of these three tables should
essentially be comprehensively complete at the beginning of the process. The declaration process as
described here is relatively simple and requires no specialized knowledge other than the principal
knowledge of database.
b. Documents
The content of many documents could be organized into different classes of objects. However, it is
usual that a document would be used as a whole, even if large parts were organized in different
classes. In PIS, documents are considered a class of information objects that have a special attribute
relative to other classes of objects, namely that it has two components i.e. the document itself and the
information about this document. Documents could have different types, sizes, subjects, sources,
dates, etc. In addition, different documents might have different levels of accessibility. Hence, it is not
enough to supply all documents just as fragments of information without any structure. The second
component of the document is the document’s attributes that are organized in the database.
Class name = ‘DOCUMENT’

1 Title String 1
2 Author Relation n Member Of ‘AUTHOR’
3 Source String 1 File Name
4 Date Date 1 Date
5 Category List 1 Protocol, memo, agenda, law, report, book, article,
6 Access State List 1 Public, restricted, regulated
7 Document State List n Draft, Version, Review, Final, Edition
8 Change State Boolean True/False
9 Related to Event Relation n Member Of ‘EVENT’
10 Part of Document Relation n Member Of ‘DOCUMENT’
11 Subject List n Subject 1, Subject 2, Subject 3
12 …
Fig. 5-12 Example of “DOCUMENT” classes definition table
Regarding the above-mentioned dual nature of this class, additional functions for document handling
are needed in addition to the regular functions for handling structured information. Each document
will be registered in a specific table in a databank with its attributes while the document itself will be
138
available in a documents’ folder. This dual structure facilitates accessing the documents in different
contexts and users can have different access rights to the same documents.
Fig. 5-13 The dual structure of the class ‘DOCUMENT’
c. Information about information (Meta Information)
In addition to the above-mentioned two types of information, there are information resources that are
not directly available in the system but are distributed over different information providers, libraries,
organizations, actors, web sites, etc. Meta information about these resources is organized under
different classes of objects such “LINK” which indicates an online resource that could be called on
demand. In this case another attribute type will be used i.e. the “hyperlink” type that can be used to
call distributed information resources. This type could be described as a virtual distributed library
where documents of different media types are registered into the database, while the original material
is stored in different places.
d. Graphical objects “LAYER” and “LAYER SET”
For dealing with graphics of different types, a specific class of objects is proposed to organize these
graphics. This class is called here the “LAYER” class. The “LAYER” class is different from simple
graphics in the following aspects:
A set of layers could be grouped in a “LAYER SET”, that allows overlaying these layers.
These layers should have the same scale and the similar spatial context.
Each layer might include a set of positioned objects from a different class of objects.
Any layer set could be linked with a different layer set, for example to explore a specific
context in more details.
Fig. 5-14 Graphical objects “LAYER” and “LAYER SET”
139
For the object “LAYER SET”, a specific set of functions is needed for controlling the activity and
visibility of layers.
e. Logical information objects:
A logical information object represents a logical relation between different parameters. Such relations
are defined as objects that include a logical relation between the input values and the output values.
For example, the “motorization rate” could be described as a logical object that resembles the relation
between the “total number of population” and the “car ownership rate” in a specific city. Another
example is the relation between the maximum allowed floor area ratio (FAR) in a specific district and
the area of a specific lot that produces the maximum potential total floor area in this lot.
Fig. 5-15 Definition and declaration of logical information objects
5.4.2. The functions and the tools
For each of the earlier mentioned information types, different types of functions and tools are needed.
By defining and classifying these functions and tools, it will be possible to define which functions and
tools could be reused in the form of routines in different applications, which functions should be
adjusted according to the specific requirements of the application and which functions should be
developed specifically for each application.
For structured information in the form of classes, a set of functions could be defined as modules and
reused in different applications such as:
Primary functions for handling individual information objects by:
∗ creation,
∗ modification,
∗ representation, and
∗ destruction.
Secondary functions for handling a set of information objects by:
∗ Structuring and organization;
∗ browsing,
140
∗ listing,
∗ searching, and
∗ sorting.
Regarding the second type – documents – there must be a tool for the publishing and the
administration of documents.
uploading,
organization,
manipulation,
file management.
For the graphical objects a graphical interface should facilitate layer control, layer set control and
positioned objects manipulation. This set of functions includes:
map navigation,
overlaying and layer control,
map browser (zoom, pan functionality),
visualization of search results on maps, and
input of positioned elements.
For the logical objects (simulation), a function to declare the logical objects and to run different
simulations is essential.
Furthermore, process-oriented functions are not limited to the primary processing of information. The
set of functions includes but is not limited to the following functions:
Statistical interface (statistical analysis)
Argumentation and discussion
∗ raise an issue,
∗ browse existing issues,
∗ declare a position or browse other positions to one of the issues, and
∗ put an argument against or pro one of the existing positions or browse other arguments.
Time line.
Collaborative project office tool (coordination)
The tools and functions in PIS are either server-side or client-side scripts that are written using a
scripting language such as JavaScript or visual basic. Each function and tool is considered a
component that runs independently from other components. This modular organization of the
functions facilitates reusing of the functions in different application. It also facilitates updating a
specific function without changing other functions.
141
5.4.3. The rules scheme
The rules scheme is a set of rules that governs the whole system in the form of user rights, information
control, functions control, etc. This scheme consists mainly of two groups of rules, namely declaration
rules and access rules.
Declaration rules
The declaration rules are a set of rules that governs the declaration of different information objects
including the definition of the attributes of the objects of each class. To define the attributes of a
specific class of objects, at least the data types, the value span and the validity rules should be defined.
That means if in a specific class of objects the value type of a specific attribute is defined as an
‘integer’ number, it should not be allowed to enter numbers with decimal places in this field. For
example in the case study of NBS - NBS which will be discussed in details in chapter 6 - the part of
the rules scheme concerning the value type of the field “area” in the class of objects “potentials” was
loose enough to accept a string although it should only accept a number. Afterwards, it was obvious
that the sorting and the mathematical operations are not possible for this field as many users entered
textual information with the area. Hence, it should be clear that for such a field the rules scheme
should be tight enough to ensure the proper functionality of the system. However, in tightening the
rules scheme it should not form additional effort to the user. The rules scheme should by applied in a
way that guides the user through the entry phase and validates his entries before processing them.
Access scheme
The access scheme is the set of rules that controls the access of different users to different functions
and information in the system. The following figure (5.16) illustrates the matrix of access rights of
different users. Each column is corresponding to a specific function e.g. add new, edit, delete. For each
user a record in the access scheme represents his access rights. In each cell, the code is the
identification of different classes of objects that are available for a specific user to apply a specific
function. For example, user “X” has editing right for classes ‘c1’ and ‘c2’. In addition to the earlier
two classes, this user has an access right to view the class ‘c3’. In other words, he has only the right to
view available information in class ‘c3’ but not to change it. This could be the case regarding
specialized information e.g. the city planner might be allowed to view environmental information but
not to change it. This aspect will be covered in more details and with examples from the practice in the
coming chapter. In most cases, a user who has access to all classes and to all functions is the system
administrator. User “Y” has a specific area access and some limited functions. Such a user is normally
an information supplier. User “Z” is an information consumer who is only allowed to view the
information but has no right to edit or administrate it. In other words, he has a restricted access.
142
Fig. 5-16 Access scheme
5.4.4. The user interface
The user interface is the direct contact between the user and different components of the system. It
facilitates the users’ access to different functions and information through a graphical user-friendly
environment. It should consider the user’s access rights as defined in the rules scheme. Hence, it
should be dynamically generated according to the access rights for different user groups or for
individual users.
The user interface combines the functions that are permitted for each user according to his access
rights, which are defined in the access rules scheme. In addition to the tool bar, the user interface
includes a working area for browsing and manipulating different information elements and for viewing
results of different processes. According to the system requirements, the user interface may include
textual, tabular, graphical and geographical modes. The more the interface facilitates exploring the
same information in different modes and in different contexts, the more advanced it is considered to
be. This allows a better understanding of the subject matter of planning. It should also allow
interactivity when further associations are available and needed. The graphical mode should facilitate
the overlaying of different information layers to obtain the best approach to understand the context.
In addition, the user interface is the area where different users can browse and interact with the
distributed information and maps from different sources of the participant agencies. The interface
allows the user to overlay maps from different sources and to produce the map that fits his purpose.
The user can also search in these distributed databases simultaneously using different criteria and
extract information about the matching elements. To reach such integration among different sources of
information, common standards are essential. Similarly, to reach such standards, collaborative work
between different participating actors is needed.
The user interface (UI) has two functions. First, it gives the user the access to all the possible functions
according to his rights. Second, it is a visual environment to present the results of user's queries and
requests. This UI is also a combination of ASP, scripts and HTML or Dynamic HTML. This UI should
be graphical and user-oriented.
143
6. Application Case Studies of PIS
The concept and the framework of PIS as discussed in the preceding chapters are the results of several
experiments and projects that represent different cycles of conceptualization, implementation,
evaluation and enhancement. This chapter aims at demonstrating the application of the proposed
concept of PIS in different cases. Each of these cases represents a different phase of developing the
proposed concept. The results and experiences collected in each case have contributed to the
improvement of the framework from the conceptual, the technical and the operative perspectives.
The four case studies that are represented here below demonstrate the application of PIS in different
planning levels.
The case of “Südbahn” deals with a project on the national level in Austria.
The case of “SGMC“ (Sustainable Growth Management in Cairo) is developed for the
regional level of Greater Cairo Region.
The project of “NBS” (Nachhaltiges Bauflächenmanagement Stuttgart) covers the city level in
Stuttgart.
The case of “NST” (North-south Trans European railway corridor) is a proposal on a trans-
national level of different European countries.
These cases deal with a variety of planning situations and subjects. The cases of “Südbahn” and
“NST” deal with the impact of the large scale infrastructure development on spatial development
while the cases of “NBS” and “SGMC” deal with the subject of sustainable growth management in
rapidly growing cities and regions. None of these cases could be dealt with as a routine task regarding
the integrated dimensions of complexity and interconnectivity as well as the internal and external
dynamics that govern the situation. These complexities could be classified into a) organizational
complexity, b) subject-related or physical complexity and c) information-related complexity.
144
Organizational complexity might result from cross-organization or cross-border cooperation among a
large number of actors that are not used to cooperate. Subject-related or physical complexity might
result from the interconnectivity among different levels of planning or from the interconnectivities
between different problems and subjects. It might result also from legal or time-related limitations.
Complexity related to information might result from distributed knowledge or from rapidly changing
information. It results also from sharing information from different sources with different standards
and qualities. From a different perspective, PIS in each of these cases covers different areas of the
afore-mentioned information domains i.e. the subject matter domain, the process domain or the
planning knowledge domain.
As mentioned earlier, the design, development and implementation of a planning information system
should consider a) the characteristics of the spatial problem that presents the subject of planning, b)
the characteristics of the planning process in which this subject is handled and c) the planning
information that is needed, processed or produced in the process of problem solving or conflict
resolution. Hence, each of these case studies starts by introducing the background of the case
regarding these three aspects: the subject, the process and the information. Based on these aspects, the
need for a planning information system will be discussed to illustrate the goal and the tasks of the
proposed system and to define the information processes that should be supported. Consequently, the
main development and implementation criteria will be introduced according to these aspects. Then, the
proposed system will be discussed to illustrate the main components of the system including the
information structure, the functions and the tools, the rules scheme and the user interface. Afterwards,
the implementation of the systems will be discussed.
145
6.1. The Southern Railway System in Austria (Südbahn)
6.1.1. Background
The subject matter: The Austrian federal ministry for science and transportation has set an ad-hoc
group of experts and officials to evaluate the upgrading alternatives for the southern railway system*.
The task of this group is to identify an efficient connection between Vienna and the southern parts of
Austria through the Alps considering the technical and economic aspects as well as the operative
efficiency of the transportation system.
Fig. 6-1 The Südbahn should connect the southern states in Austrian with Vienna through the Alps
Participating actors: The group consisted of independent experts for spatial planning and
transportation planning as well as representatives of the federal states: Vienna, Niederöstrreich,
Steiermark and Kärnten. The participating experts are from Austria, Germany and Switzerland.
The time frame: The work of this group extended over two years (1998-2000). However, the
development and the implementation of the proposed PIS took place between June and October 2000.
*
Die Experten-Arbeitsgruppe für „Ausbauvarianten des Systems Südbahn“
146
6.1.2. Characteristics of the situation:
Regarding the subject matter of this case, the Südbahn railway system has a multi-dimensional
interconnectivity with different spatial activities on different levels including the European, the
Federal level in Austria and the regional level. Here below some examples of interconnectivity are
listed:
On the European level, the project is related to other European projects such as the Trans
European Network that connects the member countries of the European union, and the Pan
European Network that connects the European union with the eastern parts of Europe. (These
networks will be described in more details in the case study of NST later in this chapter)
On the federal level of Austria, the Südbahn should connect the southern states of Austria with
Vienna through the Alps. This direct connection plays important political and economic roles
on the federal level.
On the interregional level, different alternatives would bring different positive and negative
impacts for different regions. For example, an alternative that represents the optimum solution
from the viewpoint of a specific region does not represent the same thing for another.
On the bi-national level between Austria and its neighbors such as Hungary, some solution
alternatives could be realized by integrating some existing and planned infrastructures on the
border region between Austria and Hungary, on the Hungarian territories.
Regarding the planning process, different characteristics play an important role in developing the
proposed PIS such as:
The participating actors are from different countries and different regions.
They are from different backgrounds and have different interests.
They meet periodically once each quarter.
It was apparent that dealing with the system as a whole is neither reasonable nor efficient. Therefore,
the system is organized into different modules. This modular structure is essential for several reasons:
Some modules are agreed upon while others have fewer consensuses.
Some modules require further research regarding the number of possible solution alternatives
while others are relatively clear.
For different modules, different actors are involved in the planning process or different actors
are affected by the development of the project.
The implementation of the whole system could not be conducted in one phase; the whole
development is estimated to take between 15 to 20 years. In each phase of development, the
system should be operating efficiently.
147
1 Wien - Wampersdorf
2 Wampersdorf - Wiener Neustadt
3 Wiener Nneustadt - Gloggnitz
4 Gloggnitz - Muerzzuschlag
5 Muerzzuschlag - Bruck a.d. Mur
6 Bruck a.d. Mur - Klagenfurt
7 Klagenfurt - Villach
8 Klagenfurt - Graz
9 Graz - Szombathely
10 Graz - Bruck a.d. Mur
11 Aspangbahn
12 Szombathely - Sopron
13 Sopron - Wampersdorf
Fig. 6-2 The modular structure of the Südbahn system
After several months of work, a huge number of documents were circulated, produced or used in the
process. These documents are related to the process domain or to the subject matter domains. They
include different types of documents that range from feasibility studies to organizational
correspondences. The above-mentioned modular structure represents a basic classification criterion
that facilitates structuring these documents. Each of these documents is related to different modules of
the system. From an organizational point of view, these documents are related to different sessions of
the expert group.
6.1.3. Application of PIS
The need for a PIS: It was apparent that, a system to structure and organize these documents was
essentially needed. This system should facilitate organizing, structuring and recalling these documents.
In addition, the system should facilitate creating an overview about the different modules of the
project based on the content of these documents. As an initiative from the chairman of ISL*, who was
a member of this expert group, a system was developed and implemented to support structuring and
organizing the above-mentioned documents.
Development criteria: From the criteria matrix shown in table 6.1., the following points represent the
main development criteria of PIS in this case:
The actual lifetime of the system is limited to the lifetime of the process. This could be
attributed to the fact that the main goal of the system is to facilitate managing the documents
throughout the remaining time of the process.
*
Prof. B. Scholl the chairman of Institute of Urban and Regional Planning in the university of Karlsruhe,
148
There is no essential information exchange with other information systems. However, the
system should be based on a standard format that could be exchanged with other systems.
The information is supplied centrally. There is no need for file management functions.
The distributed access to the information is a pre-requirement. It should be available from any
computer connected to the Internet, but the access is password protected.
The system structure in this case is relatively flat. It deals with a core class of objects i.e. the
“DOCUMENT” class. Other classes are only used to classify this core class.
Degree
Criteria
Min. ³ ´ Max.
Time span Short D Long
Open to other Info. Sys. Closed D Open
# of users Low D High
The information
Distribution of Supply Central D Distributed
Distribution of Access Limited D Distributed
# of classes of objects Limited D Large
Dynamism of content Static D Dynamic
Types of media Alphanumeric D Multimedia
The rules scheme
Differentiation of users Low D High
The functions
Database D
Documents D
Argumentation D
Table 6-1 Südbahn PIS development criteria matrix
Regarding the media types that should be included in the system, only alphanumeric
information about the documents is expected in the database. In addition, different types of
documents, that are digitally available, should be included in the system.
Regarding the experimental nature of the system, the number of users is limited.
In respect to the rules scheme, there is no need to classify the users according to their access
rights. Consequently, the user interface is similar for all the users.
The information space: The main class of information objects in this case is the “DOCUMENT” class.
Most of the primary attributes of this class, as mentioned in chapter 5, are needed. In addition, several
specific relations are required to describe the relation between this class with other secondary classes
of objects such as the class of “MODULES” and the class of “SESSIONS”. These secondary classes
of objects are used only to facilitate the classification of the documents using different criteria to allow
exploring the documents in different contexts e.g. temporal, spatial, content, relevance, etc.
Fig. 6-3 Main classes of information objects in the information system of the Südbahn
149
The relation with the class of “MODULES” is a basic classification criterion for the spatial overview
(fig. 6.4.d). Each document might have a multiple relation with one or more of the 13 modules. This
facilitates grouping the documents that are related to a specific module to allow comparing and
combining their content.
The second important relation is the relation with the class “SESSION”. Most of the documents are
related to a specific session of the expert group. From organizational viewpoint, this classification
facilitates following up the process.
Class name = ‘DOCUMENT’

1 Title String 1
2 Author String n
3 Source String 1 File Name
4 Date Date 1 Date
5 Modules Relation n Member Of ‘MODULES’
6 Session Relation 1 Member Of ‘SESSION’
7 Document Type List n Report, Invitation, Agenda, Protocol, etc.
8 Relevance State Boolean Relevant/Irrelevant
Another class of objects is introduced in this system, namely the class of “COMMENT”. This class is
designed to facilitate discussion about the content of the different documents. Each “COMMENT” is
related to a specific “DOCUMENT” as shown in fig. 6.3.
The functions and the tools: using the classification of functions that is introduced in section 5.4.2., the
functions in this case are grouped as following:
Primary functions are related to database management such as adding new records, editing or
viewing the existing ones (fig. 6.4.b. & fig. 6.4.c.)
Secondary functions include tools for listing all available information records (fig. 6.4.d).
Additionally, the system allowed text oriented search and sorting functions using different
criteria (fig. 8.4.e). The matching records for each of these functions are represented in the
form of a list accompanied with functionalities for browsing the document information,
editing it or browsing the document itself if it is available in a digital form.
In addition, the possibility to add comments to a specific document was available as well as
the possibility to view available comments for a specific document.
By using a graphical interface in the form of an overview map about the different modules of
the project, it is possible to browse the documents in their spatial context (fig 6.4.g). By
clicking on any module on the map, all relevant documents that are related to this module will
be listed with functions to open or to edit the information that is related to this document.
The rules scheme: In this case the whole system is password protected, but the authorized users are not
differentiated by access rights. This could be attributed to the small number of authorized users and
the experimental nature of this case.
150
a. The navigation bar in the user interface
b. Add or edit a document information c. View a document’s information
d. List of results with functions e. Search and sort function
f. Add a new comment about a specific document g. The graphical interface

Fig. 6-4 Different functions in the user interface of the PIS in the case study of “Südbahn”
The user interface: The user interface is a web page that includes two main parts. At the top is the
navigation bar figure 6.4.a. The rest of the page includes the information area where the results of
151
different operations are displayed or further navigation tools are represented according to the selected
functions. Figure 6.4. illustrates different components of the user interface.
Technical aspects of the proposed PIS: An Internet based system is proposed to fulfill these criteria
and to conduct the planned task. The proposed system used different standard Internet related
techniques. At the back end, the information was saved in a database (Microsoft access 2000). The
whole application runs in an ASP environment (Active Server Page) using JavaScript as a scripting
language. For any user to access the system, he needs only an Internet access and a standard Internet
browser. Using his Internet browser, the user can conduct all the available functions with no need for
further programs.
6.1.4. Concluding remarks

This case study represents a planning subject on a sub-national or trans-regional level. It deals
with a large-scale railway infrastructure project. The participating actors in the planning
process were from different regions and different organizations.
The application of PIS in this case is limited to supporting the organization of the available
documents and facilitating access. These documents covered the three domains of information
in spatial planning. The PIS in this case, included documents about the subject matter, the
process, the background and the solution directions.
It is important to mention, that the application of the concept of PIS in this case study is one of
the early experiments that are conducted by the author to explore the technical and conceptual
aspects of the proposed PIS.
By the end of the process, the system included information about more than 500 documents of
different types. The system allowed accessing the information, independent of time and place.
It also allowed accessing these documents in different contexts. The system allowed
decentralized management of the documents and the information.
The development process took an explorative and iterative nature in form of several cycles of
development, implementation, evaluations and improvement. After each phase of
development, the feedback from the end users was collected in personal conversations. Then,
the needed improvement in the form of functionality or enhancements was integrated.
By critically observing the system implementation, the following aspects are important for the
further development of such systems:
∗ Although the “DOCUMENT” class is regarded in this case as the main class of
information objects, other classes of objects could have been fully included with a
minimum effort such as the “SESSION” class and the “MODULE” class. Both of these
classes of objects are only considered as classification criteria with no further
information.
152
∗ By extending these two classes of objects, it could have been possible to implement
further information functions such as cost, realization phases and travel time of different
combinations of modules. On the organizational level, it could have been possible to
coordinate the sessions and the relevant organizational information to minimize the
organizational effort.
∗ It was also evident that remote file management functions are needed to facilitate remote
control of the system content.
∗ The simple search form using single criteria at a time was not enough. Multi criteria
search is needed in such systems to allow efficient combination of search results.
∗ The use of the discussion tool was very limited. It was mainly oriented to make important
citations from the documents. This minimal use of the argumentation tool could be
attributed to the experimental nature of the case with a small number of users. It was
more efficient to discuss the comments in personal meetings.
∗ Access to the system should be classified according to the user’s right. The flat
organization of the access rights, even in a limited process, proved to be a restriction. For
example, it was not possible using this flat organization to allow a guest user to view the
information without having the right to change it.
153
6.2. Sustainable Growth Management in Cairo (SGMC)
6.2.1. Background
Location: Greater Cairo Region (GCR), Egypt.
The subject matter:
This case is an attempt to explore the potentials, the limitations and the requirements that should be
considered in developing a planning information system for supporting sustainable growth
management in a third world metropolitan area under rapid growth dynamics.
Participating actors:
This case study deals with an experiment that was conducted by the author.
The time frame:
This case study has started at April 1999. A paper about the early ideas of this case study was
published in CORP 2000 in Vienna under the title “Internet Based Planning Information Systems as a
Supporting Tool for Urban Planning Process.” in the symposium “Computergestützte Raumplanung,
5. Symposium zur Rolle der Informationstechnologie in der Raumplanung”, Vienna, 2000. The
conceptual and technical framework of the case was further developed and improved until December
2000.
6.2.2. Characteristics of the situation
Three major aspects govern the development and the implementation of PIS in the case of sustainable
growth management in Cairo, namely characteristics of the spatial situation, characteristics of the
planning process that is needed to deal with this problem and characteristics of the planning
information that is needed to explore and to solve the problem.
Regarding the spatial context, three main interconnected aspects are discussed here below, namely: the
demographic and urban growth dynamics, the physical restrictions and infrastructure development.
Regarding the planning process, the jurisdictional partitioning and the legal framework of urban
planning and urban development in Cairo are introduced. Then the main characteristics of planning
information in this situation will be briefly discussed.
154
Growth dynamics in GCR
The urban agglomeration of Cairo is considered one of the largest populated human settlements in the
world. In 1996, Cairo was number 17 of the largest cities regarding population size. It is estimated that
Cairo will be number 14 in 2015.
At the beginning of the 19th century, the population of Cairo metropolitan area was 0,3 million. Until
the beginning of the 20th century, it has doubled to be 0.6 in 1900. After that, it needed only thirty
years to double again to be 1,2 million by 1930. In the interwar years, it continued its rapid growth
reaching 2 million by the outbreak of the World War II. By 1970, Cairo population has reached 5
million inhabitants (Yousry & Aboul Atta 1996). This demographic increase was accompanied by a
considerable urban growth. The agglomeration area of Cairo has more than tripled from 100 sq. km in
1950 to 350 sq. km in 1970. However, this increase in the urban area was not as fast as the population
increase, in some old districts of Cairo the population density has reached 136,000 inhabitants km2.
The extraordinary population explosion after 1950 could be attributed to the development policy that
was adopted by the revolutionary government after 1952. The government has undertaken substantial
industrial and housing projects. A considerable amount of these development activities was
concentrated in the Cairo region leading to the attraction of more migrants from different parts of
Egypt searching for better life.
Fig. 6-5. Demographic and urban growth in GCR since 1870
155
After 1973, the policy of economic liberalization has replaced the socialist system encouraging
private, international and Arab investment. A large part of these investments was concentrated in
Cairo fostering further rapid urban growth leading to the consumption of more land on one hand and
attracting more migrants who were looking for better chances in Cairo on the other. Consequently, the
total population reached 9 million inhabitants by the mid 1990s as shown in Fig. 6-5. In this period,
the rapid population growth was not accompanied by a similar growth in housing and infrastructure
leading to the increase of the informal housing all around Cairo. It is estimated that as much as 4
million inhabitants were living in illegal settlements. (Yousry & Aboul Atta 1996). Since that time the
city has continued its rapid growth in terms of both population growth and urban growth. By the year
2000, the total population in GCR has passed the 15 Million inhabitants and the total populated area
has reached more than 500 sq. km. Population growth in Cairo is attributed to three main reasons.
The overall natural growth rate during the last decade of the 20th century population growth
was 2.3% annually. It decreased to reach 2.0% at 2002 (The World Bank Group 2003).
The improvement in the health care leading to the increase of the life expectancy at birth from
41, 61 and 67 years in 1960 and 1990 and 2002 respectively (The World Bank Group 2003).
The accelerating migration from rural areas to cities. In addition, some of the population
growth has resulted from the influx of refugees from the cities along the Suez Canal that was
damaged in the wars of the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s, Fig. 6-6.
Fig. 6-6. Internal migration to GCR between 1971 and 1976
Source: ACR 1982 in Meyer 1989
One of the main side effects of this rapid population and urban growth is the increase of informal
settlements. Informal settlements are those districts built on the outskirts or inside the urban
agglomeration of the city in violation of laws. This violation includes building on agricultural lands
156
which is prohibited in Egypt or building on a public land. In both cases, building takes place without
permissions and without considering planning standards. According to the typology of these
settlements, the following types of informal areas could be identified:
Growth of rural villages near the urban agglomeration over the agricultural land,
Growth of peripheral formal districts over adjacent agricultural land as shown in Fig. 6-7,
New informal areas over desert land on the outskirts of the city.
In addition to informal settlements, there are other types of informal housing such as marginal
housing, shanty towns and the city of the dead.
Fig. 6-7 Informal settlements around GCR - formal and informal growth trends
Informal construction on arable land is not limited to Cairo; it has reached phenomenal dimensions in
Egypt. The consumption of arable land for building accompanied by the population increase has
resulted in the decrease of the per capita share of arable land from 0.42, 0.18, 0.085 and 0.05 Hectare
in 1800, 1900, 1965 and 2000 respectively. To face this unwished growth, the master scheme of
Greater Cairo Region that was prepared in the early 1980s has adopted a strategy for urban
development that implies steering urban development to the desert and reducing the consumption of
arable land to zero. However, this goal was far from being achieved, consumption of arable land has
continued regardless of the establishment of several new communities on non-arable land outside the
region (fig. 6.8). After 14 years, in 1996, this strategy was supported by a decree that prohibits
construction on arable land and made such structures a criminal act. The consumption of arable land in
GCR as well as in all parts of the Nile Valley and the Nile Delta has continued its uncontrolled
increase. Since 1996, after the afore-mentioned decree was declared, more than 400,000 cases of
violation were registered in all parts of Egypt, which resulted in a total consumption of arable land of
more than 2000 Hectare per annum. In the Governorates of Cairo, Al-Giza and Al-Qaliubia, the three
governorates that compose GCR, the consumption of arable land since 1996 is estimated to be 155,
157
140, 255 Hectares per annum respectively (Al Ahram 25.02.2003). Consequently, the average
consumption of arable land in GCR ranged between 300-500 Hectares per annum since 1996.
Fig. 6-8 Planned and actual built-up area on arable land in GCR
Source: based on information from Greater the master scheme of GCR, GOPP/OTUI-AURIF,
actual state is calculated from in formation in Al Ahram newspaper from 25.02.2003
During this spatial growth, the agglomeration of Cairo contained into its tissues both agricultural lands
and other non-urban land uses such as industry, military sites, airports and cemeteries. In many cases
large cemeteries or military sites extended several kilometers inside residential areas. In other cases,
heavy industries and airports that were outside the urban agglomeration are surrounded by houses.
Fig. 6-9 An example of informal urban growth in GCR (Imbaba, north west of Cairo)
Fig. 6-9 represents an example of the mixture of unorganized and unplanned land uses in Imbaba north
west of Cairo. From the satellite image, the following aspects could be clearly observed:
1. The new ring road surrounded by informal settlements.

2. Imbaba Airport Surrounded by informal settlements. The airport was closed at the end of
the 1990, as it became unsafe for navigation.
3. Informal growth of a conventional district on arable land,
4. Informal growth of a village on the arable land.
158
Physical restrictions:
The urban agglomeration in GCR extends along both sides of the Nile from the south to the north for
more than 30 kilometers. This agglomeration covers an area of more than 500 sq. km. The average
population density in GCR is about 30,000 inhabitants pre square kilometer. The urban growth of
GCR was steered by some natural factors. GCR is bordered on the east by the Mokattam Hills,
separating the city from the Eastern Desert and Abo-Rawash Hills and the Western Desert to the West.
These natural conditions lead to easier expansion of informal growth to the north on fertile delta land.
Fig. 6-10 Natural growth restrictions in GCR
Source: Based on a Satellite image from 1991
Jurisdictional and organizational partitioning
While Greater Cairo Region (GCR) as a whole is considered one of the seven planning regions in
Egypt, urban management is divided among three administrative subdivisions (Governorate Mohafza).
Cairo Governorate rules the major part of the metropolitan, Al-Giza Governorate rules the western
bank of the metropolitan across the Nile, and Al-Qaliubia Governorate rules the northern part of the
metropolitan. The role of Al-Giza Governorate extends to cover areas about 300 Km from Cairo, while
Al-Qaliubia Governorate 100 Km. North of Cairo. This situation makes priority-setting for these two
Governorates different from those needed for developing the capital and vice versa. Consequently,
coordination for activities that affect the whole region or extend over the border of two Governorates
leads directly to moving the implementation of such projects to a central authority. In other words, the
urban administration in Cairo Region does not have the full control over development activities in the
city since 1961 from the beginning of the “local administration system”. Although it is paradoxical,
the fact is that the city administration has more control over development activities before this law
than after it. In addition, different authorities are responsible for data collection and spatial databases.
159
In the absence of an advanced and capable body for organization and coordination between these
different authorities, each authority is working on its own system and goals. Furthermore, the planning
system can not keep pace with the rapid growth conditions in the absence of a continuous planning
mechanism.
Administrative
Greater
subdivisions
Cairo Region
Kalyobiya Gov.
Cairo Urban
Greater
Agglomeration
Cairo Region
Giza Gov. Cairo Gov.
Greater Cairo
Greater
Region
Cairo Region
Fig. 6-11. Administrative subdivisions in Cairo Fig. 6-12. Major infrastructure development GCR
Infrastructure development and spatial development
The absence of coordination between infrastructure development and spatial development in GCR
could be observed in the informal growth of new settlements alongside newly developed highways.
This absence could be also observed in the relation between the new Metro Network and the
surrounding districts in many areas. This absence of coordination is attributed to the lack of
coordination between the regional planning authorities and the authorities that are responsible for
infrastructure projects, although both regional planning and infrastructure planning are conducted by
central authorities.
As mentioned earlier, the regional planning in Egypt is the responsibility of the central agency for
urban planning. This agency is directly related to the ministry of development and infrastructure and is
responsible for planning in GCR as well as in all the other planning regions in Egypt. Similarly,
almost every large development activity in GCR is conducted by central authorities - e.g. the Ministry
of transportation is responsible for the development of Cairo Underground Metro, the Ministry of
development and infrastructure is responsible for the ring road and the new towns around GCR and
some cases for development projects inside Cairo such as the new residential districts (ESNB 1992).
However, if such central authorities did not conduct such development activities, three different
agencies from the three Governorates that compose GCR would be responsible for each type of
infrastructures. For example electricity, water supply and sewerage are built and operated by separate
authorities
160
The need for a PIS: Regarding the above-mentioned circumstances and dynamics of urban growth in
Cairo, an information platform is proposed to promote sustainable growth management of the region
by facilitating the creation of an overview about the main issues that are related to the urban growth
and to keep this overview up-to-date. The main goal of such an overview is to promote inner
development vs. informal growth on arable land in the outskirts of the city. To achieve this goal, the
proposed system may contribute in the following functions:
creating an overview about inner development potentials and then to keep the concerned actors
in touch with the changing circumstances. These actors should participate in creating this
overview and in updating it,
coordinating spatial activities specially infrastructure development to minimize conflicts and
to reduce the danger of informal growth that usually accompanies such developments.
identifying the threatened areas by informal growth.
In addition to these functions, the proposed system would support consensus building for inner
development through the communication of knowledge about the planning strategies, concepts and
objectives among the responsible authorities and other actors who participate in spatial development
activities.
Development criteria: The development criteria in this case are based on the general development
criteria of PIS that were discussed earlier. However, specific requirements should be considered
regarding the above-mentioned characteristics of the situation in GCR as following:
The supply of information, the access to the platform and the administration of the system
should be decentralized.
The system should be opened to other information sources that are already available to make
use of it and to facilitate the integration of the proposed system into the information
technology landscape in the region administration.
The system should be dynamic to keep pace with the rapidly changing circumstances. It
should facilitate updating available information and integrating new issues and subjects.
Information organization should consider the hierarchy concept to facilitate exploring the large
amounts of information in an abstract form and then getting more details by demand.
The system should consider the modular structure in both of the information organization and
the functions. This will facilitate exploring the information in different contexts and to
administrate the user access right in a more flexible manner.
The access scheme should define the responsibilities and the rights in respect to the
information that is included in the system, taking into consideration the large number of actors
that should participate in the system as well as their differentiated roles and tasks.
161
By attempting to translate these aspects into a development criteria matrix, it is clear that in this case
the requirements are relatively high. As shown in the following table 6.2.:
Degree
Criteria
Min. ³ ´ Max.
The information
The rules scheme
The functions
Database D
Documents D
Argumentation D
Table 6-2 Cairo PIS development criteria matrix
The time span of such a system is expected to be long. This means that the system should be
developed in a way that could be extended.
It is also clear that different participating actors use different standards and formats of
information. While the proposed system is not regarded as a central data warehouse that
collects all types of data from the different information systems, it should be possible to
exchange information with other systems. It is more efficient to support specific standard
formats for importing and exporting information with other information systems.
The information space
The information space includes different types of planning information that are related to the three
information domains which were discussed earlier, i.e. the subject-matter domain, the process domain,
and the planning knowledge domain.
In the subject matter domain, different classes of objects are expected such as: projects,
problems, potentials, conflicts, actors, plans, and ongoing activities, etc. However, further
classes of information objects could be added by demand.
The process domain includes information about issues related to organization, coordination,
argumentation and decision-making. This information domain includes information objects
such as participating actors in the process, tasks, time plans, etc.
The planning knowledge domain includes information about issues such as legal bases for
planning, planning standards and norms, case studies from different cities that have similar
situations, etc.
162
Technically, the information space consists of a database for structured information and different types
of documents. The database includes different tables for structured information as well as information
about the available documents.
The user interface
The user interface (UI) has two functions. First, it gives the user an access to all possible functions
according to his rights. Second, it is a visual environment to present the results of a user's queries and
requests. When a user log on to the platform, the interface will be customized according to his access
rights. He will get access only to the functions and the tools that he is authorized to use.
1. The tool bar 4. The statues list

2. The command area 5. The main area
3. The overview navigator 6. The information area
Fig. 6-13 The user interface in the case study of “Sustainable Growth Management in Cairo”
The user interface is a web page that includes only standard HTML code. It needs only the web
browser with no need for any special programs (plug-ins). It consists of six main areas (fig. 6.14):
1. The tool bar: includes access to menus and functions.

2. The command area: the content of this area changes according to the selected set of
functions from the tool bar.
3. The overview navigator: this area includes a context map that views the current position and
scale relative to the larger map for orientation.
4. The status bar: includes information about the current settings and the active elements.
163
5. The information area is the area where the selected information is represented in the current
selected mode (the map mode, the time line mode and the statistical mode).
6. The information area is used to represent the results of different types of queries.
The functions and tools
To deal with the above-mentioned types of information, four main information modes are needed:
graphical, alphanumeric, time line and statistical (fig. 6.14a to 6.14c). Different sets of functions are
essential to deal with the information in these four modes as following:
The first group of functions, under the “Elements” menu (fig. 6.14), includes both primary and
secondary information functions for exploring different classes of objects and the different
elements in each class. However, it does not include access for adding new records or editing
existing ones.
The primary information functions for manipulation of existing information objects are
grouped under the menu “Input”. Grouping these functions in different menus is needed to
facilitate the access control that is based on activation or deactivation of different menus
according to the user access right. This issue is discussed in more details in the rules scheme.
The system included text-oriented search and sorting functions using different criteria (fig.
6.14). The results of these functions are represented in the form of a list accompanied with
functionalities for browsing the document information, or viewing the linked documents if it is
available in a digital form or accessing hyperlinks for more details. In addition, the results of
queries are represented in the graphical mode.
The menu “Material” includes access to the available documents and media files. These files
could be distributed over different servers.
Layer control functions are grouped under the menu “Layers”. This menu includes functions
such as layer control and overlying. In addition, functions for the view control are grouped
under the menu “Display”. This menu includes functions such as zoom and pan (fig. 6-14e).
Further functions such as: statistical analysis, time line for different activities and discussion
forums are also included (fig. 6.14e).
From a technical point of view, these tools and functions are server-side and client-side scripts that are
written using a scripting language such as JavaScript or visual basic. Each function and tool is
considered a component that runs independently from other components (e.g. a component for input, a
component for overlaying, a component for search, etc.). The whole application runs on Active Server
Pages (ASP) environment that runs most operations on the server side and sends standard HTML to
the client. In addition, some client side functions are sent to the client, so that he can make some
operations without being connected again to the servers.
164
a. The spatial overview
b. The statistical mode c. The time line
e. Menus of different sets of functions
Fig. 6-14 Different functions and modes of information in the user interface in the case of SGMC
165
One of the main functions in this case is the spatial overview. The spatial overview is a tool for
graphical representation of shared information about different spatial activities including ongoing and
planned activities. The importance of this overview in such a complex context emerges from the need
for collaborative exploration of spatial problems and for coordination of spatial activities that are
initiated and conducted by different actors in the region. These activities might be complimentary,
conflicting or pre-required for one another. The collaborative overview should facilitate identifying
conflicts between these activities or synergies that could be achieved by coordinating these activities.
It should also facilitate identifying of problem areas and sharing information about these problem
areas. This might contribute in defining threatened areas by informal growth.
Based on the hierarchal, modular and associative organization of information, the graphical overview
allows exploring the spatial context on an abstract level and then exploring specific sub-region or a
specific element in more details when needed. In addition, using different types and scales of maps,
satellite images and aerial photos, the same aspects could be explored in different graphical contexts
and different levels of abstractions. Different elements could be illustrated in the overview either in an
abstract form as symbols or in a detailed form, that presents the physical form of an element. Toggling
between the abstract and the detailed modes could be controlled using the mode buttons in the
navigation bar of the user interface (the upper lift area in fig. 6-14).
The rules scheme
The users in this case are grouped according to their access rights to three groups: authorized users,
registered users and public users. Each group of users has different access rights in respect to the
information and the functions. The need for identifying groups of users emerges from the number of
users that are expected to participate in such a system. Otherwise, it would be very complex if it were
organized for individual users. However, individual access rights could be defined for individual users
to access specific information areas or to use specific function based on the role and responsibility of
each user. The concept of the access scheme is shown in the following matrix.
Criteria Public user Registered user Authorized user
Public info D D D
Internal info U [ D
Restricted info U U D
Display D D D
Overlay D D D
Search D D D
Forum [ [ D
Analysis D D D
Input U [ [
Legend: D Full access U No access [ Individual access rights
Based on the access scheme, the user interface is customized according to the user access rights. For
example, a user that has no right to add information to the platform will not get the input function in
the tool bar in the user interface.
166
The need for a planning information system that supports sustainable growth management in
Cairo emerges from different reasons:
∗ The situation of urban development in Cairo is witnessing an uncontrolled dynamics of
urban growth. This growth consumes large areas of scarce arable land around the
agglomeration.
∗ The jurisdictional partitioning of the region into three administrative units adds further
complexity for managing the growth in the region. Two of these administrative units are
not only responsible for their parts of Cairo but also are responsible for other cities and
villages that are far away from Cairo.
∗ The physical circumstances in Cairo limit the possibilities of urban growth. During the
unplanned urban growth in the last decades, different non-urban land uses exist inside the
urban tissues. These areas represent potentials for urban development.
Fig. 6-15 An example of inner development potentials in Cairo (Almaza Airport, East of Cairo)
Different large infrastructure projects are developed and planned at the time being. These
projects require coordination with one another as well as with the overall development of the
region.
From these circumstances, different aspects should be considered in developing and
implementing of PIS in this situation:
∗ The number of participating actors is large. They have different roles and responsibilities.
∗ Regarding the amounts of possible information and the rapid change in this information,
the system should concentrate on the strategic issues that play an important role in the
spatial development of the city.
167
To achieve this strategic vision, all the important aspects should be reviewed to define major
problem areas, major activities and major actors in the area. In other words, the following
elements should be defined: the needed information and key figures (indicators and
parameters) to handle these problems as well as the main concerned institutions that will
contribute and benefit from this system.
This information system should be designed to give an indication of possible areas of further
informal and unplanned growth inside and outside the built up area
As such complications and local circumstances surround planning urban development and
local administration in Egypt, adoption of a pre-prepared system or mechanism for planning
urban development would be a matter of unreality. The needed system or mechanism should
take into consideration the local conditions in order to benefit from their potentials and deal
with their problems. Historically, each agency would have its own database, and then
continually maintain their own data as well as data obtained from other sources.
A PIS is proposed to link different authorities concerned with the spatial development in
Cairo. The main goal of this system is creating an overview about the main issues related to
urban growth of the region. Among the main aspects that should be considered in this system:
∗ potentials for inner development,
∗ areas threatened by informal growth,
∗ ongoing development and planning activities.
168
6.3. The case study of Sustainable Land Management in Stuttgart (NBS)
6.3.1. Background
The subject matter:
The case study of “Sustainable Land Management in Stuttgart” (Nachhaltiges Bauflächenmanagement

Stuttgart NBS) deals with a project that is concerned with promoting the strategy of inner development
in Stuttgart. The concept of planning information systems, as introduced in this research, was
implemented to establish an information platform that serves as a tool in this strategy. NBS is a
research project financed by the ministry of environment and transportation in Baden Würtumberg in
the context of the research program BW Plus.
Participating actors:
NBS is a cooperation project between the city of Stuttgart (department of city planning and the
department of environmental preservation), urban and regional planning institute in the university of
Karlsruhe (ISL) and the consulting firm Kommunal Entwicklung GMBH (KE).
Regarding the information platform, more than 50 planners and experts from different departments in
the city administration of Stuttgart have participated in the project.
The time frame:
The official start of NBS was April 2001. However, the planning and the development of the planning
information platform have started in March 2001. The project was officially ended in March 2003.
The project period of NBS was two years and was divided into three phases. The first phase was
devoted to establishing the overview through developing of information platform. The second phase
was the consolidation phase for consolidating the overview and exploring development potentials. The
third phase was devoted to developing the strategy and the implementation phase.
169
Stuttgart as one of the major industrial centers in Germany has witnessed a rapid urban growth for
several decades in the second half of the twenties century. This urban growth was initiated by an
intensive increase in the investments in the industry sector during the 1950s and the 1960s, and later in
the services sectors. The resulting growth in job opportunities led to a similar increase in population to
fulfill the demand on labor force. This rapid growth in jobs and inhabitants lead to an intensive
increase in the total number of residential units. These developments lead to a rapid urban growth
since 1950 to fulfill the demand on residential, industrial, services areas as well as infrastructure and
roads. This growth, in the form of urban sprawl, took place, to a large extent, on green fields on the
outskirts of the city leading to more demand on private passenger vehicles and hence to more pressure
on the road network. To keep pace with these developments, immense investments were devoted to
the sectors of infrastructure and public services. However, the costs of these projects are not limited to
the capital costs, but they include intensive running and maintenance costs that are indispensable.
However, since 1970, Stuttgart is witnessing a negative demographic development. In addition,

economic growth, as indicated by the total employment, is witnessing negative development since
1990. These developments were accompanied by economic, technical and operational changes in all of
the industrial, infrastructure and services sectors; the thing that resulted in the formation of large
abandoned or underused sites. To a large extent, these sites are located inside the city in good accessed
locations by public transportation.
Facing these facts, Stuttgart development plan 2010 (FNP 2010) adopts inner development of the city
as a strategy for sustainable urban development. It was essential to identify inner development
potentials as a pre-requirement for the realization of this sustainable inner development. Then it will
be possible to define which developments are reasonable and which conditions govern these
developments.
Growth dynamics in Stuttgart (Demographic, economic and physical)
By the year 2000, the settlement area of Stuttgart has reached about 50% from its total administrative
province, which consists of more than 20,000 hectare. This growth took place mainly during the 1950s
and 1960s as the land consumption has reached more than 100 hectare per annum due to the rapid
industrial growth. In spite of this high rate of land consumption, the population density in Stuttgart is
more than 50 inhabitants per hectare, which makes Stuttgart one of the densest cities in Germany.
170
Fig. 6-16. Demographic and urban growth in Stuttgart since 1900
Source: based on several data sources from the department of city planning in Stuttgart
This contradiction between the increasing density and the increasing land-consumption could be
explained by the rapid immigration rate of labor force that has accompanied the industrial growth to
fulfill the needed manpower for this industrial boom. This lead to a total population increase by
approx. 30% from about 500,000 inhabitants in 1950 to approx. 640,000 in 1960. After the population
growth reached its peak during the 1960s, it started decreasing until it dropped to 550,000 inhabitants
during the 1990s. In spite of this population decrease, land consumption continued its ascending trend.
Nevertheless, this growth took a lower rate of 25 hectare per annum during the 1990s.
This contradiction between the demographic decline and the continuous increase in land consumption
is attributed to the increase of per capita share of residential areas as well as the high demand on
bureau areas in the services sector.
During the last two decades, an average of 450,000 sq m² floor area are developed in Stuttgart
annually. The land use plan for Stuttgart 2010 (FNP 2010) foresees that the same amount of floor area
is required yearly to fulfill the estimated demand. Although this consumption presents only 25% of the
earlier consumption during the former decades, the growth trend could not continue in the same trend
for several reasons:
Stuttgart is located in the Neckar valley and is surrounded by mountains from all sides. This
topographic situation represents a limitation for urban growth regarding the steep slopes in
many areas.
171
This topographic situation limits the air circulation in the valley, which represents a restriction
on high buildings regarding the defined air corridors.
From an economic viewpoint, regardless of these natural restrictions, it is apparent that the
extensions of the urban agglomeration add high costs for maintaining the infrastructures in the
form of roads, public transportation or technical infrastructure such as water supply or sewage
networks.
If the population growth continued in this dispersed pattern, the density would decrease. As a
result of this low density, the costs of public transportation would not be feasible. In turn, this
would lead to increasing the use of private vehicles. Consequently, this would result in traffic
jams and an increase of the polluting emissions.
The strategy of inner development in Stuttgart
FNP 2010 in Stuttgart presents a vision of Stuttgart as a compact, urban and green city. This concept is
aimed at overcoming the negative effects that resulted from the rapid urban growth, avoiding the
expected unwished outcomes of the high consumption of green fields and at the same time guiding
urban development in Stuttgart to sustainability. Contrary to the earlier rates of land-consumption,
FNP 2010 estimates only the consumption of 130 hectare of new land during the plan period in the
coming 10 to 15 years. This amount of land consumption is equal to the consumption of land in one
year during the 1960s. To meet the afore-mentioned estimated annual consumption, the rest of the land
should be developed inside the city with a ratio of 4:1 for inner development.
However, formal planning instruments are usually limited in supporting the inner development of
cities. Planning laws were prepared for the times of urban growth and are mainly oriented towards
building in the outskirts of the city and not for the redevelopment of internal reserves of the city. One
of the main steps to implement the strategy for inner development is getting an overview about inner
development potentials in the city. Then, based on this overview, it will be possible to identify priority
areas and to develop a strategy for developing these potentials. NBS is aimed at developing the needed
overview about the inner development potentials in the urban agglomeration of Stuttgart. NBS is
considered an instrument for supporting the efforts of the city for promoting inner development.
6.3.3. The application of PIS
The need for a PIS: NBS information platform is aimed at creating the afore-mentioned overview to
inner development potentials, then to facilitate keeping it up-to-date and accessible for the concerned
actors in the city planning administration. However, the information that is needed to achieve this
overview is distributed over different departments and agencies in the city administration. In addition,
it is not enough to collect the information by the conventional questioner techniques that produce a
172
snapshot overview, which does not support the sustainability of the process. Moreover, regarding the
rapid changes, which occur in Stuttgart, it is important to assure a continuous access for updating the
overview and to facilitate getting the actual state of developments for decision makers.
Based on this overview, the city administration would have a general idea about development
potentials in the city. Then it should be able to define priority areas for inner development and in some
cases to deal with a group of pieces of land as an integrated area and not as separate land parcels. This
will help the city administration when dealing with investors who are intending to invest in
development projects in the city. Contrary to the normal case, when an investor selects a specific piece
of land for a specific project and then apply for the building permission, the city administration will be
in a position that allows offering alternative locations that fulfill the investor’s requirements
meanwhile considering the city development considerations.
Development criteria: For the proposed information platform to be an aid for promoting inner
development in Stuttgart, a set of criteria should be considered in developing the system. Regarding
the system structure, the system should be decentralized and open. Regarding the information
organization, it should be dynamic, hierarchical and modular. In addition, it should facilitate exploring
the planning information in different contexts and representations. In the following paragraphs, each
of these criteria is discussed shortly.
a. Decentralization
The need for a decentralized system in this case emerges from the fact that the needed information to
set the overview about inner development potentials is distributed both geographically and
disciplinary. On one hand, Stuttgart is divided into 22 districts “Bezirk”. Each of these districts is
under the responsibility of a district planner and a surveyor in the department of city planning. On the
other hand, different agencies and departments in the city administration are responsible for specific
aspects for the whole city. For example, the department of environmental preservation and the
department of economic development are responsible for specific aspects about these inner
development potentials throughout the city. The concept of decentralization, in this case, is applied in
three dimensions, namely: supply, access and administration.
As far as the supply dimension is concerned, information is supplied by the following groups:
∗ District planners and surveyors in the city-planning department, should supply
information about inner development potentials in their districts.
∗ Different specialists in the department of environmental protection should supply
information about their areas of specialty e.g. air, water, soil, and
∗ Members of the economic development department should be able to add information
about investments and the ongoing activities.
173
Fig. 6-17 Administrative subdivisions in Stuttgart
On the consumption side, primarily the above-mentioned groups are the main information
consumers. In addition, different members of the city administration should have access to the
information according to their tasks and responsibilities. This includes specially members of
the top administration and decision makers. Furthermore, it is planned that information about
specific areas shall be available for investors as a tool for supporting marketing of inner
development potentials.
Decentralization of supply, consumption and administration of information is regulated by a three-

dimensional access scheme that will be discussed in a later section in details.
b. Open system
As discussed earlier, a system is considered an open system if it interacts with the surrounding
environment. An open system gets input from its environment, processes this input and returns the
output to the surrounding environment. The system is considered also an open system if it interacts
with other systems that exist in its environment. In the case of NBS, the concept of an open system is
applied on two levels. On The first level, NBS information platform should be open to the surrounding
environment. Different actors input information about different aspects to the system. The system
processes this information by encoding, recording, structuring and organization of this information.
Then, different actors use this information for various purposes.
Fig. 6-18 NBS as an open system to actors in the surrounding environment
174
On the second level, several information systems exist in the information landscape of the city
administration in Stuttgart including databases and geo-spatial information. Among these systems, the
following are only few examples:
SIAS (Spatial Information & Access Service / Geographic and spatial information system)
ISAS (Informationssystem Altlasten Stuttgart / Soil contamination information system)
ALB (Automatisiertes Liegenschaftsbuch / Cadastre information system)
To make NBS information-platform an open system to other information systems in its environment
three alternatives are discussed:
The first alternative is to make NBS a stand-alone closed-system. This leads to the duplication
of effort to create and maintain information that already exists in other systems. In the long-
term, these circumstances might lead to making NBS information-platform an island in the
landscape of IT in Stuttgart. This situation is similar to creating ‘electronic concrete’ between
these systems. This situation results generally from the decentralized uncoordinated
development of information systems in different organizational units that are mutually
incompatible. Furthermore, this situation would create an E-Barrier among different work
elements in the city administration, which consequently constrains the scope of activities that
the organization can undertake, or imposes substantial additional time and financial costs on
those activities (Laudon & Laudon 1995).
The second alternative suggests creating several interfaces to facilitate information exchange
between NBS and each single information system in the city administration. This alternative
requires intensive investments in the form of time, effort and money. It might lead to a very
complex system.
The third alternative implies making NBS an open system in a way that accepts input using the
most important currently used standard data formats and to output information in these
formats. Then, the other systems should be able to deal with these standard formats.
Fig. 6-19 Alternative solutions for implementing the concept of an open system
It was neither reasonable nor acceptable to deal with NBS as a closed system that is isolated from all
the surrounding systems. Meanwhile, it was also not reasonable to prepare an interface between NBS
and each single system for exchanging different information standards and formats. The third
alternative was implemented as it avoids the simplification of the first alternative, which is associated
with unacceptable loss of effort and information. Meanwhile, it avoids the complications of the second
175
alternative. The adopted solution is based on using an interface that supports different standard
information formats for both tabular and graphical information.
c. Dynamic
The concept of dynamism in this research implies two aspects. The first aspect comprises that the
system could be initiated with a core of information and functions and then it should grow through the
application. The second aspect covers the systematic updating of the system content. These two
aspects are important in Stuttgart for several reasons:
Regarding the dynamics of urban change and the amount of inner development potentials in
Stuttgart, it is clear that a static overview does not fulfill the needed requirements of the
overview. In addition, regarding the effort needed to establish this overview and then to keep
pace with the rapid rate of change, it is essential to start this overview with a core that could be
extended when necessity arises. This core consists of some basic information about some of
the important areas.
Information about these potentials is not static. It is changing. Hence, the overview should be
extended and updated within the course of time. Therefore, it must be connected to the
participating actors to get their actual information. Meanwhile, if this overview is updated
systematically, then actors should be connected to it to get the actual state of knowledge about
the situation. This connection between actors and the overview should be sustained.
The following figure 6-20 shows an abstract representation of the database that includes the inner
development potentials in different time points. In this database table, information is growing in three
dimensions. The vertical growth means that new objects are added to the table in the form of new
potential development areas. The horizontal extension is due to the addition of new attributes that
should be collected for some or all the objects. The third dimension is the intensification of
information by filling the gaps when more information is becoming known or needed.
Fig. 6-20 The quarterly growth of content in NBS
d. Hierarchy
The system content is organized in a hierarchical structure. On the overview level, only abstract
information is represented to get a general idea about the whole city. From this overview, the user can
concentrate on a sub area where more detailed information is represented. This information is
176
organized in the form of different layers that could be switched on and off according to the users’
need. From this level, the user can open a specific element on the map to brows the detailed
information.
Fig. 6-21 Hierarchical organization of information in NBS
This hierarchical organization of information avoids the information overload and gives the user only
information according to the level of details he needs. Meanwhile, it gives him the possibility to define
the level of details or abstraction of information according to his preferences.
e. Modularity
Modularity is applied on three levels: the system structure, the functions and the information
organization. Principally, the system is modularly structured by splitting functions, information, rules
scheme and representation in order to facilitate developing and improving each component without
affecting the others.
Fig. 6-22 Modular structure of NBS information platform
On the functions level, functions are modularly structured so that each function could run independent
from other functions. On the information level, each information object is considered a module and
different set of attributes of the object are grouped into sub modules. For example, environmental
information, planning legislations and the urban context are considered different sub modules. This
modular structure of information and function facilitates administrating the access rights in several
dimensions: geographical, disciplinary and operatively.
177
f. Information in multi contexts and representations
Different pieces of information could be viewed in different contexts or in different forms of

representation. Using different types of information representation activates different senses of the
receiver; consequently, the perception of information would be higher. The same piece of information
could be presented in different contexts and levels. This leads to viewing the same conflict, project or
problem from different perspectives allowing a better perception of the subject.
Fig. 6-23 Tabular and graphical representation of information in NBS
The matrix of development criteria: The following matrix concludes the main development criteria for
the information platform.
Degree
Criteria
Min. ³ ´ Max.
The information
The rules scheme
The functions
Database management D
File management D
Argumentation D
Table 6-3 System development criteria matrix
Four main groups of criteria are included as following:
It starts with some general aspects about the whole system such as the time span, the number
of users and the system openness to other systems.
A second group of criteria covers the information including the number of classes, which the
system should deal with, as well as the type and dynamism of this information. It deals also
with the spatial pattern of information supply and information consumption.
178
The third group is related to the rules scheme. If the users are differentiated according to their
rights in the systems, the rules scheme should accordingly be multi-dimensional. In the case of
NBS, it is a three-dimensional. This issue will be discussed later in more details.
The fourth group of development criteria is concerned with the functions that should be
included in the system
6.3.4. Main components of NBS information platform
a. The information space
Conventional information modeling is mainly used for modeling well-defined information. Such
information is normally processed or produced in processes that could be described as routines. In
contrast, planning tasks such as inner development of cities and consequently the needed planning
process could not be described in routines. In such processes, the information objects are ill defined,
the participating actors are not definitively identified and information flow is not transparent.
Participating actors in the process have different backgrounds regarding the multi-disciplinary nature
of the process. These actors have different priorities and different goals that are sometimes conflicting.
For these reasons, information about inner development is fuzzy and not clearly structured.
In attempting to describe the information structure that is needed to share the information about inner
development potentials in Stuttgart, it was evident that there is a lack of a common language for
dealing with such a situation among the participating actors. Achieving such a common language was
a problem especially in dealing with qualitative information such as the proposals about future
developments, the needed actions for developing a specific area and the personal judgment about ‘why
a specific area was not developed in the past’. For example, there was a lack of agreement about the
definition of the potential area that was crucial for the whole process. The definition that was adopted
of a ‘potential area’ for inner development is not limited to ‘what is available at the moment’ but it is
extended to cover ‘what could be available in the future’. This definition is subject to the personal
judgment of the planners. In many cases what was regarded by one person, as a potential was not the
same for others. Another example for this type of information is the description of the availability of a
piece of land for development. Although a limited number of categories is used to describe the
availability (short-term: less than one year, middle-term: from 1 to 5 years and long-term: more than
five years), it was clear that the personal judgment is subjective and does not essentially represent the
realistic needed formal processes and activities to utilize an area.
It was then essential to structure the information in this process in an explorative process that takes
several cycles of development and evaluation in an iterative process.
The first cycle was mainly concerned with setting a list of important attributes for the class of
objects ‘potential area’. This list was discussed in the project group as well as with different
179
departments and agencies in the city administration to ensure that none of the important
aspects is ignored or duplicated. The resulting list of attributes was very immense.
The second step was aimed at optimizing the list of attributes and then in creating groups of
attributes in the form of modules that represent the different areas of information (Fig. 6.24).
As each module is related to a specific discipline, it was possible using this modular structure
to control the access rights according to the information content. In addition, this modular
structure allows each user to customize the information content according to his preferences
without being overwhelmed with information that are not relevant for him.
Fig. 6-24 Information Modules in NBS
Specific types of information about private properties could not be published without the
agreement of the owner because of privacy issues. Hence, generally, information in NBS is
not publicly accessible. It is mainly used for internal purposes in city planning and
administration. However, for specific areas that should be marketed, specific information
should be made publicly accessible. An additional module for public information is designed
for such information, which is reviewed before making it publicly available.
<Class name = ‘Potential Area’ description = ‘inner development potential’ >
<Att. Name = ‘Serial Number’ Att. Type = ‘Auto Value’>
<Att. Name = ‘Name’ Att. Type = ‘String’>
<Att. Name = ‘Parcel Number’ Att. Type = ‘String’ Att. Multiplicity = n>
<Att. Name = ‘District’ Att. Type = ‘List’ Att. Multiplicity = 1 Value List = ‘Mitte, Nord, Ost, ……., Weilimdorf, Zuffenhausen’>
//all districts of Stuttgart
<Att. Name = ‘Address’ Att. Type = ‘String’>
<Att. Name = ‘Total Area’ Att. Type = ‘Integer’>
<Att. Name = ‘Total Realizable Floor Area’ Att. Type = ‘String’>
<Att. Name = ‘Area Type’ Att .Type = ‘List’ Att .Multiplicity = 1 Value List = ‘I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII’>
//I= Unused area, II = unused reserve area, III = underused area, IV = Extensively user area, V = Area used not according to the
plan,VI = Special cases, VII = Residential area
<Att. Name = ‘Owner’ Att .Type = ‘String’>
<Att .Name = ‘Main Features’ Att. Type = ‘String’>
<Att. Name = ‘Availability’ Att .Type = ‘List’ Att .Multiplicity = 1 Value List = ‘Under construction, Short-term, Middle-term,
Long-term’>
Class definition of the object potential area
180
The third step in creating this information structure is concerned with the definition of the
class of objects, including a description of the attributes and their value span and content type.
The following list includes the declaration of the class of objects “potential area”.
The following aspects are important regarding the proposed information structure in NBS:
It was not the intention of the project to collect a comprehensive list of information about each
area. There is a difference between basic information and extended information. The module
of basic information includes the minimum needed information about any element in the
system. This module includes information about the location of the element, the area, the land
use according to the land use plan, main features of the area and possible realizable total floor
area. On the contrary, extended information could be added according to the situation of each
element.
It was evident that not all types of information could be structured in a database in the
conventional manner. Other pieces of information are unstructured such as articles, plans and
different media types. It was clear that it is not enough to limit NBS in the form of a
traditional database. It was important to set an information platform that accepts structured and
unstructured information.
Fig. 6-25 Structured and unstructured information in NBS

Beyond factual descriptive information, it was clear that different types of important
information could not be described in a quantitative form. Qualitative information that
represents the experiences, ideas and viewpoints of the planners and other participants such as
∗ Normative information about proposals for future development ‘what should be the case’.
∗ Ideas about the practical steps to realize the proposed development including who are the
actors who should participate in the process to develop specific area and which formal or
informal planning processes are needed to overcome the blockade situation and to
promote the development process.
Some types of information that are based in the personal judgment of one person were largely
subjective. In several occasions, such information was far from the reality. Therefore, there is
181
a need for a set of tools to deal with issues such as time and quantities and the needed actions
to realize some development in the future. This will support generation of objective
information.
Planning information is not neutral. In some situations, some actors might benefit from
publishing specific information about their properties, while others might be disadvantaged.
b. The functions and tools
Function and tools in NBS are classified into three major groups, namely information handling
functions, media-management-functions and system-administration-functions. As mentioned before,
each of these groups is divided into smaller modules to allow administrating user access rights.
Fig. 6-26 Modular structure of functions and tools

Primary and secondary information functions for information handling including functions
such as: 'input' 'manipulation', 'search', 'sort', 'list' and 'view' functions.
Media-management-functions are all functions dealing with other types of information other
than those in the database. They deal with different media types such as photos, news articles,
videos or plans. This group of functions includes tools for uploading documents of different
media types to the server to make it available for other actors. It also includes functions for
listing available media files for a specific area as well as functions for file management i.e.
rename, move and delete.
System-administration-functions are all administrative functions such as user accounts
administration. They also include functions to update the geographical information of the
potentials when a new area is added, deleted or modified.
In addition, there is a possibility to export directly the results of any query in a standard format
that allows using it in other programs.
c. The rules scheme
As mentioned earlier, the rules scheme in NBS is a three dimensional scheme. These three dimensions
are functional, geographical and disciplinary. The first of these dimensions regulates the access to the
functions i.e. which functions are available for each user, for example, 'add new elements', 'edit exiting
elements', 'search', and 'delete'. The second dimension is concerned with the geographical
182
responsibility for each member of the city administration. Some planners are responsible for only one
district others are responsible for more than one. The third dimension deals with the disciplinary
aspects. According to the responsibility of a specific user, he is allowed to add or edit specific areas of
information. When a user logs on to the platform, his access rights are controlled against the rules
scheme and according to his rights, he gets access only to those functions, modules and districts that
he is authorized to access.
User A (a district planner) User B (an environmental specialist)
User C (administrator) User D (guest)
Fig. 6-27 The modular structure of the access scheme
Based on the three dimensional access scheme and the modular structure of information and functions,
it is possible to define different combinations of access profiles for different users as shown in fig. 6-
27. For example, a user (A), a district planner in the department of city planning, is allowed only to
edit information for specific disciplines for district 1. Another district planner is allowed to edit the
same information areas for district 2. On the contrary, a user B, who is a member of the department of
environmental protection, is allowed to edit only the information area ‘i’ for all districts of the city but
he is not allowed to add new elements for the class of inner development potentials. The user ‘C’ has
full access to all information areas, city areas and functions. Such a user would be the system
administrator. On the contrary, the user “D ” is only allowed to view the approved information for
specific areas that are publicly accessible while other information areas are restricted for him.
Nevertheless, it was decided in this case that the access to available information should be granted to
all authorized members of the city administration. This will facilitate achieving one of the main goals
183
of this information platform which is informing all participating actors in the city administration about
inner development potentials and to communicate these information among them.
d. The user interface
The user interface of a planning information system represents the gateway to the system. One of its
main functions is the system security control. When a user logs on to the system, his access rights are
controlled and then the user interface is combined to allow him to access only to the function and the
information that he is allowed to access according to his profile in the database.
Fig. 6-28 The gateway and the internal area
The following table shows different navigation bars of different types of users. From this table, it
could be seen that different user groups get access to specific functions and tools according to the rules
scheme. Access rights could also be organized individually according to the user’s rights.
Administrator
User with full access
User with limited access
Guest
Table 6-4 Dynamic preparation of the user interface
The user interface has three main modes, namely the alphanumeric interface, the graphical interface
and the office area. The first mode is the alphanumeric interface that includes database management
functions, media management functions and administration functions (fig. 6-29)
184
a. Add and edit an information record b. Browse an existing record
c. List and Sort d. Search
e. Media management
Fig. 6-29 Different functions in NBS information platform
Source: NBS information platform online (Feb.2003)
The graphical interface facilitates a graphical access to all information in the system. Through this
graphical representation, it gives an impression about the spatial pattern of distribution of the potential
areas. Such a pattern is hard to recognize from the alphanumeric representation of information. Based
on this graphical representation, it was possible to define main concentration areas that should
represent a priority for the city administration.
185
Fig. 6-30 The graphical interface in NBS information platform
For the purpose of the graphical representation, information is organized in a way that facilitates
browsing the information in different levels of details and in different contexts. Three technical aspects
are important to be mentioned here regarding this graphical interface:
This graphical interface needs only a standard Internet browser. No special programs (plug-
ins) are needed to use this graphical interface. This point was important because at that time it
was not allowed to install programs on the work place computers other than the programs that
are authorized from the IT department in the city administration for security and
organizational reasons.
In this case, the layers included maps in raster format. At the time of this project 2000-2002,
vector graphics were supported in different browsers using completely different standards and
each browser needed a different plug-in. However, it is expected in the new generation of
HTML standards that vector graphics will be included as an integrated component, which
means that different Internet-browsers will support it without needing a plug-in.
These maps and layers are generated locally when new updates occur using a GIS program, in
this case Arc View or AutoCAD MAP. Then these layers are uploaded to the server to be
available online for all the users.
The third mode in NBS information-platform is the office area. The office area is considered as a
virtual work place. In this area, authorized users from the project group were able to coordinate the
project report in a collaborative manner. In addition, members of the project group and the steering
committee were invited to follow up the process and to comment on the report during the different
stages of documentation. In addition to the possibility to upload and view documents, there is a
function to comment on the available documents. The authors of different documents as well as other
participants are able to view and discuss the earlier posted comment.
186
List, upload, and view documents Add or edit a note related to an existing document
Fig. 6-31 The office area in NBS information platform
The process of documentation in NBS continued for several months during the documentation phase
of the project. This virtual office has proved to be efficient regarding time and costs of producing
documents. Two critical issues were noticed in dealing with this virtual workplace. First, as there is no
time needed for printing and circulating the documents, different authors tended to upload their
documents at the last moment before a meeting, leaving no time for others to review the documents.
The second issue is that, in many cases, the users used to print all documents and then read them. It
means that this actor will not be able to follow up all the changes and updates or he will need to reprint
all documents.
6.3.5. Implementation of NBS information platform
After the conceptualization and development phases that took place in March and April 2001. Four
main stages could be distinguished in respect to the information platform. Each of these stages is
discussed here below regarding the objectives, the organization and the observations.
Stage 1: The overview
The first stage was mainly concerned with creating the overview about inner development potentials in
Stuttgart.
This stage was organized in the form of crash sessions in three days using two stations for input.
District planners and some surveyors from each of the four planning departments were invited
sequentially to input their information.
By observing this stage, several aspects could be concluded in respect to the information.
Information about inner development potentials in Stuttgart is fragmented. During these

sessions, it was evident that no one has a comprehensive overview about inner development
potentials in Stuttgart. Even on the district level for many district planners.
187
The information is implicit. Each person has a part of the knowledge in his memory but no one
has the full knowledge. It was essential to convert this knowledge to be explicit so that the
accumulation of this information and knowledge leads to creating the overview. For example,
through discussions, new areas were identified that were not considered as potentials at first
glance. This could be attributed to several reasons. The first reason is the lack of information.
This case was apparent in areas where production or services were still active but are planned
to be shut down in few months. A different reason is the image of a specific area especially in
areas where development was blocked for long time. To overcome such a situation different
types of motivation and stimulation are needed.
To a large extent, qualitative information is subjective and is based on the individual judgment
of different persons. An example of this type of information, is describing the site quality of a
specific area. Such a qualitative judgment could be extremely different. Hence, a list of criteria
that describe different aspects influencing this quality were used, e.g. accessibility, available
utilities, etc. However, qualitative information could not be completely quantified.
In some aspects that seemed to be objective and could be defined using a definite scale, an
indirect subjective information was also included. For example, in the aspect of the
availability of an area for development, the main question could be stated this way ‘when an
area would be available for the market?’ In other words, what is the minimum time and the
actions that are needed in the best case before this area would be available for the market
regardless if it will be developed or not. Although the answer was simplified into the selection
of one of three categories (less than one year, from 1 to 5 years or more than five years). The
answer was based on the judgment of the planner, about which formal or informal processes
are needed, how much time is needed for each process or which courses of actions could be
followed.
From the operative technical viewpoint, most of the planners had relatively low or no idea about using
the Internet in general. In addition, there was no access to the Internet in their work places. Hence, the
concept of compact sessions was more efficient.
In respect to the platform design, different issues that need enhancement were identified regarding the
structure of the information.
At the first version of the system, all pieces of information were organized linearly in a single
sheet, which was not efficient for entry. Therefore, the modular structure of the information
was implemented as discussed earlier to improve the efficiency of using the system and to
control the user access right, as not every user should have access to all the information for all
areas.
188
It was also clear that attempting to collect all attributes for all areas is not reasonable and is not
needed. A set of basic attributes was defined that should be available for every area. The other
modules of information are collected by demand.
The pattern of use in this phase, as shown in fig. 6.32 is a concentrated pattern as related to the spatial
distribution of users and the distribution of the work sessions over the time.
Stage 2: Consolidation
From the implementation in the first stage, a set of critical issues and requirements were identified.
Based on the results of this phase, the information platform was enhanced specially regarding the
modular structure and the graphical interface.
During the stage of consolidation, members of the department of land use planning in cooperation with
the district planners started to complement the information of the registered areas and to find new
potentials. At this stage, they represented the indirect way for the district planners. More users have
participated personally in the work at this stage relative to the earlier one. However, most of the
district planners and members of other departments of the city administration were not directly using
the system by themselves, they had to give the information to different members of the department of
land use planning, who in turn entered these information to the platform. The problem here as
mentioned earlier was the lack of access to the Internet and the lack of training.
Until this phase, most of the district planners had low or no knowledge of the Internet or online group
work. It was clear that there is a need for Internet access in the work places and for capacity building.
Two types of training were identified a) a general training about the Internet and, b) a specific training
about the information platform. These two aspects were critical to keep the overview up-to-date.
Stage 3: Capacity building
This stage had mainly emphasized facilitating the direct access to the platform for district planners and
for training them generally to use the Internet and specifically about using NBS information platform.
However, regarding the operative and organizational complexities in the city administration, it took
several months to arrange the Internet access and a basic training for the district planners. The indirect
access to the system for the district planners before and during this phase was reflected in a stagnation
phase during the fourth quarter as shown in fig. 6.32.
After arranging the direct access to the information platform, the required training took place in three
cycles. The first cycle was a general introduction to the Internet, the city network and security aspects.
This training was a standard course for all members of the city administration who get Internet access
at their work places. The second cycle was mainly an introduction to NBS, including the information
structures and functions. The main concern of most district planners in this training was about security
189
and organizational issues such as: Where will the information be saved? Who will be allowed to see
the information? Is this an additional work?
During the fifth and the sixth quarters, a low activity was observed. Few district planners have started
to test and use the system while others were still in a phase of exploration. At this stage, the feedback
from the planners was a base for enhancing the functionality to address the planners’ needs and to give
them the possibility to integrate this task in their daily work. After this enhancement, the third cycle of
training took place at the end of the sixth quarter.
Stage 4: Implementation
After the enhancements and training at the end of the sixth quarter, most of the planners started using
the system intensively to complement the information about potentials in their districts. At this phase,
a very high activity was observed as shown in figure 6.32. At this stage, access to the system reached
its peak. The pattern of use was spatially distributed and continuous over time. Using the system is
regarded as a supporting tool for the daily work. While the main aim was to set the overview to inner
development potentials, the system is used for other purposes related to promoting inner development
in Stuttgart such as searching for suitable areas for specific land uses, and helping to produce
marketing material for both residential and industrial areas.
The indirect effects of this process could be compared to what Innes (1999) described as: “… the
'nature of the process by which the information is produced is essential to embedding it in
understandings and institutions. Information produced according to the conventional model, by
presumably neutral experts who work outside and apart from the political and bureaucratic process
through which policy gets made, does not become embedded in the institutions or the players'
understandings. It will become "intellectual capital," or “shared knowledge”, only if there is plenty of
talk about the meaning of the information, its accuracy, and its implications. Information does not
influence unless it represents a socially constructed and shared understanding created in the
community of policy actors. If, however, the meaning does emerge through such a social process, the
information changes the actors and their actions, often without applying it expressly to a specific
decision.“ (Gruber 1994; Innes et al. 1994) (Innes 1999)
During these different stages of implementation different patterns could be identified as shown in
figure 6-32 regarding the following aspects:
Decentralization
Integration in the daily work
Access for all important actors
190
The bars illustrate the number of work sessions per quarter by all authorized users throughout the two years of the
project official time. The circles beneath, illustrate the pattern of spatial distribution of users, inside and outside the
city administration. The number of the black circles indicates the relative number of users. The lines at the bottom
represent the time pattern of use.
Fig. 6-32 Access pattern in NBS in different phases of the project
6.3.6. Results and concluding remarks
One of the main results of the information platform is creating the overview about inner development
potentials in Stuttgart.
Fig. 6-33 Inner development potentials overview (NBS, December 2002)
191
By the end of December 2002, the system included more than 300 areas that could be used for inner
development. The total area reached more than 500 Hectares. This area represents the total area
needed for development in Stuttgart at least for the coming 10 years.
However, It is important to mention that creating the first overview does not mean that the task is over.
It is important to consider that potentials for inner development of cities are a result of different
changes in economic, social and political circumstances. These changes lead to shifts in the needs of
the people and consequently reflected in the needed land uses. The importance of discussing these
types of changes in relation to the development of planning information system is explained by the
fact that regarding this continuous state of change in the city structure, a moment overview would be
just a snapshot of a dynamic state of change, which is not enough for managing inner development of
the city. In addition, distinguishing these types of changes emerges from the types of problems that are
related to each type of areas. Furthermore, it will be possible for the city administration to foresee
where more potential areas might be available in the future. Here is a brief discussion of some types of
changes in Stuttgart with an example for each from NBS.
1. Technical and operative changes
In the last few decades, technical innovations and new organizational and economical concepts in the
field of urban infrastructures lead to concentration of functions, efficient use of land, and higher
productivity of each operating or production unit. Consequently leading to radical changes in the
spatial structures of these infrastructure facilitates. For example, the change in the technical and
operative concepts as well as the innovations in the installations of freight transportation resulted in
abandoning large areas or leaving them underused in the railway and ports areas in favor of new
transshipment facilities.
a. Goods railway station (Güterbahnhof – Bad Cannstadt): Changes in the operation concept of the
German railways company (Deutsche Bahn AG - DB) regarding organization of goods’ transshipment
resulted in abandoning different conventional railway stations that do not meet the needs of modern
transshipment. Among these areas in Stuttgart is this railway station in the district of Bad Cannstadt.
The area of this location is 22 Hectares and is located near the Neckar River. It is easy accessible by
different public transportation lines. This area is neighbored with residential areas and different sports
facilities. Among the different expected problems connected with the development of this area, as well
as similar areas, are soil contamination and building rests.
192
Fig. 6-34 The case of (Güterbahnhof – Bad Cannstadt)
b. Water treatment plant (Wasserwerk Areal – Ost): This area was used as the main water intake and
treatment plant for Stuttgart for a long time. Since the water quality in the Neckar has deteriorated, the
water corporation in Stuttgart has changed its operation concept by moving the main intake to Lake
Konstans. Therefore, this area is not used any more for this function. While this area is located from
the viewpoint of Stuttgart outside the major development areas, it represents a key area for developing
the Neckar valley where many of the potentials exist. This area was subject to an explorative planning
process during the project NBS to test different development potentials in this area and not to be
limited only to the abstract level of the overview.
Fig. 6-35 The case of (Wasserwerk Areal – Ost)
c. The Post Area – Vahingen: this area, as the earlier areas, was abandoned from its original function
as a post facility. The area is located in the district center of Möhringen. It is very well accessed by
public transportation and it is near to different main roads.
Fig. 6-36 The case of (Post Area - Vahingen)
The above-described three potential areas were used for different types of infrastructure facilities and
after operative or technical changes are not used any more. The common thing among all the three
areas is their very good connection to public transportation and road network.
193
2. Economic changes
Changes in the economic structure both nationally and internationally lead to the movement of
important production areas to other regions or other countries, seeking for more suitable economical
incentives in the form of cheaper labor or lower taxes leaving large production areas as brown fields.
a. Vahingen industrial area: This example presents another dimension in dealing with the inner
development potential, namely that in many cases potential areas could be only developed in groups
and not as separate areas. This area includes different industrial areas which are abandoned due to
different economic and financial reasons.
Fig. 6-37 The case of (Vahingen industrial area)
3 Urban changes
Because of the rapid urban growth of the city, different land uses that were normally on the outskirts
of the city were included inside the city, e.g. the international fair area. This lead to the immigration of
such land uses to new areas outside the city.
In addition, these areas, which were used for a long time for specific land uses, are considered neither
efficient nor sustainable. For example, parking areas for goods conveyance that consume huge areas,
which used to be on the outskirts of the city are now contained inside the urban agglomeration.
4. Political changes
Barracks area - Grenadierkaserne Zuffenhausen: This area was used as a barracks for military
purposes but is not used any more. In 2002, this area was subject to development as a residential area.
Fig. 6-38 The case of (Grenadierkaserne Zuffenhausen)
194
From the above-mentioned examples of inner development in Stuttgart, it could be argued that
the inner development potentials in a city result from different types of changes. Political,
economic, technical and operational changes affect directly the patterns of land use in cities.
These changes are unpredictable and their effects on the land use occur on the middle- term
and on the long-term. To promote inner development, it will be essential to keep the overview
to these changes, then to identify where potentials exist and to identify how these potentials
should be utilized in the framework of the inner development strategy.
The role of PIS in this case is connecting the different actors concerned, creating a common
overview about these potentials, keeping this overview up-to-date and following up the
process of inner development. As these potentials are in a state of change which means that
areas will be developed and will be removed from the overview as potentials. Other areas will
be added to the overview when they present a potential for inner development.
This process is mainly aimed to converting fragmented and implicit information of the
concerned actors to accumulative and explicit information that could serve in creating the
needed overview. By doing this, the individual endeavors to document the variety of
information about potential areas for development in the city has shifted to a structured
process.
The system represents a communication and consensus-building medium. By creating,
opportunities for informative actions, the participating actors are to think and discuss
intensively about the strategy of inner development of the city and how it could be
implemented.
To make the participation in such a process more feasible for the participating actors,
information should be used in different forms that give them support in their daily work, for
example, by supporting the production of marketing material about the potential areas, by
facilitating site selection tasks or by supporting the district planners in producing the
periodical reports about the areas in their districts.
Because of this process, the city administration started to realize how important is it to use the
Internet in the daily work of planners and other city development actors which lead to
introducing Internet connection in each planning department.
In this case, the information supply, maintenance and consumption were mainly concentrated
in the formal domain of the city administration. The access and the use of information are
password protected.
195
6.4. The case study of the “North-south Trans European railway corridor”
6.4.1. Background
The subject matter: The North-South Trans European Railway corridor (Die Nord Süd Transversale
für Europe NST) extends from the North Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, from Rotterdam via Cologne –
Frankfurt – Karlsruhe – Basel - Zurich – Malian to Rome (Fig. 6.39). This axis is an important
corridor in the European high-speed railway network. It crosses the borders of several countries, i.e.
The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy. It also crosses the borders of Belgium and France
partially.
Fig. 6-39 The North South Trans European Corridor from the North see to the Mediterranean see
To explore the impact of this infrastructure development on spatial development of the regions
alongside this corridor, a group of spatial planners and railway experts from different public
organizations and research institutes in different European countries are working voluntarily together
to create a common overview about the different aspects related to this subject. This overview is not
limited to the national boarders of the individual countries. A PIS is developed in ISL by the author to
support the process and to facilitate creating this overview.
Participating actors: The experts group consisted of experts from Germany and Switzerland in the
first phase. It is planned to invite experts from the Netherlands and Italy in the coming phases.
The time frame: October 2002 – ongoing
196
The term “North South Trans European Railway corridor” describes the railway corridor that extends
from Rotterdam, at the North Sea, via Cologne, Frankfurt, Karlsruhe, Basel, Zurich, Malian, and
Rome to the Mediterranean Sea. This corridor represents a central north-south connection in Europe.
The road alongside this corridor has been used for the movement of individuals and goods for
centuries. It connects cities that have political, economic and cultural significance. This corridor
represents the backbone of the European railway network and plays an important role in the transition
of goods and individuals. A variety of factors governs the development of this corridor. These factors
are related to the following aspects:
The relation between infrastructure development, especially railway, and spatial development.
Planning and realization of this corridor are conducted on different levels, from the European
level to the national, the regional and the local levels. They influence the spatial development
of the concerned regions and cities.
The realization of this corridor should be coordinated beyond the borders of the individual
countries and the responsibilities of the national railway authorities. These cross-border
interconnections cover technical, financial and operative aspects.
The scale of the development as a whole and as components is immense, regarding the
investments and resources that are needed to realize it.
The time lag between the planning and the realization of such development is long (up to 15-
20 years or more).
Several dynamic circumstances influence the outcomes of such a large-scale development,
including: political, economic, social, operational, and technical changes.
These factors should be explored to define how they should be considered in the development and the
implementation of the needed PIS. Most of these factors are discussed in section 2.3.
“interconnectivities in the spatial context”. Some aspects that represent special importance for this
case study are discussed here below.
Railway infrastructure development and spatial development
The value of the railway infrastructure represents an enormous capital value for the countries of the
European Union. A large number of these infrastructures are currently in a state of maintenance,
renewal or upgrading or in need to such measures to meet the new standards of the European high-
speed network. Generally, the development of technical infrastructure plays an important role in the
spatial development. On one hand, it promotes spatial development by increasing the quality of life in
human settlements. On the other hand, infrastructure shapes the spatial structure of these settlements
for decades if not for centuries. The renewal of these infrastructure networks and facilities opens a
chance for urban development in cities and towns. This chance might play an important role especially
197
for the sites of the central railway facilities that occupy relatively large areas in the cities and influence
the urban structure and the quality of life of the surrounding areas. On the contrary, the lack of
coordination between infrastructure development and spatial development in these areas results in
losing the opportunity for promoting inner development and might hinder further developments from
the resulting restrictions of the infrastructure facilities and networks.
From the viewpoint of spatial development, planning this type of infrastructures should not only
consider the direct quantitative impacts such as the travel time gain, the increasing capacity and
accessibility. It should also consider the indirect demographic, economic and spatial impacts of these
developments. Meanwhile, these factors affect the efficiency and the success of these infrastructure
developments.
The area around this corridor has a relative importance in the EU regarding both demographic and
economic aspects. Demographically, the population density in the region around the corridor presents
one of the highest population concentrations in the EU, as shown in the figure 6.40. The total
population in this region is estimated to range from 40-60 Million inhabitants. It is one of the most
productive regions in Europe as measured by the total GDP. It presents the major region in the ratio of
the GDP from research and high technology.
Fig. 6-40 Population density in Europe (year 2000)
The cross border interconnectivities
Although the European internal market is realized in many aspects, the railway network in the
European Union (EU) is a mixture of different technical standards regarding traffic, signals, safety,
and electricity systems. This could be explained since the national railway networks were mainly
developed to fulfill the national needs of the individual countries at the times where the national
economies of these countries were almost independent from one another.
198
To study infrastructure development in this corridor and spatial development, several levels of
interconnectivities should be observed. On the first level of observation, there is the interconnectivity
between the European priorities and the national priorities. On a different level of observation, there
are the priorities of neighboring countries that are not always in harmony especially regarding specific
cross-border connections. This difference in national priorities leads to the existence of bottlenecks in
the network especially on the border regions. On the national level of the concerned countries, there is
the interconnectivity between the national, regional and local levels. These interconnectivities play an
important role in spatial planning as discussed earlier in chapter 2.
The European dimension
The policy of the European union has considered the realization of the free movement of labor, goods,
services and capital as a major goal in the common European strategy. To achieve this freedom, major
emphasis is given to the elimination of customs, duties and similar taxes. However, in order to
facilitate these freedoms, the efficiently functioning transportation network is essential. Physical
restrictions should be eliminated. Loyola de Palacio, the Vice-president of the European Commission
and Commissioner for Energy and Transport (2002) stated that: “Freedom of movement for people
and goods depends not just on the opening of transport markets but also on physical infrastructures.
By promoting the construction of infrastructures that cross borders and connect national networks, the
trans-European transport network accelerates the establishment of the internal market, links peripheral
regions to the heart of the European Union and opens Europe to neighboring countries”
Fig. 6-41 Trans-European Transport Network Priority Projects
Source: European Commission, 2002
199
To achieve this goal, the European union promotes different projects for upgrading the railway
networks adopted by the EU inside its territory, The Trans European Network priority projects (TEN)
or networks that connect the EU to the Eastern part of Europe (Helsinki-Corridors).
Although these arguments are applied to all modes of transportation, the railway transportation is
argued to be in need to more attention as the other transportation modes, i.e. road and air
transportation, are expected to reach the limits of their capacity or the limits of the social acceptance
for their side effects in the near future (Scholl 1999). However, the public investment in transportation
infrastructure in the countries of the EU fell from 1.5 % of GDP in the 1980s to less than 1 % in the
1990s. Since 1996 when the EU has adopted the TEN priority projects, only 20 % of the planned
development has been realized. It is estimated that at the current rate, the work planned for the year
2010 will need further 20 years. This delay has major impacts on the whole system and especially on
the cross-border projects. While the development of the transport infrastructure is getting slower, the
traffic amounts are expected to increase by 38 % in freight traffic and 24 % in passenger journeys by
the year 2010 compared with 1998. This estimated traffic increase is the result of the expected
economic growth. The European Commission (2001) has estimated that the road freight will rise by
50% if a major effort to rebalance traffic growth is not conducted (EC 2002).
It is expected that the transit freight traffic alongside this corridor will increase by completing the two
Alpine tunnels in Lötschberg 2006-2008 and Gotthard 2010-2012 and the opening of the new projects
in Rotterdam region. These projects open the chance for creating a high performance corridor from the
North Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. However, some important segments of this corridor are not
complete and have got less priority compared to other projects in other regions. This might affect the
quality of the railway transportation alongside this corridor that consequently could result in negative
economic impacts on the cities and agglomerations alongside this corridor.
The need for PIS: To support the work of the expert group a planning information system is proposed
and developed in ISL. The proposed system should deal with the three information domains that were
discussed earlier, i.e. the subject-matter domain, the planning knowledge domain and the process
domain.
In the subject-matter domain:
∗ It should facilitate creating the overview about the different components of this corridor.
This overview is needed to identify where bottlenecks exist or might exist in the future if
specific projects are delayed or not realized.
∗ Several problem spaces should be observed. For each problem space, different actors are
active and are conducting different planning and development activities.
200
In the process domain, the system should support the process organization among the
participating actors. Each actor should have access to the organizational information with a
minimum effort.
In the planning knowledge domain, it should interconnect different materials about planning
laws in the concerned countries, about the different adopted plans and the norms and standard
related to the railway development.
Development criteria:
In this case, study, a large number of classes of objects are included in the system. It is expected that
new classes could be added during the process. Hence, one of the main objectives of this case study, in
respect to the development of PIS, is the identification of the information object that could be defined
as building blocks that could be reused in different situations. Similarly, it is important to define the
tasks that could be defined in the form of routines. A routine task is defined in this context as a task
that is frequently repeated and has a clear description of the functions, the methods and the rules that
are needed to conduct this task. Therefore, a different approach is used in this case to design, develop
and implement the main components of the system and the relation among these components.
However, the general structure of this system consists of the same components as discussed earlier in
the general structure of PIS and as implemented in the earlier cases, namely the information space, the
functions, the rules scheme and the user interface.
Principally, based on the afore mentioned characteristics of the situation and the goals of the proposed
system, the same general development criteria of PIS, regarding the system structure and the
information organization are applied in this case.
Regarding the system structure the following criteria are primary:

∗ Decentralized and interconnected system: different participating actors are spatially
distributed. They should be able to access independent from time and place. They should
also be able to use different functions of the system without the support from a central
administrator.
∗ Open system: the system should accept input from other information sources, such as
other databases and GIS. This aspect is important to make use of the already available
information.
∗ The system should efficiently be operating with a small set of information classes. Then it
should be possible to be extended by adding new functions and classes of information
according to the evolving requirements. In addition, the system should support updating
existing information.
In respect to the information organization the following criteria are important:
201
∗ Modular structure of information: the information should be modularly organized to
facilitate observing the same element in different contexts.
∗ Hierarchical organization of information: The information should be hierarchically
organized to deal with the different levels of observations. a) The first level of
observation is the overview level, where the whole system is observed. This level deals
with functional sections of the system. b) Each section connects two main nods. These
sections are not limited by the national borders. Each of these sections includes different
modules. These modules are considered the building blocks of the system. Each module
has different status of realization or specific requirements to be realized. c) In addition,
there are different focus points where further exploration is essential to clear the situation.
These different levels should be interconnected and hierarchically linked.
∗ Associative organization of information is needed to illustrate the hierarchy of relations
between the different levels of observation. It is also needed to illustrate the relation
among different interrelated objects.
Fig. 6-42 Hierarchical structure of information in the case of NST
From the following matrix, that concludes the development criteria and the extent of each of them in
this case, it is clear that the requirements in this case are high.
202
Degree
Criteria
Min. ³ ´ Max.
The information
The rules scheme
The functions
Database management D
File management D
Argumentation D
Table 6-5 The matrix of development criteria of the proposed PIS in the case of NST
Main components of the propose PIS:
The information space
The definition of the information objects in this case is based on a different approach for class
definition and implementation. While in the earlier cases each class of objects was separately
developed, in this case the three-step process that is discussed in section 5.4.1, is applied. This
approach represents a more cohesive approach. The following figure 6.43 illustrates these three steps.
Fig. 6-43 The concept of object oriented information structure
These three steps are:
The first step is the class registration. All classes of information objects are registered in a
class registration table.
The second step in this process is the class definition. Each class is defined using a set of
attributes and relations that are used to describe the instance of this class. For the definition of
each class, all attributes and relations are registered in a class declaration table. For each
203
attribute, this table includes the declaration rules that govern the use of this attribute. These
rules include the type, the value span and the multiplicity of this attribute.
The third step is the production of objects as instances of different classes. To produce an
instance of a class, a new record is added to the corresponding class instance table. This step is
repeated whenever an object is created.
Objects from the three domains of information are described using this process. In the subject matter
domain a set of classes of objects such as ‘COUNTRY’,‘CORRIDOR’, ‘MODULE’, ‘PATH’,
‘NODE’ and ‘THEME’. The relation between these objects is illustrated in the following figure 6.44.
This figure illustrates the concept of modularity, hierarchy and association.
Fig. 6-44 The relation between the set of objects in the case study of NST in different levels of abstraction
In the process domain, a variety of classes are defined such as ‘PERSON’, ‘EVENT’, ‘AGENDA’,
‘PROTOCOL’, etc. in the knowledge domain ‘DOCUMENT’ and ‘LINK’ are the main classes of
information objects that are used in this domain. In this case, the class of ‘DOCUMENT’ is also
defined using the same concept as a class of objects with an extra attribute that defines the location of
the document.
Using this concept, the class definition is encapsulated and separated from the content of the objects
and their representation. This concept facilitates creating a library of classes of information objects
that could be reused in different applications or as a base for creating sub classes of an exiting class.
This library represents a collection of building blocks that could be combined in different
configurations to produce different products. However, these objects should not be used in all
situations without evaluation if the class definition and the set of attributes and relations are suitable
for the current context. Otherwise, modifications or extensions should be applied.
The functions
Similar to the definition of reusable classes of information objects, different routines could also be
defined as reusable functions. These functions could be encapsulated and used in different
applications. These functions include the following groups:
204
Primary functions for handling a single object or an instant of a class by creation,
modification, representation or destruction.
Secondary functions for handling a set of object such as listing, sorting and searching.
File management functions.
Visualization and layer control.
Argumentation and discussion functions.
Coordination and Communication
All these functions are modularly organized and could be used with different classes of objects
according to the declaration rules of each function.
The rules scheme
Using the modular structure of the functions and the information objects, the rules scheme could be
defined in a way that gives each user access to specific functions only for specific classes of objects.
While this concept is useful in the cases where a limited number of users are using the system with a
variety of access rights, it might be complex to administrate a system where a large number of users
are using the system. In this case, different groups of users who have similar access rights could be
defined. Then, each user gets the access rights of the group in which he is a member. In addition, for
specific users specific access rights might be individually added.
New Edit Delete Search
Class 1 D U U D
Class 2 U U U D
…. D D U D
…. U U U D
Class n U U U D
Fig. 6-45 The access rights matrix for a user
The user interface
The user interface consists in this case of two main areas: the navigation bar and the information area.
In the navigation bar, the user gets access only to the functions he is allowed to use. For each function,
the classes that the user is allowed to access are listed. For example, if a user has only the right to add
new documents but has no right to add new objects in the other class, he will get under the function
“NEW” only the classes which he has access to. If a user has no access to a specific function, it will
not be showed in the navigation bar. The navigation bar is also used to save the user’s access rights
and preferences in a hidden form. When the user attempts to make an action, his access rights will be
checked, to figure out if he has enough access rights to conduct this action.
205
Fig. 6-46 The user interface
1. The navigation bar 2. The information area
From the experience collected in the earlier cases, it was evident that specific components of the user
interface are repeated systematically during the development process for each class of objects. For
example, for each class of objects, a set of forms to conduct the primary information functions is
needed to create, to modify, to view or to delete an instance of a class of objects. Another set of
secondary function is needed for tasks such as searching, listing, sorting a set of objects from a class.
By including specific attributes in the class definition that describes how this attribute should be
represented, it will be possible using server side scripts to produce the needed forms without the need
to develop a set of forms for each class of objects.
Fig. 6-47 the concept of the platform
206
This concept of dynamic generation of the user interface has the following advantages:
By reducing the development effort, the user should be able to concentrate mainly on the class
definition without any need to produce a separate page for each function for each object.
This will also reduce the technical effort of preparing the user interface by automating many
routine tasks.
In addition, this concept would minimize the effort needed for maintaining the system, as the
changes made in a specific attribute will be recognized in all the forms of this class. In the
earlier cases where this concept was not implemented, any change must be done in all the
forms of this class.
One of the most important functions in the user interface is the spatial overview. Contrary to the other
cases, this case has several problem spaces. It has also different levels of abstraction. Hence, several
overviews are needed to deal with these different subjects. In this case, the concept of layer sets is
used to create different overviews. Each overview consists of a group of layers. The concept of
“LAYER SET” is discussed in details in section 5.4.1. A list of available overviews allows the user to
select the one that represents the space and the level of detail that he would like to explore.
Fig. 6-48 The graphical interface
When the user selects an overview, the information area will be divided into two areas, the map area
and the layer control area. Using this control area, the user can control the visibility or the activity of a
specific layer. By activating a layer, the user will get different functions:
Explore the information of the elements in the active layer. By clicking on the element, the
information of this element will be displayed.
Call all documents linked to a specific object in the active map.
Jump to a detailed overview that deals with a specific area or subject to explore one theme at a
time.
207
The user can also call up all objects in the active layer in a tabular form. He can then use the
normal functions in the list view such as edit, view or delete. From the tabular information, he
can export the results from the table to different standard formats to use them in different
programs outside the system.
The user can toggle from the tabular and the graphical modes by a single click.

This case study deals with a planning subject on a trans-national level in the European context.
It deals with an infrastructure development that goes across the borders of several countries.
The planning process in this case study is an ad hoc organization. The proposed PIS is aimed
at supporting different information processes in the three information domains.
In respect to the development of PIS, this case is the most recent in all the four cases that are
discussed in this chapter. It was possible in this case to conclude all the results from the earlier
cases to develop both the conceptual and the technical bases of the system.
∗ One of the main results of this case study, in respect to the realization of PIS, is the
identification of tasks and functions that are often repeated in different cases. These tasks
could be dealt with as routines. This will help the users to concentrate on the class
definition and not to waste time to create the forms needed to conduct the different
functions. This will also guarantee that any changes in the definitions will be immediately
updated in all functions.
∗ In this case, it was possible to implement the concept of repertoire of the main classes of
objects that are used frequently in different applications. Each of these classes of objects
is defined by means of a set of attributes and the functions that are used to manipulate
them. This allows reusing these standard objects and functions in different situations. It
also allows developing new classes of objects with a minimum effort.
∗ The used concept in this case for the definition and implementation of the classes of
objects minimizes the time and the effort needed for repeating routine tasks. By selecting
the modules available in the library, it is possible to start new applications.
6.5. Conclusion
In this chapter, a variety of application case studies are discusses. These cases cover a variety
of planning situations on different levels of planning from the trans national level to the city
level. Each case is dealing with a different type of planning situations. In all these cases, some
sort of collaborative process is essential.
In the application case studies that are introduced in this research, main emphasize was given
to supporting: exploring spatial problem, collaborative exploration of solution alternative of
spatial problems, sharing planning knowledge, communication, coordination, and
208
documentation in collaborative planning processes. More investigation is needed about the
application of PIS in supporting decision-making and argumentation.
The requirements of PIS are directly related to the physical, technical and formal
circumstances that influence the situation for which the PIS will be developed and
implemented. Attempting to use the same system for all situations is not reasonable. In each
situation the characteristics of the subject or the problem of the planning situation, the
characteristics of the planning process that is needed to handle the subject and the
characteristics of the planning information that are needed to deal with that subject and to run
the planning process.
From the technical viewpoint:
∗ The use of information objects as the building blocks for such systems facilitates creating
some sort of a library of objects that could be used, modified and extended in different
cases. These information objects are defined regarding their attributes and relations.
∗ In different cases of implementation, it is evident that specific functions are needed
frequently. Hence, developing a library of functions and tools that are modularly
organized facilitates efficient implementation and modification in other cases.
∗ The modular organization of information and functions facilitates administering the
system by giving each user the needed access to specific functions and specific objects.
∗ Using simple and clear declaration rules for the information objects allows using these
objects in different applications with a minimum effort to customize them.
∗ By using extended declaration rules that go beyond the content of the information objects
to cover representation and processing aspects, it is possible to use simple scripts to make
all repetitive tasks which needed previously a lot of time and effort, for example
preparing the web page that is needed for making the basic information processing tasks.
∗ By using the hierarchical and associative organization of information, it is possible to
explore the planning subject in different levels of abstraction and then exploring more
details in specific focus points.
∗ By separating the content of the information objects from the representation, it is possible
to represent the same content in different contexts and representations the thing, which
allows exploring the same subject from different viewpoints.
The concept of the open system is essential in such applications. An open system supports the
exchange of information with other information systems that are used by different actors.
Such systems should be developed in a way that allows using the system with a core of
information objects and functions and extending these objects and functions according to the
requirements and dynamics of the process.
209
7. A Framework for PIS Application
This chapter aims at sketching a framework for the development of PIS in collaborative spatial
planning processes. Bearing in mind the specific characteristics that should be considered in each
planning situation on one hand, and the rapidly evolution in the field of information and
communication technology on the other, the intention of this framework is not to introduce a technical
handbook or a step by step guide for this process. Main emphasize is given to the conceptual,
operative and technical aspects that should be considered in developing a PIS for collaborative
planning process, apart from the applied technique.
It is important at the beginning of this chapter to differentiate between three levels of PIS development
processes. These three levels are: the conception, the synthesis and the prototype levels.
The development process of a PIS should be conducted on the conception level when a new
concept for PIS is needed to support new tasks or to meet new requirements. A conception
process would be also needed to adapt to new technical and conceptual evolutions. In this
process, new concepts should be discussed, new structures should be established, new
components should be developed and new measures should be defined. Conception processes
of PIS are usually not conducted as a part of a single spatial planning process. They require
research effort that extends beyond the limits and resources of particular planning process.
However, it should be directly connected to practical planning situations to apply and to
examine the validity and the applicability of these concepts to practical issues.
On the contrary, if the present concepts are applied by resembling existing structures or
combining and adjusting available components and measures, then a synthesis process will be
required. It is used to construct a customized system to meet the specific requirements in a
specific process using a general concept that is applied for other situations.
Prototype application would be enough for implementing a prototype PIS to support specific
information tasks in a specific type of planning processes. From the viewpoint of information
handling, a repetitive planning process has specific characteristics and requirements, in respect
210
to information handling. In this concept, a repetitive planning process is not a routine that
could be automated but there are general information requirements that are valid for different
cases in this class of planning tasks, for example, supporting sharing information in small
work groups of planners that are conducting a short term planning task e.g. to participate in a
planning competition or to prepare a test plan.
Differentiating PIS development processes to these levels is based on the tasks that should be
conducted to achieve the required PIS. The types of this process are not related to the subject matter of
the spatial planning task itself, to the time span of the planning process or to the number of
participating actors in this process. For example, development process of a PIS, even for a simple
planning situation, it requires a conception process if new structures should be discussed, new
components should be developed and new measures should be defined. On the contrary, a large scale
planning process might require only a synthesis process for developing a PIS, if these aspects are
available and known and requires only adjustment, combination and resembling to meet the
circumstances of target planning situation.
As the whole current research is considered to a large extent a conception development process for the
proposed PIS, in the following sections, the discussion is devoted to the development of PIS in
synthesis processes for applying the proposed concept in this research to new cases.
7.1. Outlines of the development process for a PIS
A synthesis process for the development of a PIS for a collaborative planning process would have the
following main phases:
The orientation phase: This phase aims at defining the system requirements according to the
specific circumstances of the planning situation.
The planning phase: According to the system requirement from the orientation phase, this
phase aims at preparing a general layout for the proposed PIS.
The development phase: This phase is organized in several cycles. In each one, a specific part
of the proposed PIS is developed in a way that makes it operating independently from other
parts of the system. After each development cycle, a test and consolidation cycle is organized
to test the system and adapt to the feedback from the users.
The implementation phase: the system should be operating partially after the first cycle of
development. Each cycle of implementation is opened with an introduction or training for the
target group of the system to introduce the functionalities and the information objects that are
included in the new part.
The development process of PIS in a collaborative planning process has an explorative nature.
Therefore, the system should be developed in an iterative manner rather than a comprehensive one.
211
Iterative development allows starting the implementation with a core of information and functions and
then extending and modifying the system according to the evolving needs. This approach allows
obtaining quick results at an early stage. On the contrary, a comprehensive approach requires a well-
structured problem definition and longer time to produce results. The following figure (7.1) illustrates
a typical outline of a PIS development process in a collaborative spatial planning process. The
illustrated case is for a relatively long process (more than one year).
Fig. 7-1 The outline of a development process for a PIS
For a shorter process, the same main phases are comparable but in a compact form by reducing the
time for each case, and by conducting less cycles in the development phase according to the
requirements of the case. In such a case, the time scale is weeks and not months. Furthermore, if most
of the required functionalities and the information classes are available, from earlier processes, this
time could be radically reduced. This issue is discussed in the following section in details.
In the following section, each of the above-mentioned phases is described regarding the specific issues
that should be considered, the tasks that should be conducted and the outcomes that are expected. To
make this framework practical and to avoid replication of issues or figures that are already discussed
in earlier parts, this section takes the form of a list of questions and aspects that should be handled in
each phase with a reference using to indicate the section or to indicate the figure that includes the
details about each point.
212
7.2. Typical phases of the development process of a PIS
7.2.1. The orientation phase
As mentioned earlier, each planning situation is governed by a set of aspects that are related to: the
subject matter of planning, the planning process and the planning information. In this phase, these
three aspects should be explored to define the tasks of the required PIS and the main factors that
should be considered in the next phases.
I. What are the main characteristics of the planning situation that needs the PIS?
a. The main characteristics of the subject matter of planning 2.3
What are the main interconnectivities that should be considered?

∗ Concerned actors / Inter-level / Inter-regional / Cross-border / Inter-sector
What are the main dynamics that influence the subject matter of the planning?
∗ internal dynamics / external dynamics
b. The main characteristics of the planning process 2.4
Formal aspects:
∗ What is the legal framework for the planning process?
∗ Does the planning process lay in the intersections of different legal domains?
Organizational aspects
∗ Who are the participating actors in the process?
∗ How is the process organized?
∗ What is the time span of the planning process?
∗ What are the expected outcomes of the planning process?
Technical operative issues
∗ Available technical infrastructure (networks/workstations/internet access)
∗ Available information systems that should/could be interconnected to the system
∗ Users’ competence
∗ Formal rules regarding information in general and information systems
c. The main characteristics of the planning information in the current situation 2.5
Types of information that should be considered, including

∗ subjects and types of the needed information for conducting the planning task,
∗ amount, quality and types of available information that should be integrated in the PIS,
∗ sources of the needed information.
213
II. Based on the results of the orientation phase, what are the basic system requirements?
a. Dimensions of the required system 4.2
Which tasks should PIS support?

∗ Exploration of planning matters for situation assessment.
∗ Exploration of solution directions and development of proposals.
∗ Organization of information in planning processes.
∗ Facilitating recalling and exchanging of planning knowledge.
∗ Others.
The time span of the process
∗ Short term (3-6 months)
∗ Middle term (6-12 months)
∗ Long term (1-2 years)
∗ Open end
Target groups of the PIS
∗ Public
∗ Internal
∗ Cross organizations
∗ Sub groups
∗ Others
b. The system requirements matrix 4.3
The system requirements should be discussed among the concerned actors to identify the
specific characteristics of the needed PIS. Beside the general requirements concerning the
number of users and the time span of the system, there are specific requirements that are
related to the main components of the system, namely the information space, the functions, the
rules scheme and the user interface. The following table summarizes some of these
requirements.
Scale
Criteria
Min. Max.
Time span Short Long
Differentiation of user groups Low High
Relation to other information systems Closed Open
Distribution of information supply Central Distributed
Distribution of access to the system Limited Distributed
Amount of classes of information objects Limited Large
Dynamism of content Static Dynamic
Fig. 7-2 System requirements matrix
214
7.2.2. The planning phase of PIS
III. Based on the systems requirements from the planning phase, system structure 4.4
a. The information space 4.4.a
Which information domains should be considered in the system? Is the system oriented to one
or more information domains? 3.1
∗ The subject matter domain
∗ The process domain
∗ The planning knowledge domain
Which specific information processes should the system support? 3.2
∗ Communication,
∗ Coordination,
∗ Decision making,
∗ Argumentation,
∗ Others
What are the main classes of information objects that are needed? 3.3
∗ List of classes
∗ Relations between the classes (class / relation diagram) 3.23
∗ The needed logical objects
b. the functions and the tools 4.4.b
Primary & secondary database management functions

File management
Visualization and layer control
Coordination, discussion, others
c. The rules scheme (Access spheres) 4.4.c
Flat structure (workgroup)

Two dimensional structure (public/internal, workgroup/subgroups or workgroup/individual)
Three dimensional structure (public/internal & workgroup/subgroups/individual)
Multi dimensional structure (Three dimensional & Access rights criteria, e.g. geographical /
functional / subject specific)
d. The user interface 4.4.d
Is there more than one user interface? (e.g. public / internal)

What are the main components of the user interface?
215
7.2.3. The development phase
The system development should be organized in a way that directly supports the planning
process aiming at solving the problem.
It should be organized in a way that allows starting the implementation with a core PIS that
includes a set of basic objects and functions. It should be organized in several cycles. Each
cycle is devoted to developing a specific part of the PIS according to the requirements and the
priorities of the planning process.
Organizing a repertoire of classes of objects and functions that are frequently needed in
different processes would facilitate the development process. This repertoire should be
organized in the form of modules that could be used with minor changes and customizations in
different applications.
The classes of objects repertoire might include the primary definition of classes such as
“ACTOR”, “DOCUMENT”, “AREA”, “PROJECT”, “EVENT” that are frequently used. In
addition, it could include the definition of logical objects such as “MOBILIZATION RATE”,
“FLOOR AREA RATIO”.
The functions' repertoire might include all the primary and secondary database management
functions as well as the file management functions. These functions are required in every PIS.
In addition, it may include functions such as layer control and discussion forums.
a. The system outlines 5.3
Definition and agreement on the technical criteria of development. 5.3.1

Outlines of the proposed PIS 5.9
Definition of the needed development cycles and the main contents of each cycle.
b. The first development cycle 5.4
The first cycle of development should make use of the available repertoire to reach a quick
start for the PIS.
∗ Definition of the information objects 5.4.1
∗ The functions and the tools 5.4.2
∗ The rules scheme 5.4.3
∗ The user interface 5.4.4
c. Test and consloidation
After each development cycle, a test period is needed to examine the system. This test should
be organized with a small test group of users. However, it should be broad and intensive
enough to find out any problems before the implementation phase.
Based on the results of each test period and on the feedback from the users, the essential
adjustments in the functions and in the object definition should be done. In addition, the rules
216
scheme and the user interface could be modified if specific customizations are defined to be
important.
d. Further development cycles
According to the outlines of the proposed system and based on the requirements that emerge
during the planning process, the PIS should be extended and enhanced in subsequent cycles of
development. In each cycles new functions and tools might be added, new classes of objects
might be integrated, more work modes might be introduced and new groups of users might be
considered. After adding these new components, the system should be operating in a cohesive
manner.
The extensions and changes in the PIS in each development cycle should be conducted in a
way that let the users be able to find the earlier components they are accustomed to use, as a
reference and orientation point.
7.2.4. The implementation phase
a. Capacity building / trainning 6.3.5
Before the implementation of the whole system as well as before implementing new parts of
the system, the concepts and applications that are used should be introduced to the users.
It is evident from the application case studies, that introduction and training are especially
important for users who are not used to the concept of the proposed system. If a user is
confronted with a concept that differs from his mental frames, this might lead to losing the
orientation or to the emergence of a mental barrier between the user and the system.
On the contrary, when the users get enough introduction and opportunity to experiment the
system, many users have developed new ideas about extending the application of the proposed
concepts to new areas, which are not included in the original system.
It was also apparent that using guidelines and handbooks as the only method to introduce the
concepts is not a substitution for the personal training and the face-to-face discussions
especially when starting new systems.
b. Integration with other infomation and decision making processes
For PIS that is planned for a large scale collaborative planning process for long time (as in the
case of NBS 6.3.), the system should be integrated with other information and decision
making functions of the participating actors to optimize the use of resources that is devoted to
these functions.
PIS should integrate available information from other systems, if it is needed for the systems
purposes, so that the users are not overloaded with unnecessary and time-consuming work.
217
It should give them support in other relevant functions, so that the PIS should be contributing
in a direct benefit for each user so that he stays motivated to keep updating the information for
which he is responsible.
It is important to mention that failure of many knowledge management and information
systems is a result of considering the development as a separate task that operates parallel and
not integrated with the actual work.
c. Byoned the implemntation
It is not enough to consider that the development process is over by the implementation of
PIS, there is a need for a systematic follow up to observe if the system is serving the purpose
for which it is aimed.
The formalization of a PIS should be avoided. Formalization of PIS occurs through converting
the information processes to a goal in itself, without evaluating if the system is supporting the
decision making and leading to solving the problems, especially in long term collaborative
planning processes.
For PIS that supports spatial planning tasks that extend over long periods (more than one
year), a periodical review, evaluation and upgrading cycles should be organized according to
the follow-up of the implementation.
If a PIS should be transferred to an agency or organization other than the one, which
developed it, as in the case of NBS, the transfer process should be organized in an appropriate
time through the process, so that the needed measures are realized before the process end. The
needed measures for the transfer of such a system is not only limited to human and material
resources, it might need administrative and operative measures that normally take long time
especially in the public administration.
If the PIS is designed for a specific process that has a specific time span, the system and its
content should be documented by the end of the process in a way that allows recalling or
reusing parts of its components and the contents in other processes or for recalling specific
issues about the process.
A final remark
The technical dimension in PIS development processes should not overwhelm the whole process. It
should be kept in mind through out the conception, development and implementation of PIS for
collaborative spatial planning processes specially in complex spatial tasks, that the proposed system is
aimed at supporting the problem solving process and should not be observed as a goal in itself.
218
List of Literature
BADKE-SCHAUB 1993
Petera Badke-Schaub, Denken und Planen als soziale Prozesse (Thinking and planning as
a social processes). In: Strohschneider & von der Weth (eds).
BATLEY 1993
Richard Battley, Political control of urban planning and management. In Devas & Rakodi
1993
BATTY 1984
Batty J.M., Information technology in planning education, papers in planning research,
80, Cardiff, Department of Town Planning, UWIST.
BATTY & DENSHAM 1996

Michael Batty & Paul J. Densham, Decision Support, GIS, and Urban Planning. London.
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk
BATTY & HARRIS 1992

Michael Batty & Britton Harris, Locational Models, Geographic Information, and
Planning Support Systems. NCGIA
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/Publications/Tech_Reports/92/92-1.PDF (23.07.2002)
BEHN & VAUPEL 1982
Robert Behn & James Vaupel, Quick analysis for busy decision maker. Basic books, inc.,
publisher, NY.
BERNSTEIN 1996
Peter Bernstein, Against the Gods: the Remarkable Story of Risk. John Wiley & Sons.
BRACKEN 1981
Ian Bracken, Urban Planning Methods: Research and policy analysis. Methuen & co,
NY.
BRACKEN 1990
Ian Bracken, Information Technology in Geography and planning: including principals of
GIS. Routledge, London.
BUNGE 1999
Mario Bunge, Dictionary of Philosophy. Prometheus Books, NY.
CHOO 1998
C.W. Choo , The Knowing Organization; How Organizations Use Information to
Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions. Oxford University Press,
Inc., NY.
219
CONKLIN 1996
Jeffrey Conklin, Capturing Organizational Memory. Group Decision Support Systems,
Inc. (GDSS). http://www.gdss.com/wp/com.htm
CONKLIN & WEIL 2000

Jeffrey Conklin & William Weil, Wicked Problems: Naming the Pain in Organizations.
Group Decision Support Systems, Inc. (GDSS). http://www.gdss.com/wp/wicked.htm
CULLINGWORTH 1973
Cullingworth J B, Problems of an urban society, Vol. 2. the social center for planning.
George Allen and Unwin, Canada.
DEVAS & RAKODI 1993

Nick Devas & Carole Rakodi (ed.), Management Fast Growing Cities: New Approaches
to urban planning and management in the developing world. Longman Group, Essex.
DÖRNER & TISDALE 1993

Dietrich Dörner & Timothy Tisdale, Planung und Großmutterweisenheiten. In:
Strohschneider & von Der Weth.
DÖRNER 1989
Dietrich Dörner, Die Logik der Misslingens: Strategisches Denken in komplexen
Situationen (The logic of failure). Rowohlt Verlag GmbH.
DROR 1973
Dror Y., the planning process: A facet design. In Faludi (ed.) 1973
ELGENDY 2000
Hany Elgendy, Internet Based Planning Information Systems as a Supporting Tool For
Urban Planning Process. In: Proceedings of the symposium “Computergestützte
Raumplanung, 5. Symposium zur Rolle der Informationstechnologie in der
Raumplanung”, Vienna.
ELGENDY 2001
Hany Elgendy, Internet Aided Collaborative Management of Planning Information. In:
Bernd Scholl & Gerolf Heberling, Raumplanung und Internet in Lehre und Forschung.
Institut für Städtebau und Landesplanung und Institut für Regionalwissenschaft der
Universität Karlsruhe. Schriftenreihe Heft 29. Karlsruhe.
ELGENDY, ENGELKE & BECK 2001

Hany Elgendy, Dirk Engelke, Torsten Beck: Space, Time, Internet and Planng: Internet
based instruments for complex planning situations - A case study for the Upper Rhine
Valley. In: ISoCaRP 37th International Planning Congress: "Honey, I Shrunk the Space" -
Planning in the Information Age. Congress CD, The Hague: ISoCaRP.
Engelke 2002
Dirk Engelke: Neue Medien als Problemlösungsinstrument der räumlichen Planung.
Institut für Städtebau und Landesplanung der Universität Karlsruhe. Schriftenreihe Heft
31. Karlsruhe: Eigenverlag.
EC 2002
European Communities, Trans-European Transport Network: TEN – Priority Projects.
Luxemburg, Office for official publication of the European Communities.
220
ESNB 1992
Egyptian Specialized National Boards, The General policy for facing the urban problem
in Cairo.
FALUDI (ed.) 1973

Andreas Faludi, A Reader in Planning Theory. Oxford, Pergamon Press.
FNP 2010
Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, Stadtplanungsamt, Fläzchennutzungsplan 2010 / Stuttgart,
1999
FRIEDMANN 1987
John Friedmann, Planning in the public domain : from knowledge to action. Princeton
University Press Princeton, NJ.
GEORGE & JONES, 1999

Jennifer George & Garth Jones, Organizational Behavior, 2nd. Ed., Addison-Wesely.
GOTTSEGEN 1995
Jonathan Gottsegen, Information Use in the Application of SDSS to Land Use Planning in
Collaborative Decision Making. NCGIA, Santa Barbara, California.
GRIFFIN 1997
Em Griffin, A first look at communication theory. 3ed. Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
http://www.aftirstlook.com.
GUARINO 1998
Nicola Guarino, Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Amsterdam, 1998.
http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/Ontology/Papers/FOIS98.pdf
HAHN 1999
Roland Hahn, Kooperation und Koordinationsstrukturen. In: ARL (Hg.) Grundriß der
Landes- und Regionalplanung, Hannover. http://www.isl-projekte.uni-
karlsruhe.de/arl/beitraege/hahn_1.htm
HALL 1992
Peter Hall, Urban and regional planning, 3rd ed. Routledge, London.
HANAGE 1995
Richard Hanage, Making information work for you. Business support page,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/mbp/bpgt/m9nf00001/m9nf000011.html
HARRIS 1995
Britton Harris, Complexity in Collaborative Spatial Decision-Making in Collaborative
Decision Making. NCGIA, Santa Barbara, California.
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/Publications/Tech_Reports/95/95-14.pdf
HENDRIKS & VRIENS 1995

Paul Hendriks & Dirk Vriens, Collaborative exploration of spatial problems. NCGIA,
Barbara, California. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/research/i17/I-17_home.html
HEYLIGHEN 1991
Francis Heylighen, Design of a Hypermedia Interface Translating between Associative
and Formal Representations. In: International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 491-
515.
221
HEYLIGHEN & JOSLYN, 1992
Francis Heylighen, C. Joslyn & V. Turchin, What is Systems Theory?. In: Principia
Cybernetica Web. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/systheor.html
HEYLIGHEN 1998
Francis Heylighen, Basic Concepts of the Systems Approach. In: Principia Cybernetica
Web. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/sysappr.html
HEYLIGHEN 1999
Francis Heylighen, Change and Information Overload: negative effects. In: Principia
Cybernetica Web. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/chinneg.html
HUDSON 1979
Barclay Hudson, Comparison of current planning theories. In: JAPA, Vol. 45, No. 4.
HUSSY 1998
Walter Hussy, Denken und Problemlösen (Thinking and problem solving). Verlag W.
Kohlhammer, Stuttgart.
INNES 1999
Judith Innes, Information in Communicative Planning. In: APA National Planning
Conference. http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/JAPA/INNES.HTM.
JONES 1970
J.C. Jones, The state of the art in design methods. In: G.T. Moore (ed.), Emerging
Methods in Environmental Design and planning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
JUMEL 2001
Mélanie Jumel, New Information Technologies: An illusion of equity. In: The proceedings
of the symposium “Computergestützte Raumplanung, 6. Symposium zur Rolle der
Informationstechnologie in der Raumplanung”, Vienna.
KEEBLE 1969
Lewis Keeble, Principles and practice of town and country planning, 4th ed.. The Estates
Gazette, London.
KRAUSE 1998
Kai Uwe Krause, Welche Daten braucht die Raumplanung, (Which data needs the spatial
planning). . In: The proceedings of the symposium “Computergestützte Raumplanung, 3.
Symposium zur Rolle der Informationstechnologie in der Raumplanung”, Vienna.
LANGENDORF 1985
Richard Langendorf, Computers and decision making. APA, Chicago.
LAUDON & LAUDON 1995

Jane Laudon & Kenneth C. Laudon Management Information Systems, 6th edition.
Prentice Hall.
LAURINI 2001
Robert Laurini, Information Systems for Urban Planning. Taylor & Francis, NY.
LLOYED-JONES & ERICKSON 1996

Tony Lloyed-Jones & Bill Erickson. A review of modeling and simulation in urban spatial
planning. In: Tony Lloyed-Jones (ed.) Computers in urban spatial planning, a report of the
ODA funned CUSP Research Project.
222
MALONE & CROWSTON 1990
Thomas Malone & Kevin Crowston, What is Coordination theory and How can it help
design cooperative work systems? In: Proceedings of CSCW 90.
MÄRKER AND PIPEK 2000

Oliver Märker & Volkmar Pipek, Computer-Supported Participation in Urban Planning
from the viewpoint of “Communicative Planning Theory”. In: IFIP 8.5 - Advances in
Electronic Government - February 2000, Zaragoza (Spain), pages 43-58
MAURER 1973
Jakob Maurer, Grundzüge einer Methodik der Raumplanung I. ORL, Institut für Orts-
Regional. und Landesplanung an der ETHZ, Zürich.
MAURER 1985
Jakob Maurer, Richtplanung: Methodische Überlegungen zur Richtplanung gemäss dem
Schweizerischen Bundesgesetz über der Raumplanung. In: Schriftenreihe zur Orts-,
Regional- und landesplanung, Nr. 35, ORL, Institut für Orts- Regional. und
Landesplanung an der ETHZ, Zürich.
MAURER 1988
Jakob Maurer, Von der 1. Zur 2. Generation der Richtplanung: Eine Meinungsäußerung in
der Näher einer Streitschrift. Verlag der Fachvereine, Zürich.
MAURER 1993A
Jakob Maurer, Eines Planers Geschichten. In: Strohschneider & von der Weth (eds.)
1993.
MAURER 1993B
Jakob Maurer, Über Methodik der Raumplanung (About the Methodology of Spatial
Planning). In: Strohschneider & von der Weth (eds.) 1993.
MAURER 1995
Jakob Maurer, Maximen für Planer. ORL- Schriften 47/1995. Hochschulverlag Ag an der
ETH Zürich.
MEYER 1989
Günter Meyer, Problemräume der Welt: Kairo, Entwicklungsprobleme einer Metropole
der Dritten Welt. Aulis Verlag Deubner & Co KG . Köln.
MILLER 1956
George A Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. In: The Psychological
Review, 1956, vol. 63, pp. 81-97. http://www.well.com/user/smalin/miller.html.
NAESS 1999
Petter Naess, Surviving between the trenches: Planning research, methodology and theory
of science. In: European Planning Studies, Vol. 8, Fall 2000.
http://www.i4.auc.dk/petter/dokumenter/vitskteoeng.htm
NEDOVIC 2000
Zorica Nedovic, Geographic Information Science Implications for Urban and Regional
Planning.
PAHL & FRICKE 1993

Gerhard Pahl & Gerd Fricke, Vorgehenspläne beim methodischen Konstruieren und die
Vermeidung von Anwendungsfehlern. In: Strohschneider & von der Weth (eds.) 1993.
223
PENZIAS 1989
Arno Penzias, Ideas and Information: Managing in a High-Tech World. W.W. Norton &
Co., NY.
POPPER 1981
Karl R. Popper & John C. Eccles., The self and its brain. Corr. print., Springer, Berlin.
POPPER 1979
Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary. Revised edition, Clarendon Pr.,
Oxford.
REUTERS 1996
Dying for information? A Report On The Effects Of Information Overload In The Uk And
Worldwide. Reuters. http://www.cni.org/regconfs/1997/ukoln-content/repor~13.html.
RITTEL 1982
Horst Rittel, Structure and usefulness of planning information systems. In: Laconte,
Gibson& Rapoport (ed) : Human and Energy Factors in Urban Palnnig : a systems
approach, proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on " Factors Influencing
Urban Design " Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, July 2 - 13, 1979.
ROUSE 1992
William B. Rouse, Human-centered design of information systems. In: Expanding access
to science and technology, Ines Wesley-Tanaskovic, Jacques Tocatlian, and Kenneth H.
Roberts, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Frontiers of Science
and Technology Held in Kyoto, Japan, 12-14 May 1992
MILLIKEN 1997
Russell C. Milliken, Supporting Event-Driven Activities in a Distributed Design
Environment. http://www.ndim.edrc.cmu.edu/milliken/proposal.html.
SCHOLL 1995
Bernd Scholl, Aktion Planung Zur Behandlung Kolmplexer Schwerpunktaufgaben in der
Reaumplanung. ORL Berichte - ETH Zürich.
SCHOLL 1999
Bernd Scholl (ed.), Infrastruktur- und Raumentwicklung in Europa. Chancen und
Aufgaben am Beispiel der Rheinachse. Sommerseminar 1999, ISL, Karlsruhe.
SCHÖNWANDT 1986
Walter Schönwandt, Denkfallen beim Planen. Frider. Viewencg & Sohn, Braunschweig,
1986.
SCHÖNWANDT 1999
Walter Schönwandt, Grundriss einer Planungtheorie der "Dritten Generation”. in DISP
136/137.
SELLE 1997
Selle, Klaus (ed.), Planung und Kommunikation, Gestaltung von Planungsprozessen in
Quartier, Stadt und Landschaft; Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxiserfahrungen. Wiesbaden,
Berlin.
SHIFFER 1992
Michael Shiffer, Towards a Collaborative Planning System. In: Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, volume 19.
224
SHUBIK 1980
Martin Shubik, Computer and Modeling. In: Dertouzos & Moses (eds), The computer
age: a twenty-year view, 3rd ed. print. - Cambridge, Ma, MIT Press.
SRINIVAS 2002
Hari Srinivas (ed.), The Information Sphere: Internet and ICTs. The Global Development
Research Centre GDRC. http://www.gdrc.org/icts/index.html
STANOEVSKA, et al 1998
Katarina Stanoevska-Slabeva, Beat Schmid, Beat F. & Lei Yu, Supporting Distributed
Corporate Planning through New Coordination Technologies. In: Ninth International
Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, August 26-28, 1998, Vienna,
Austria. http://www.netacademy.org/
STEIN 1994
Ursula Stein, Prozessgestaltung, Moderation, Beratung: Neue Formen der
Zusammenarbeit zwichen privaten Planungsbüros, Verwatung, Investoren und Nuzern. In:
DISP 116, ORL, Zurich.
STREICH 1999
Bernd Streich (ed.), Kommunal Bauleitplanung durch Computergestütztes
Projektmanagement: Methoden und Prozessmanagements und Wissensrepräsentation für
Aufgaben der Stadtplanung. Shaker Verlag, Aachen.
STREITZ 1992
Norbert A. Streitz, Designing interactive systems based on cognitive theories of human
information processing. In: Expanding access to science and technology, Ines Wesley-
Tanaskovic, Jacques Tocatlian, and Kenneth H. Roberts, Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on the Frontiers of Science and Technology Held in Kyoto,
Japan, 12-14 May 1992.
STROHSCHNEIDER & VON DER WETH 1993

Stefan Strohschneider & Rüdrig von der Weth (eds.), Ja, mach nur einen Plan: Pannen
und Fehlschläge - Uhrsachen, Beispiele, Lösungen. Verlag Hany Huber, Bern.
TENNER 1996
Edward Tenner, Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge effect. Fourth Estate,
London.
THE WORLD BANK GROUP 2003

The World Bank Group, World Development Indicators 2003.
VAN HELDEN 1994

Paul Van Helden; An Integrated Information System for Urban Land-Use Management.
URISA 1994 Annual Conference Proceedings. Washington, D.C.: Urban and Regional
Information Systems Association, 1994.
VON ROTZ 1989

Robert von Rotz, Planerische Informationssysteme - grundsätzliche schwierigkeiten und
Probleme aus methodischer Sicht. In: DISP 98 (pp 48 - 56)
VON ROTZ 1996

Robert von Rotz, Aufbau Planerisher Informationssysteme: am Beispiel der Richtplanung
gemäss dem schwiezerischen Bundesgesetz über die Raumplanung. ETHZ, Zürich
225
WONG & STORKERSON 1997
Janine Wong & Peter Storkerson, Hypertext and the art of memory.
http://www.id.iit.edu/visiblelanguage/
YEUNG 1998
Albert Yeung, Information Organization and Data Structure. In: NCGIA Core
Curriculum in Geographic Information Science.
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/giscc/units/u051/
YOUSRY & Aboul Atta 1996

Mahmoud Yousry & Tarek Aboul Atta, The challenge of urban growth in Cairo. In:
Rakodi, Carole, The urban challenge in Africa: Growth and management its large cities.
United Nations University Press, Tokyo – NY – Paris.
226
Kurzfassung
Planerische Informationssysteme (PIS) sind Mittel für die Steuerung und Unterstützung von
verschiedenen Informationsprozessen, die in der räumlichen Planung durchgeführt werden. Wenn man
PIS aufbauen und umsetzen will, sollten unterschiedliche Aspekte betrachtet werden:
∗ Eigenschaften der räumlichen Probleme,

∗ Eigenschaften des Planungsprozesses, in dem diese Probleme behandelt werden sollen,
und
∗ Eigenschaften der Planungsinformationen, die erforderlich sind, bzw. in diesen Prozessen
produziert oder verarbeitet werden.
∗ Diese Informationen werden von Menschen verarbeitet und produziert. Folglich sollte die
Art und Weise der menschlichen Informationsverarbeitung im allgemeinen und besonders
beim Planen und Entscheiden ebenfalls betrachtet werden.
Komplexe Raumplanungsaufgaben befinden sich in einem Geflecht einer Vielzahl von dynamischen
Zusammenhängen, welche die Problemstellung und die Folgen der geplanten Tätigkeiten beeinflussen
könnten. In solchen Situationen sind die Lösungsmöglichkeiten nicht im Voraus gegeben oder
allgemein bekannt. Sie sollen erst erzeugt werden. Solche Aufgaben müssen in einem Netzwerk von
Akteuren behandelt werden. Solche Probleme werden normalerweise in einem längeren Prozess
behandelt, in dem mehrere Einzelpersonen oder Organisationen aus unterschiedlichen Disziplinen
zusammenarbeiten sollen. In derartigen Situationen sind Informationen unvollständig und vage.
Angesichts dieser Eigenschaften einerseits und der sich schnell entwickelnden Informations- und
Kommunikationstechnik andererseits, die ständig Innovationen erzeugt und neue Gelegenheiten
öffnet, ist es die Aufgabe des Planers, zunächst die Anforderungen der unterschiedlichen Aufgaben der
räumlichen Planung zu klären, dann die Potenziale der neuen Technologie zu erkunden und hieraus
Werkzeuge zu entwickeln, die den Anforderungen solcher Situationen entsprechen. Es reicht jedoch
nicht aus, neue Technologien zu verwenden, indem man traditionelle Konzepte des Gebrauches von
Informationen mit einer Fassade aus neuer Technologie verkleidet (Bracken 1990). Die neue
Technologie regt die Erkundung von neuen Formen der Kommunikation und neuen konzeptionellen
Strukturen an, die infolgedessen zu einem effizienteren Gebrauch von Informationen führt.
227
So wird in dieser Dissertation argumentiert, dass der Aufbau und die Umsetzung von PIS nicht nur
eine technische Aufgabe ist, die allein von Informations-Experten angegangen werden könnte. Die
oben erwähnten Faktoren sollen in Aufbau und Umsetzung dieser Systeme betrachtet werden. Die
Absicht dieser Abhandlung ist es, die Hauptaspekte, welche die räumliche Planung in den komplexen
Situationen beeinflussen, aus planerischer Sicht herauszufinden, um anschließend die Anforderungen
an ein PIS als Instrument für die Informationsverarbeitung im Planungsprozess zu definieren. Im
nächsten Schritt sollen die Möglichkeiten der Anwendung der neuen Informations- und
Kommunikationstechniken erforscht werden, um ein derartiges System zu verwirklichen.
Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, einen Leitfaden für Aufbau und Umsetzung eines PIS in gemeinschaftlichen
Planungsprozessen zur Behandlung von komplexen Planungsaufgaben zu entwickeln. Dieser Rahmen
soll die theoretischen, konzeptionellen, technischen und operativen Aspekte beinhalten. Die
Tauglichkeit des vorgeschlagenen Leitfadens wurde anhand verschiedener Planungsaufgaben in der
Praxis getestet.
Die Arbeit ist in sieben Kapitel gegliedert. In erstem Kapitel wird der Begriff „Information“ aus
unterschiedlichen technischen und intellektuellen Perspektiven dargestellt. Dann wird eine
Arbeitsdefinition des Begriffs „Information“, wie sie in dieser Forschungsarbeit verwendet wird,
vorgestellt. Im Anschluss daran werden die Haupteigenschaften der Informationenverarbeitung durch
den Menschen zusammengestellt.
In Kapitel 2 wird argumentiert, dass die Rolle und der Gebrauch von Informationen in den
verschiedenen Planungstheorien unterschiedlich ist. Folglich sollten die theoretischen Grundlagen von
PIS auf folgenden Aspekten basieren: den Eigenschaften von Menschen in der
Informationsverarbeitung, den Eigenschaften der räumlichen Probleme, den Eigenschaften des
Planungsprozesses und den Eigenschaften der planerischen Informationen. Diese Eigenschaften sind
für die Entwicklung und die Implementierung von PIS entscheidend.
Angesichts der Vielzahl der Informationsarten und Tätigkeiten, die als Informationsprozess in der
räumlichen Planung betrachtet werden, umfasst Kapitel 3 einen Versuch, eine Typologie zu
Planungsinformation aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven aufzustellen. Informations-Domänen,
Informations-Prozesse und Informations-Objekte sind in diesem Zusammenhang von besonderer
Bedeutung für das PIS . Für die Entwicklung eines PIS ist es wesentlich, zu definieren, welche
Domänen für den gegenwärtigen Fall erforderlich sind, welche Prozesse unterstützt werden sollten,
und welche Informations-Objekte enthalten sein sollten.
Kapitel 4 beginnt, indem es den Begriff „System“ erkundet, um die Hauptbestandteile eines Systems
zu definieren. Dann werden, basierend auf den Eigenschaften, die aus Kapitel 2 resultieren und der in
228
Kapitel 3 entwickelten Typologie, die Hauptkriterien, die in PIS betrachtet werden sollten, bezüglich
der Systemstruktur, der Systemorganisation und der Informationsorganisation definiert. Danach
werden die Hauptbestandteile des vorgeschlagenen Systems eingeführt.
Wie oben erwähnt, soll die Suche nach verwendbaren Informationssystemen für gemeinschaftliche
Planungsprozesse in komplizierten Situationen auf den spezifischen Anforderungen der jeweiligen
Situationen basieren. Folglich ist Kapitel 5 eine Untersuchung der technischen Möglichkeiten
innovativer Informations- und Kommunikationsmittel, um zu definieren, welche Techniken,
aufbauend auf den Anforderungen und den konzeptionellen Kriterien aus den früheren Kapiteln,
verwendet werden könnten, um das vorgeschlagene System zu realisieren. Obgleich das Spektrum der
innovativen Technologien nahezu unbegrenzt ist, sollten die verwendeten Techniken in PIS einfach
sein und keine speziellen Voraussetzungen erfordern. Folglich beinhaltet dieses Kapitel eine Gruppe
technischer Kriterien, die betrachtet werden sollten.
Diese Untersuchung basiert auf unterschiedlichen Experimenten in einer Vielzahl von Projekten und
Planungsprozessen mit besonderer Betonung auf zwei Hauptbereichen der räumlichen Planung. Der
erste Bereich ist das Nachhaltigen Flächenmanagement in schnell wachsenden Städten, mit
besonderem Schwerpunkt auf innerer Entwicklung. Der zweite Bereich ist der Zusammenhang
zwischen Infrastrukturentwicklung und räumlicher Entwicklung. Diese Experimente werden in Kapitel
6 eingeführt. Sie umfassen verschiedne Planungsprozesse, einschließlich grenzüberschreitender,
organisations-überschreitender Prozesse und der Zusammenarbeit in Ad-hoc Organisationen. Für
jeden dieser Fälle wurde ein PIS entwickelt und eingeführt, jeder Fall stellt die Anwendung von PIS
auf einer anderen Planungsebene dar. Basierend auf den Resultaten dieser Experimente wird der
vorgeschlagene theoretische, konzeptionelle, technische und operative Leitfaden für Aufbau und
Umsetzung von PIS in Kapitel 7 dargestellt.
229

Planning Information Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Information Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Information Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development and Implementation of Planning Information Systems

in collaborative spatial planning processes

Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 02.07.2003

Hauptreferent: Prof. Dr. sc.techn. Bernd Scholl

Karlsruhe, April 2003

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. iii

1. Information: An exploratory review ........................................................................................... 4

2. Theoretical Bases of PIS ............................................................................................................. 13

3. A Typology of Planning Information......................................................................................... 47

4. Conceptual Bases of PIS ............................................................................................................. 94

5. Technical Bases of PIS .............................................................................................................. 118

6. Application Case Studies of PIS .............................................................................................. 144

7. A Framework for PIS Application .......................................................................................... 210

List of Literature ............................................................................................................................... 219

Kurzfassung ....................................................................................................................................... 227

As our island of knowledge grows,

so does the shore of our ignorance”

Scientist-philosopher and physician

the father of the Black Hole

1.1. Technical senses of “information”

1.2. Intellectual senses of Information

Contrary to the afore-mentioned technical definitions, semantic interpretations of information tend to

1.3. Data, information and knowledge

1.4. A working definition for information

1.5. Some characteristics of human information processing

Human capacity in processing information (7 ± 2)

The human use of information is selective

“To plan” is a conscious activity. Planning is not per se.

Fig. 2-1 Different semantic senses of spatial planning

2.2. Information in different approaches to spatial planning

2.2.1. The classical approach “the blueprint view of planning”

Fig. 2-2 An example of the classical approach to planning (Hall 1992)

From an organizational viewpoint, this process is centrally organized. An individual or a group of

2.2.2. The systematic view of planning

Fig. 2-3 The planning process in the rational planning approach

Fig. 2-4 The planning process in the systems planning approach

2.2.4. Planning as a problem-solving process in a network of actors

The viewpoint of “planning as a process of problem solving in a network of actors” represents a

2.3.1. Interconnectivities in the spatial context

Fig. 2-5 Interconnectivity among planning levels (explanation in text)

b. Interdisciplinary / inter-actor / inter-sectoral

Demonstration: An example of this inter-sectoral interconnectivity could be clearly demonstrated in

Fig. 2-6 Inter-regional dimension of interconnectivity in planning (explanation in text)

Fig. 2-7 Dimensions of interconnectivity on the regional level

Because of interconnectivity in complex planning situations, it is also, to a large extent, not

2.3.3. The time dimension in spatial planning

Fig. 2-9 Time as a dimension in observation

2.4. Characteristics of spatial planning processes

Fig. 2-10 Typology of tasks (Scholl 1995)

2.4.2. Objectives and goals in spatial planning

2.4.3. Planning and the plan-making

2.5. Characteristics of planning information

2.5.1. A definition of planning information

Information about the world is partial and uncertain,

2.5.3. The planners’ use of planning information

a. Facing the imperfection of information in spatial planning, it is not reasonable or possible, in

2.5.5. Language in planning information