Articles Currently Under Peer Review by the URISA Journal
URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
(Version 12-13-99)
Zorica Nedovic
SCOPE AND DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION CHALLENGE
Planning is a future-oriented activity that links "scientific and technical knowledge to actions in the public domain" (Friedmann 1987, page 38). It happens through a public discourse between all groups and individuals interested in and/or affected by urban development and management activities pursued by the public or private sector. Urban and regional planning agencies are rich and dynamic arenas where many societal problems and solutions are explored and addressed in a direct and tangible way. Urban growth; unemployment and economic revitalization; transportation; environmental degradation and protection; neighborhood decline and redevelopment; historic preservation; provision of open space, parks, and recreational facilities; and conservation of land and natural resources are examples of such problems and solutions. Planning-related decisions are made daily through a complex, often politically charged process involving plurality of interests. Moreover, the implementation of those decisions makes a long-term imprint on the urban structure, functionality, and quality of life in urban environments. While most of urban and regional planning happens at the local level, planning activities are often influenced by national and state policies and legislation.
Planners have always sought tools to enhance their analytical, problem-solving, and decision-making capability (Mandelbaum 1996). From the late 1950s planners started to develop and use computerized models, planning information systems and decision support systems to improve performance (Brail 1987; Klosterman 1990). Adoption of geographic information systems (GIS) is a more recent manifestation of the same effort to incorporate new tools and technologies. Planning departments have been on the forefront of GIS use among local government agencies (French and Wiggins 1990; Juhl 1993; French and Skiles 1996; Warnecke et al. 1998). The planners’ interest in GIS derives from the spatial nature of urban phenomena and from the inter-disciplinary nature of urban planning.
Ultimately, the GIScience as applied in the field of urban and regional planning should contribute to the following goals of urban and regional planning practice:
Planners can apply geographic information technologies in all aspects of the planning process, including: data collection and storage, data analysis and presentation, plan and/or policy making, communication with the public and decision makers, and plan and/or policy implementation and administration. GIS technology is most commonly used for comprehensive planning, zoning, land use inventories, site suitability assessments, and socio-demographic analysis, and generally for mapping purposes (Budic 1993, 1994; Warnecke et al. 1998). Planners use GIS primarily for mapping activities. The value of maps in understanding and communicating planning issues is well recognized and appreciated. The more sophisticated analytical applications, which contribute to other aspects of the planning process, are less developed. Past research confirms that the GI-based tools developed by vendors and/or academics are for various reasons underutilized and unsuitable for planning (Harris 1989; Harris and Batty 1993; Holmberg 1994; Klosterman 1997). In their study of parcel-based GIS for land supply and capacity monitoring, Vernez-Moudon and Hubner (forthcoming) attribute this underutilization of GIS technology to the inadequate capacity and structure of planning institutions, which remain unsuited to the new forms and processes required for effective utilization of planning and decision support systems. This same problem has persisted from the early attempts at computerization of land supply monitoring in the 1980s (Godschalk et al 1985; Bollens and Godschalk 1987). The additional reasons for underutilization of GIS in planning include, but are not limited to the complexity of technology, lack of trained staff, scarce organizational resources, and incompatibility of the mostly generic GI products with the tasks and functions performed by urban and regional planners. The ability to incorporate urban models and to more directly support the decision and policy making processes are two main defficiencies of the current spatial technologies and tools.
- efficient communication between various urban functions
- revitalization of deteriorated areas
- variety of housing options
- employment opportunities and economic development
- democratization of the planning and policy-making process
GI Science would contribute to better urban planning if it addressed the following challenges:
MAJOR GI SCIENCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE
Planning theory is based on two types of rationality that are relevant for understanding the role of geographic information science and technology in urban and regional planning. These are instrumental and communicative rationality. Instrumental (functional) rationality is based on a positivist ideal, which puts information gathering and scientific analysis at the core of planning. It assumes a direct relationship between the information available and quality of decisions based on this information. Communicative (substantive or procedural) rationality focuses on open and inclusive planning process, public participation, dialogue, consensus building, and conflict resolution (Innes 1996; Godschalk et al. 1994). While the two theoretical stances are often viewed as competing (Mannheim 1940; Sager 1990; Yifachel 1999), the role of information is relevant to both of them (and not restricted to instrumental rationality as the more traditional view would hold). Participants in the planning process rely on many types of "information," including both the formal analytic reports and quantitative measures and the understandings and meanings attached to planning issues and activities (Innes 1998). Indeed, geographic information science and technology have started to contribute to the planning practice, and in some areas the developments transcend the "communicate versus calculate" dichotomy.
Following is a review of the main areas of geographic information research that carry the potential of being the most useful for urban and regional planning practice. These areas are:In the positivistic vain, GIS databases are most frequently used for performing planning-related analysis and scientific inquires (Wellar et al. 1994). Webster (1993, 1994) matches the scientific input required to the various stages of the planning process:
The author claims a limited value of GIS technology for predictive analysis, which is crucial for understanding the consequences resulting from future planning actions. While the GI-based tools have proved useful for understanding physical and environmental processes, the socio-economic dynamics are still hard to model and/or simulate. To address this shortcoming, extensions toward enabling statistical analysis within the GIS environment have been attempted (Zhang and Griffith 1997; Luc Anselin, SpaceStat Web Site).
Integration of GI technologies with urban models To enable prediction of urban phenomena and processes, GIS software must allow for modeling procedures to run within its environment. This is, incidentally, one of the most frequently cited deficiencies of GIS (Harris and Batty 1993). Predictive modeling is usually performed outside GIS and loosely coupled to the system via programming procedures. Embedding of urban models within GIS has been attempted in advanced research projects (Batty and Xie 1994), but has not become part of commercial GIS software. Landis’ (1994, 1995) California Urban Futures Model, Landis et al. (1998) California Urban and Biodiversity Analysis, and Klosterman’s (1999) "What if?" are probably the three most comprehensive attempts to date in simulating land use scenarios resulting from given demographic and economic trends, environmental constraints, and urban development policies. The progress in modeling land use change in particular is impressive (Matheny et al. 1999), but yet to gain usability and acceptance in planning agencies at various levels of government. Building of planning support systems Planning support systems (PSS) aid the planning process via integrated developments usually based on multiple technologies and common interface. PSS are expected to facilitate data management, analysis, problem solving, design, decision making, and communication activities. Hopkins (1999), for instance, conceives of PSS to provide "views and tools for sketch planning, model building, scenario building, evaluation, lineage tracking, and plan-based action" (p. 333). He finds, however, that GIS mapping concepts are insufficient for building PSS. Despite the limited value, GIS have become a useful component and an integral part of PSS, which tend to incorporate one or more of the following features: modeling procedures (Harris 1999; Kammeier 1999), expert systems (Edamura and Tsuchida 1999; Shi and Yeh 1999), databases, decision trees, computer aided design or CAD (Alley 1993; Schuur 1994; Ranzinger and Gleixner 1997), hypertext (George 1997), mapping (Singh 1999), user interfaces for public participation (Shiffer 1992), virtual reality, and World Wide Web (Doyle et al. 1998; Heikkila 1998). Planning support systems have evolved along with planning practice as (Klosterman 1997). : a) applied science in 1960s; b) politics in the 1970s; and communication in the 1980s. Corresponding to this evolution is the information science concern with data, information, and knowledge, respectively. Intelligence and collective design are the modus operandi of urban planning. In line of increasingly recognized collective nature of planning analysis, design, communication, and decision-making, the 1990s have witnessed development of collaborative planning systems, planning groupware, and co-operative work systems (Jones 1998). Laurini (1998) defines groupware as a "set of computer- and network-based technologies [that] allows several users, located at different sites and using different work-practices, to work together towards the same goal" (p. 315). Referring to a group planning situation, Shiffer (1992) discusses group cognition, access to media, and access to computerized analysis tools as components of a holistic planning process. He built several prototype systems to integrate and test these concepts in the planning contex. Development of group support systems technology (Coleman and Khanna 1995), including group decision support systems (DeSanctis and Gallupe 1987, Hwang and Lin 1987), as well as theoretical and empirical studies of its use (Jessup and Valacich 1993, Chun and Park 1998), have been carried out in the management and decision sciences for over ten years. More recently, information technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS) (Godschalk et al. 1992, Faber et al. 1994, 1995, 1996), their offspring spatial decision support systems (SDSS) (Armstrong 1993, Densham 1991, Heywood, Oliver, Tomlinson 1995, Jankowski et al. 1997, Nyerges et. al. 1998b, Reitsma 1996), and spatial understanding (and decision) support systems (SUSS/SUDSS) (Couclelis and Monmonier 1995, Jankowski and Stasik 1997) are being suggested as information technology aids to facilitate geographical problem understanding and decision making for groups, including groups embroiled in locational conflict. Clearly, research concerning collaborative decision making for geographically-oriented public policy problems continues to gain momentum (Couclelis and Monmonier 1995, Densham, Armstrong and Kemp 1995, Faber et al. 1994, 1995, 1996, Godschalk et al. 1992, Golay and Nyerges 1995, Jankowski et al. 1997, Nyerges and Jankowski 1997, Nyerges et al. 1998a, Nyerges et al. 1998b, Reitsma 1996, Reitsma et al. 1996, Shiffer 1992). Facilitating discourse and participation in the planning processSimilar to other technologies, GIS is socially constructed via negotiations between various social groups (Harvey and Chrisman 1998). In the case of planning, those groups include professional staff, decision-makers, developers, special interest groups, citizens, and other stakeholders. GIS technology promises to improve public access to information and facilitate public participation in the planning and policy making process. Contrary to the expectation that GIS will enhance democracy and empower disadvantaged groups, Clark (1998) warns about the creation of GIS technocratic elite. In her study of Virginia planning agencies Nedovic-Budic (1998) finds little evidence about improvements in public access to data. Sieber (1998) reports the difficulties experienced by non-profit organizations in obtaining GIS data. Meanwhile, there is an increasing trend toward empowering communities to plan through provision of integrated GIS software and planning databases. HUD’s new Community 2020 CD ROM package, made available to local governments on a national basis, bundles Caliper’s Maptitude with an extensive database of geographic, demographic, and programmatic information. Seattle’s Neighborhood Data Viewer, provided to its neighborhood planning groups, includes ArcView and a comprehensive database of maps on land use, crime, and other planning information. Several authors offer examples of the positive effect of GIS and other technologies on community participation in the planning process (Sawicki and Craig 1996; Craig 1998; Sarjakoski 1998; Schon et al. 1999). New developments which strive to include in GI-based systems the subjective information on citizens’ perceptions, views, and ideas, promise to enhance even further the potential of GI technology and tools to aid public participation in the planning process (Al-Khodmany 1999, Talen 1999).
Evaluation of planning practice and technological impact Evaluation research is pursued in two venues: one is GIS-aided evaluation of the quality of urban communities and of planning practice; the other is evaluation of GIS impact on planning process, practice, and outcomes. With respect to planning practice, Talen (1998) applies GIS to examine the equity in distribution of pubic services to various segments of the community, and to search for areas that have not received adequate planning attention and have not been allocated their fair share of public resources. In an earlier study, Talen (1996) uses GIS to assess achievement of open space goals by comparing the planned and implemented projects. Knaap et al. (1998) have used GIS in their evaluation of the relevance and outcomes of planning. They ask if planning matters, and to answer this question they model the land development process as interaction between local government policies and land market participants to measure the effect of planning as a change in social welfare. Finally, the Urban Institute has initiated a project to explore a feasibility of creating national system of indicators to be sued for evaluating the quality of life at the neighborhood level (Sawicki and Flynn 1996).The other research venue has to do with finding out if the employment of GI technologies and tools have made any difference in planning practice. Planners have always been on the forefront of GIS diffusion, but the benefits to them are not yet well documented. To understand the impact of GIS and apply that information in designing systems that will suit planning practice, Nedovic-Budic (1998, 1999) reviews the evaluation frameworks, methods, and empirical studies. The evaluation dimensions include: system quality, information quality, information use, user satisfaction, individual impact, organizational performance (i.e., efficiency and effectiveness), and societal impact. The author finds that information processing is still perceived as the main GIS benefit, while the enhancement in decision-making and empowerment is yet to be achieved. Montagu (1999) examines the fit between GIS technology and the natural resource planning process in the context of Papua New Guinea’s state government. He finds "little impact on the planned outcomes of environmental management across the country" and argues that the "domination of the prevailing political economy of environmental management in the planning process" is the reason for inadequate utilization of well-designed and custom-developed GIS. Obviously, the experiences and insights into building successful GIS in planning organizations at various levels, different mandates, and diverse settings, will provide useful information for many current and prospective users.
GIS-based research in planning spans all five contribution areas (listed above) and a variety of planning subfields, including urban growth management, land use planning, zoning, housing, community and economic development, transportation planning, environmental issues, provision of community parks and open space, and supply of public utilities and amenities. Examples of those applications are listed in the bibliography.
UCGIS RESEARCH PRIORITIES
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/other/ucgis/CAGIS.html
Advancements in the NSDI and Web tools hold the potential to improve the public access to planning information and the democratic and participatory requirements in the planning process. Understanding the cognitive aspects of GI-based tools will enhance planners’ effectiveness in using these tools to communicate with decision-makers and the public. This understanding will also lead to development of tools that match the cognitive structures of various groups involved in the planning process. Finally, having the society as a reference for evaluating the impact of technology is compatible with public nature of most urban and regional planning activities, which strive for increasing community welfare and quality of life.
Urban and regional planning applications will certainly benefit from the research in the priority areas listed above. These priorities, however, promise to extend on the generic aspects of GI tools, but do not address the specific needs of planning practice. The most critical areas that are focused on urban and regional planning needs include:Development of planning support systems include integration of GI with other technologies (hypertext, groupware, audio/visuals, multimedia, models, simulations, expert systems, etc.). Although the strides have been made in that direction (as evidenced in the most recent issue of Environment and Planning B - 1999, 26/3), many challenges are still ahead. Current developments of customized GI and other tools only partially respond to analytical, design, administrative, communicative, and decision-making support needed. Integration of those modules into a functional planning support system and their customization to various planning institutions is yet to be acheived.
- understanding the impact on planning process and outcomes; and
- visualization of spatial processes and phenomena.
Similarly, most of the collaborative decision-making support systems research is about GIS development rather than about GIS use, without a strong theoretical link between the two. Consequently, broadening and deepening the conceptual underpinnings about GIS-supported collaborative decision making is a major research goal. To advance the GI science and to be useful in urban and regional planning practice, this broadening has to take the perspective of geographic information use. Evaluation of impact of GI technologies and tools is probably the most direct way of providing a link between the science and planning practice. Theoretically founded and systematic evaluation provides knowledge that can inform GI diffusion, and can be applied in strategies for achieving effective implementation of GI technologies and tools.
Once the planning tools are developed, they have to be effectively introduced into planning organizational settings. Technology transfer and incorporation of technology in the planning process is, therefore, a challenge related to building of PSS. This process usually implies a major organizational change and re-structuring to create new organizational forms, processes, procedures, information flows, and responsibilities. The organizational change implies mutual adjustment between the technology and the organization (Nedovic-Budic 1997). While the knowledge base about GIS implementation process has started to consolidate during the past decade (Innes and Simpson 1993; Budic and Godschalk 1994; Campbell and Masser 1995; Huxhold and Levinsohn 1995; Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk 1996; Tulloch et al. 1996; Brown 1997; Azad 1998), the lessons learned are generic and not directly applicable to the planning context. Better understanding of planning organizational contexts and processes is crucial for effective embedding of planning support systems.Understanding the relationship between planning theory and methods and GI technology is crucial for building and implementing tools that are suitable to planning practice. Esnard and MacDougall (1997) maintain that there is a common ground for integrating planning theory and GIS in data creation, analysis, and presentation. They suggest this integration as part of an educational experience. Guhathakurta (1999) also finds that urban modeling and decision support tools can be developed to serve practice and to link to its theoretical underpinnings. The author refers to a new form of rationality, which encompasses both positivist and interpretative epistemiology, promises to provide framework for development of planning technologies and tools.
In addition to the rational theory, social theory and postmodernism form vital cornerstones to planning theory. These theories provide a critique of the use of technology in the planning process and the rejection of a single narrative discourse usually pursued via the information technology (despite the technological capability to handle multiple narratives and views). Both theories relate to economic restructuring and globalization -- topics well-covered in planning and geography, and, certainly assisted by spatial technologies. Without establishing these linkages between planning theory and practice, the technological developments would operate in a vacuum and end up being driven by immediate short-term concerns rather then overarching mission and purpose of planning action.Finally, visualization of existing urban-related processes and phenomena and simulation of outcomes of proposed plans and policies is in the core of planning practice. Further developments in 3D modeling, virtual reality, incorporation of images, easy graphical manipulation of various urban components, movement through space, changing perspectives, link with planning and policy documentation and descriptive statements, annotation tools for dialogue and commentary, will all enhance the communication capacity of urban planners. As in the case of all applicable technologies, to make the visualization tools useful for planning practice, their customization and integration into the planning process will be a necessary aspect of the development.
UCGIS EDUCATION PRIORITIEShttp://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/other/ucgis/ed_priorities/geoinfosystems.html
Closely related to the professional accreditation and certification is the question of ethics. This question is subsumed under the UCGIS research priority GIS and Society, which states that it is important to "lessen the likelihood that geographic information technologies will be misused, or their products misinterpreted, or inappropriate decisions be made based on their products." Practicing ethical behavior and possibly developing and adhering to a professional code of ethics, is, however, in the realm of education and certification.
Esnard (1998) alerts us that the codes of ethics and ethics in general are so critical and need to be a high priority for educators who prepare the next generation of professional planners. The author asks how do we seriously think of constructing guidelines that can serve as simple common language of ethical behavior -- guidelines that are easy to remember and build upon. Should the multi-disciplinary GIS community have a common code for all GIS users and if so, what happens to our own professional codes, in case of planners -- the American Institute of Certified Planners’ (AICP) and the American Planning Association’ (APA) AICP/APA Ethical Principles in Planning. Esnard finds the current provisions addressing data analysis and information to be outdated and sometimes contradictory. She calls for both studying the questionable uses of information technology to understand their ethical and legal implications and impacts, and using the examples of misuse as the source of education. Defining a framework that would help GIS practitioners delineate the behavioral boundaries and make judgements about their responsibilities and actions is of utmost priority. In summary, the following are educational priorities that would respond more closely to the needs of urban and regional planning:POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The policies that would help advance the application of GI technologies and tools in urban and regional planning practice are in the areas of standardization, database development, access to data, tool building and integration, technology transfer, and legal framework. Each of the areas is briefly discussed below.
Support for development and maintenance of local databases One of the most time consuming and difficult task performed by planners is data collection in support of particular project and/or agency function. In addition to collecting primary data, planners draw on numerous secondary data sources, including other agencies and government censuses, to acquire data and integrate them into a useful database. External support in developing local databases, for example on properties, streets, utilities, and detailed neighborhood characteristics, would be of great value to local planners. This support could come in form of technical assistance, staffing, and/or financing options, and would not necessarily have to be managed within planning agencies, as long as the planners’ have access to other databases developed by public funds. StandardizationWhile integrating data from a variety of sources, planners deal with issues of data format and quality on daily basis. Standardization of data, formats, and metadata would help alleviate some of the difficulties in physically integrating the data, and would promote common terminology and contents in describing data. As in the case of database development and maintenance, the focus should be at the local level, where it is most difficult to establish and adhere to common features that would be acceptable to multitude of local dadta providers and users. Awareness about the existing standards and standardization efforts is the first step in preparing the local GIS communities to consider and accept standardization of GI technologies and products.
Access to data Similar to standardization, access has its technical and non-technical aspect. Technically, the tools for accessing data of various formats and proprietary codes are yet to be developed. The non-technical issue has to do with legal right to access government generated data and records, as well as with organizational motivation and willingness to provide open access to their data holdings. The easier it is to import and convert various geographic and attribute data formats, and the more open the database owners are toward free access to their databases, the more firm will be the foundation for building the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Tool building and integration Planning support systems are applied in a unique organizational and social environment and under specific circumstances. Most of the planning support systems would be employed in a local government settings where the nature, intensity, and impact of urban development and re-development are contested on daily bases between various public and private stakeholders and decision makers. While generic research in decision support systems provides relevant frameworks, concepts, and tools to be applied in planning practice, only the research in the planning specific context would secure achievements that are useful to planning practice and would hopefully enhance it. Therefore, funding by the major funding agencies in the US and abroad should be encouraged to explicitly address the needs of local planning. This research is very broad in scope to include tool integration, decision systems, simulation, visualizaiton, and modeling in planning specific settings. Education and technology transfer Education is one way of preparing people for future use of GI technologies and tools. Encouraging such GI-focused educational programs throughout the college experience and later during professional continuing education, is an important step in raising awareness about the existing technological potential and in providing skills for operating and developing GI technologies and tools. To aid the actual diffusion of GI technologies and tools, the inventors of new planning support tools should be required to disseminate their products in the real organizational/user settings. While commercial GI products generally find their way quickly to the market, the developments from academia which are often more sophisticated and potentially more useful, tend to remain buried in research reports and articles and seldom reach the wide range of professional and voluntary groups, which could benefit from those developments. Legal framework In addition to already mentioned issue of data access, there are a number of other legal issues that pervade the use of GI technologies and data in the practice of urban and regional planning. These other issues include: liability, copyright, cost recovery, and public access. While the general framework on all of the issues with regard to government and private sector data and practices has been established, the applicability to digital geographic information is debated. The legal environment in which GI is produced and used is highly uncertain and often discouraging to creative GI-related activities and developments. The current legal structures are subjected to numerous interpretations and new rules and procedures established locally and by state. A well articulated legal framework would help private and public sector organizations and individuals define their roles and responsibilities with respect to spatial data and would help stabilize their practices and relationships. REFERENCES CITEDAlley, John. 1993. Using 3-D CAD Perspective Images as Evidence in Planning Hearings. Plan Canada July: 27-30.Anselin, Luc. SpaceStat - Spatial Statistics Software. http://www.spacestat.com.
Arbeit, David. 1993. Resolving the Data Problem: A Spatial Information Infostructure for Planning Support. Proceedings of Third International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Volume One, pp. 2-26.
Armstrong, Mark P. 1993. Perspectives on the development of group decision support systems for locational problem solving. Geographical Systems 1, no.1: 69-81.
Asproth, Viveca, Anita Hakansson, and Peter Revay. 1995. Dynamic information in GIS systems. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 19, no. 2: 107-16.
Azad, Bijan. 1998. Management of Enterprise-wide GIS Implementation: Lessons from Exploration of Five Case Studies, doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Batty, Michael, and Yichun Xie. 1994. Modelling inside GIS. Part 1: Model structures, exploratory spatial data analysis and aggregation. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 8, no. 3: 291-307.
Bollens, Scott A., and Godschalk David R. 1987. Tracking Land Supply for Growth Management. Journal of the American Planning Association 53, no. 3: 315-27.
Brail, Richard K. 1987. Microcomputers in Urban Planning and Management. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Brown, Mary Maureen. 1997. An empirical assessment of the hurdles to geographic information system success in local governments. State and Local Government Review 28, no. 3: 193-204.
Budic, Zorica D. 1993. GIS Use Among Southeastern Local Governments -- 1990/1991 Mail Survey Results. URISA Journal 5, no. 1: 4-17.
Budic, Zorica D. 1994. Effectiveness of Geographic Information Systems in Local Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 60, no. 2: 244-63.
Budic, Zorica D., and David R. Godschalk. 1994. Implementation and Management Effectiveness in Adoption of GIS Technology in Local Governments. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 18, no. 5: 285-304.
Campbell, Heather, and Ian Masser. 1995. GIS and Organizations. London: Taylor and Francis.
Chun, K. J., and H. K. Park. 1998. Examining the conflicting results of GDSS research. Information & Management. 33:313-325.Clark, M. J. 1998. GIS -- democracy or delusion? Environment and Planning A 30: 303-16.
Clercq, F. le. 1990. Information Supply to Strategic Planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 17: 429-40.
Coleman, D. and Khanna, R. 1995. Groupware: Technologies and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Couclelis, Helen and Monmonier, Mark. 1995. Using SUSS to resolve NIMBY: how spatial understanding support systems can help with the "not in my back yard" syndrome. Geographical Systems. 2, no. 2: 83-101.Craig, William J. 1998. The Internet Aids Community Participation in the Planning Process. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 22, no. 4: 393-404.
Densham, P. J. 1991. Spatial decision support systems. In D. J. Maguire, M. F. Goodchild, D. W. Rhind (eds.), Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 403-412.Densham, P. J., Armstrong, M. P., and K. Kemp. 1995. Report from the Specialist Meeting on Collaborative Spatial Decision Making. Initiative 17, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. U C Santa Barbara, September 17-21, 1995.
DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R. B. 1987. A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science. 33:589-609.
Devogele, Thomas, Christine Parent, and Stefano Spaccapietra. 1998. On spatial database integration. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 12, no. 4: 335-52.
Doyle, Simon, Martin Dodge, and Andy Smith. 1998. The Potential of Web-based Mapping and Virtual Reality Technologies for Modelling Urban Environments. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 22, no. 2: 137-55.
Edamura, T., and T. Tsuchida. 1999. Planning support system for an urban environment improvement project. Environment and Planning B 26: 381-91.
Esnard, Ann-Margaret. 1998. Cities, GIS, and Ethics. Journal of Urban Technology 5, no. 3: 33-45.
Esnard, Ann-Margaret, and E. Bruce MacDougall. 1997. Common Ground for Integrating Planning Theory and GIS Topics. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17, no. 1: 55-62.
Faber, B. G., J. Knutson, R. Watts, W. W. Wallace, J. E. Hautalouma, and L. Wallace. 1994. A Groupware-enabled GIS, GIS '94 Symposium, pp. 551-561.
Faber, B., Wallace, W., and Cuthbertson, J. 1995. Advances in collaborative GIS for land resource negotiation. Proceedings GIS'95, Ninth Annual Symposium on Geographic Information Systems, Vancouver, B. C., March 1995, GIS World, Inc., Vol. 1: 183-189.
Faber, B.G., Wallace, W.W., and Miller, R.M.P. 1996. Collaborative modeling for environmental decision making. Proceedings GIS '96 Symposium, Vancouver, British Columbia, March. CD-ROM, no pages on proceedings published as compact disk.
French, Steven P., and Amy E. Skiles. 1996. Organizational Structures for GIS Implementation. URISA Proceedings, Mark J. Salling (Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.
French, Steven P., and Lyna L. Wiggins. 1990. California Planning Agency Experiences with Automated Mapping and Geographic Information Systems. Environment and Planning B 17, no. 4: 441-50.
Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Friedmann, John, and Carol Kuester. 1994. Planning Education for the Late Twentieth Century: An Initial Inquiry. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14, no. 1: 55-54.
George, Varkki R. 1997. HyperSpace: Communicating Ideas About the Quality of Urban Spaces. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17: 63-70.
Godschalk, David R., Scott A Bollens, John S. Hekman, and Mike E. Miles. 1985. Land Supply Monitoring - A Guide for Improving Public and Private Urban Development Decisions. Boston: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain in association with Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Godschalk, D. R., G. McMahon, A. Kaplan, and W. Qin. 1992. Using GIS for Computer-Assisted Dispute Resolution. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 58, no 8: 1209-1212.
Godschalk, David R., and Gerard McMahon. 1992. Staffing the Revolution: GIS Education for Planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research 11, no. 3: 216-26.
Godschalk, David R. et al. 1994. Pulling Together: A Planning and Development Consensus-Building Manual. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Golay, F.. and Nyerges, T. 1995. Understanding Collaborative Use of GIS Through Social Cognition. In T. Nyerges, D. M. Mark, R. Laurini, and M. Egenhofer (eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction for Geographic Information Systems, Proceedings of the NATO ARW, Mallorca, Spain, March 21-25, 1994. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 287-294.
Guhathakurta, Subhrajit. 1999. Urban Modeling and Contemporary Planning Theory: Is There a Common Ground? Journal of Planning Education and Research 18(4): 281-292.
Harris, Britton. 1989. Beyond Geographic Information Systems: Computers and the Planning Professional. Journal of the American Planning Association 55, no. 1.
Harris, Britton, and Michael Batty. 1993. Locational Models, Geographic Information and Planning Support Systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research 12, no. 3: 184-98.
Harvey, Francis, and Nicholas Chrisman. 1998. Boundary objects and the social construction of GIS technology. Environment and Planning A 30: 1683-94.
Heikkila, Eric. 1998. GIS is Dead; Long Live GIS! Journal of the American Planning Association 64, no. 3: 350-360.
Heywood, D. I., Oliver, J., and Tomlinson, S. 1995. Building an Exploratory Multicriteria Modeling Environment for Spatial Decision Support. In P. Fisher (ed.) Innovations in GIS 2, 127-36, Taylor & Francis, London.
Holmberg, S. C. 1994. Geoinformatics for urban and regional planning. Environment and Planning B 21, no. 1: 5-19.
Hopkins, Lewis D. 1999. Structure of a planning support system for urban development. Environment and Planning B 26: 333-43.
Huxhold, William E., and Allan G. Levinsohn. 1995. Managing Geographic Information System Projects. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hwang, C-L., M-J. Lin. 1987. Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Innes, Judith E. 1998. Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 64, no. 1: 52-63.
Innes, Judith E. 1996. Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal. Journal of American Planning Association 62, no. 4: 460472.
Innes, Judith E., and David M. Simpson. 1993. Implementing GIS for Planning: Lessons from the History of Technological Innovation. Journal of American Planning Association 59, no. 2: 230-236.
Jankowski, P., T. L. Nyerges, A. Smith, T. J. Moore, and E. Horvath. 1997. Spatial Group Choice: a SDSS tool for collaborative spatial decision-making. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 11, no 6:577-602.
Jankowski, P., M. Stasik. 1997. Design consideration for space and time distributed collaborative spatial decision making. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 1, no 1:1-8. URL: _ HYPERLINK http://publish.uwo.ca/~jmalczew/gida.htm
http://publish.uwo.ca/~jmalczew/gida.htmJessup, L. and Valacich, J. (eds.). 1993. Group Support Systems. New Perspectives. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Jones, R. M. 1998. An Analysis of Computer-supported Co-operative Work Systems to Support Decision-making in Regional Planning. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 22, no. 4: 335-50.
Juhl, Ginger M. 1993. Government Agencies Let Their Hair Down about GIS. Geo Info Systems 3, no. 7: 20-26.
Kammeier, H. D. 1999. New tools for spatial analysis and planning as components of an incremental planning-support system. Environment and Planning B 26: 365-80.
Kaufman, Sanda, and Robert Simons. 1995. Quantitative and Research Methods in Planning: Are Schools Teaching What Practitioners Practice? Journal of Planning Education and Research 15, no. 1: 17-33.
Kent, Martin, Allan Jones, and Ruth Weaver, Editors. 1993. Geographical information systems and remote sensing in land use planning. Applied Geography "theme" volume.
Kliskey, Andrew. 1995. The Role and Functionality of GIS as a Planning Tool in Natural-resource Management. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 19, no. 1: 15-22.
Klosterman, Richard E. 1990. Microcomputers in Urban and Regional Planning: Lessons from the Past, Directions for the Future. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 14, no. 3: 177-85.
Klosterman, Richard E. 1997. Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer-Aided Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17, no. 1: 45-54.
Klosterman, Richard E. 1999. The What if? collaborative planning support system. Environment and Planning B 26: 393-408.
Knaap, Gerrit J., Lewis D. Hopkins, and Kieran P. Donaghy. 1998. Do Plans Matter? A Game-Theoretic Model for Examining the Logic and Effects of Land Use Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 18, no. 1: 25-34.
Landis, John D. 1994. The California Urban Futures Model: a New Generation of Metropolitan Simulation Models. Environment and Planning B 21: 399-420.
Landis, John D. 1995. Imagining Land Use Futures - Applying the California Urban Futures Model. Journal of the American Planning Association 61, no. 4: 438-57.
Landis, John D., Juan Pablo Monzon, Michael Reilly, and Chris Cogan. 1998. Development and Pilot Application of the California Urban and Biodiversity Analysis (CURBA) Model. Monograph 98-1.Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
Langendorf, R. 1992. The 1990s: Information Systems and Computer Visualization for Urban Design, Planning, and Management. Environment and Planning B 19, no. 6: 723-38.
Laurini, Robert. 1998. Groupware for Urban Planning: An Introduction. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 22, no. 4: 317-33.
Lo, C. P., and Robert L. Shipman. 1990. A GIS Approach to Land-Use Change Dynamics Detection. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 56, no. 11: 1483-91.
Logsdon, Miles G., Earl J. Bell, and Frank V. Westerlund. 1996. Probability Mapping of Land Use Change: A GIS Interface for Visualizing Transition Probabilities. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 20, no. 6: 389-98.
Mandelbaum, Seymour J. 1996. Making and Braking Planning Tools. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 20, no. 2: 71-84.
Mannheim, Karl. 1940. Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Matheny, rom, Laura Jackson, Tom Gunther, Fred Ducca, Robert Johnston, and Ricahrd Klosterman. 1999. Land-Use Change Model Inventory and Evaluation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Annual Conference Proceedings.
Mesev, Victor. 1997. Remote Sensing of Urban Systems: Hierarchical Integration with GIS. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 21, no. 3/4: 175-87.
Montagu, A. Simon. 1998. GIS and Natural Resource Planning in Papua New Guinea: A Contextual Analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
Nedovic-Budic, Zorica. 1998. The Impact of GIS Technology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25, no. 5: 681-92.
Nedovic-Budic, Zorica. 1999. Evaluating the Effects of GIS Technology: Review of Methods. Journal of Planning Literature 13, no. 3: 284-95.
Nedovic-Budic, Zorica, and David R. Godschalk. 1996. Human Factors in Adoption of Geographic Information Systems: A Local Government Case Study. Public Administration Review 56, no. 6: 554-67.
Nedovic-Budic, Zorica, and Jeffrey K. Pinto. Forthcoming. Understanding Interorganizational GIS: A Conceptual Framework. URISA Journal.
Nyerges, T, and Jankowski, P. 1997. Enhanced Adaptive Structuration Theory: A Theory of GIS-supported Collaborative Decision Making. Geographical Systems 4, no. 3:225-259.Nyerges, T,. Moore, T J, Montejano, R., Compton, M. 1998a. Interaction Coding Systems for Studying the Use of Groupware, Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 13, no. 2:127-165.
Nyerges, T., Montejano. R., Oshiro, C. and Dadswell, M. 1998b. Group-based Geographic Information Systems for Transportation Site Selection. Transportation Research C: Emerging Technologies 5, no. 6:349-369.
Ranzinger, Monika, and Gunther Gleixner. 1997. GIS datasets for 3D urban planning. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 21, no. 2: 159-.
Reitsma, R. 1996. Structure and support of water-resources management and decision making. Journal of Hydrology 177: 253-268.Reitsma, R., Zigurs, I., Lewis, C., Wilson, V., and Sloane, A. 1996. Experiment with Simulation Models in Water-Resources Negotiation. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 122, no. 1:64-70.
Sager, Tore. 1990. Communicate or Calculate. Stockholm: NORDPLAN.
Sarjakoski, T. 1998. Networked GIS for Public Participation -- Emphasis on Utilizing Image Data. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 22, no. 4: 381-92.
Sawicki, David S., and William J. Craig. 1996. The Democratization of Data - Bridging the Gap for Community Groups. Journal of the American Planning Association 62, no. 4: 512-23.
Sawicki, David S., and Patrice Flynn. 1996. Neighborhood Indicators: a review of the literature and an assessment of conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(2).
Schon, Donald A., Sanyal, Bish, and Mitchell, William J. (Eds.). 1999. High Technology and Low-Income Communities: Prospects for the Positive Use of Advanced Information Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Schuur, J. 1994. Analysis and Design in Computer-aided Physical Planning. Environment and Planning B 21, no. 1: 97-108.
Schweik, Charles M., and Glen M. Green. 1999. The Use of Spectral Mixture Analysis to Study Human Incentives, Actions, and Environmental Outcomes. Social Science Computer Review 17(1): 40-63.
Shi, X., and A. G. O. Yeh. 1999. The integration of case-based systems and GIS in development control. Environment and Planning B 26: 345-64.
Shiffer, Michael J. 1992. Towards a Collaborative Planning System. Environment and Planning B 19, no. 6: 709-22.
Sieber Renee E. 1997. "Computers in the Grassroots: Environmentalists, Geographic Information Systems, and Public Policy." Rutgers University.
Singh, R. R. 1999. Sketching the city: a GIS-based approach. Environment and Planning B , no. 26: 455-68.
Sui, Daniel Z. 1992. A Fuzzy GIS Modeling Approach for Urban Land Evaluation. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 16: 101-15.
Sutton, Paul. 1997. Modeling Population Density with Night-time Satellite Imagery and GIS. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 21, no. 3/4: 227-44.
Talen, Emily. 1996. After the Plans: Methods to Evaluate the Implementation Success for Plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16: 79-91.
Talen, Emily. 1998. Visualizing Fairness -- Equity Maps for Planners. Journal of the American Planning Association 64, no. 1: 22-.
Talen, Emily. 1999. Constructing neighborhoods from the bottom up: the case for resident-generated GIS. Environment and Planning B 26(4): 533- 554.
Tellez, Bruno, and Sylvie Servigne. 1997. Updating Urban Database with Aerial Photographs: A Common Structuring Methodology. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 21, no. 2: 133-45.Tulloch, David L., Bernard J. Jr. Niemann, and Earl F. Epstein. 1996. A Model of Multipurpose Land Information System Development in Communities: Forces, Factors, Stages, Indicators, and Benefits. GIS/LIS Proceedings, 325-48Bethesda, MA; Washington D.C.; Aurora, CO: ASPRS/ACSM, AAG, URISA, AM/FM International.
Urban Institute, Center for Public Finance and Housing. 1996. Democratizing Information: first year report of the national neighborhood indicators project. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Vernez-Moudon, Anne, and Michael Hubner (Eds.). Forthcoming. Parcel-based GIS for Land Supply and Capacity Monitoring. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Warnecke, Lisa, Jeff Beattie, Kollin Cheryl, Winifred Lyday, and Steven French. 1998. Geographic Information Technology in Cities and Counties: A Nationwide Assessment. Washington, D.C.: American Forests.
Webster, Christopher J. 1994. GIS and the Scientific Inputs to Planning. Part 2: Prediction and Prescription. Environment and Planning B 21, no. 2: 145-57.ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHYWebster, Christopher J. 1993. GIS and the Scientific Inputs to Urban Planning. Part 1: Description. Environment and Planning B 20, no. 6: 709-28.
Wellar, Barry, Cameron Nairne, and Sawada Michael. 1994. Progress in building linkages between GIS and methods and techniques of scientific inquiry. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 18, no. 2: 67-80.
Yiftachel, Oren. 1999. Planning Theory at a Crossroad: The Third Oxford Conference. Journal of Planning Education and Research 18: 267-70.
Zhang, Zhiqiang, and Daniel A. Griffith. 1997. Developing User-friendly Spatial Statistical Analysis Modules for GIS: An Example Using ArcView. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 21, no. 1: 5-29.
GENERALHuxhold, William E. 1991. Introduction to Urban Geographic Information Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, Y. C. 1990. Geographic Information Systems for Urban Applications: Problems and Solutions. Environment and Planning B 17: 463-73.
Levine, Jonathan, and John D. Landis. 1989. Geographic Information Systems for Local Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 55, no. 2: 209-20.
Pickles, John. 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press.
Scholten, Henk J., and Stillwell, John C.H. (Eds.) 1990. Geographical Information Systems for Urban and Regional Planning. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Worrall, Les. 1990. Information Systems for Urban and Regional Planning in the United Kingdom: a Review. Environment and Planning B 17: 451-62.Yeh, Anthony Gar-On. 1998. Urban planning and GIS. Geographical Information Systems - Management Issues and Applications. Second ed., Editors Paul A. Longley, Michael F. Goodchild, David J. Maguire, and David W. Rhind, 877-88. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
PHYSICAL PLANNINGDiamond, J. T., and J. R. Wright. 1988. Design of an Integrated Spatial Information System for Multiobjective Land-use Planning. Environment and Planning B 15, no. 2: 205-14.
Dueker Kenneth J., and P. Barton DeLacy. 1990. GIS in the Land Development Planning Process. Journal of the American Planning Association 56, no. 4: 483-91.
Hall, A. C. 1993. The use of computer visualisation in planning control. Town Planning Review 64, no. 2: 193-211.
Holden, Robert, and Tom Turner. 1997. Western Europe, current city expansion and the use of GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 36: 315-26.
Yeh, Anthony Gar-On. 1990. A Land Information System for the Programming and Monitoring of New Town Development. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 17, no. 3: 375-84.
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTChang, Ni-Bin, Y. L. Wei, C. C. Tseng, and C.-Y. J. Kao. 1997. The design of a GIS-based decision support system for chemical emergency preparedness and response in an urban environment. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 21, no. 1: 67-94.
Chow, Julian, and Claudia Coulton. 1994. Cleveland Area Network for Data and Organizing (Can Do). Project summary. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, Center for Urban Poverty and Social Change.
Clapp, John, M., Mauricio Rodriguez, and Grant Thrall. 1997. Review Essay: How GIS can put urban economic analysis on the map. Journal of Housing Economics 6.
Coulton, Claudia J. 1995. Using Community-level Indicators of Children's Well-being in Comprehensive Community INitiatives. In Connell, James P., Anne C. Kubisch, Lisbeth B. Schorr, and Carol H. Weiss (eds), New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Drummond, William J. 1995. Address Matching -- GIS Technology for Mapping Human Activity Patterns. Journal of the American Planning Association 61, no. 2: 240-251.
Galster, George C. and Maris Mikelsons. 1995. The Geography of Metropolitan Opportunity: a case study of neigbrohood conditions confronting youth in Washington, DC. Housing Policy Debate: 6:1.
Higgs, Gary, and David Martin. 1997. The use of GIS with address-based information in planning. Town Planning Review 68, no. 4: 465-.
Howland, Marie, and Francis E. Lindsay. 1997. Where Do Tenants Come From? Using a Geographic Information System to Study the Demand for New Office Space. Journal of the American Planning Association 63, no. 3: 356-64.Kaufman, Jean B. and Naomi Carmon. 1992. Encouraging Residential Revitalization: a method for the selection of target neighborhoods. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 9(1).
Lin, H., Q. Wan, X. Li, J. Chen, and Y. Kong. 1997. GIS-based multicriteria evaluation for investment environment. Environment and Planning B 24: 403-14.
Shen, Qing. 1998. A Spatial Analysis of Job Openings and Access in a US Metropolitan Area. Presentation Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Annual Meeting.
Taupier, Richard, and Cleve Willis. 1994. Geographic Information Systems and Applied Economics: An Initial Discussion of Potential Applications and Contributions. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, no. October: 140-149.
Wong, David. 1996. Enhancing Segregation Studies Using GIS. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 20, no. 2: 99-109.
HOUSINGCan, Ayse, ed. 1998. Special GIS Issue. Journal of Housing Research. Vol. 9.
Chen, Lijian. 1994. Modeling Housing and Demographic Diversity at Census Tract Versus Block Group Levels of Aggregation. URISA Journal 6, no. 1: 11-20.
Yaakup, A. B., R. G. Healey, and C. G. Hughes. 1990. The application of geographic information systems for urban land-use planning and monitoring: a case study of low-cost housing development in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Environment and Planning B 17: 385-93.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNINGBishop, I. D., and C. Karadaglis. 1997. Linking modelling and visualisation for natural resources management. Environment and Planning B 24: 345-58.
Coroza, Oliver, David Evans, and Ian Bishop. 1997. Enhancing runoff modeling with GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 38, no. 1: 13-23.
Davis, Frank W., David M. Stoms, John E. Estes, Joseph Scepan, and Michael Scott. An information system approach to the preservation of biological diversity. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems.
Hickey, R., and P. Jankowski. 1997. GIS and environmental decisionmaking to aid smelter reclamation planning. Environment and Planning A 29, no. 1: 5-19.
Johnston, Carol A., Naomi E. Detenbeck, John P. Bonde, and Gerald J. Niemi. 1988. Geographic Information Systems for Cumulative Impact Assessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54, no. 11: 1609-15.
Karimi, Hassan A., and Benjamin H. Houston. 1996. Evaluating Strategies for Integrating Environmental Models with GIS: Current Trends and Future Needs. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 20, no. 6: 413-25.
Kuhlman, Kristine, David Hart, Ventura Stephen, and Prey Jeffrey. 1994. GIS and Nonpoint Pollution Modeling: Lessons Learned from Three Projects. URISA Journal 6, no. 2: 69-72.
Radford, Greg. 1993. Watershed Planning Using a GIS tome Make Sustainable Decisions. Plan Canada, July: 17-19.
Reinelt, Lorin E., Joan Velikanje, and Earl J. Bell. 1991. Development and Application of a Geographic Information System for Wetland/Watershed Analysis. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 15: 239-51.
Ventura, Stephen J., Lucy A. Buchan, Bernard J. Jr. Niemann, and Peter G. Thum. 1993. Evaluating Alternative Agricultural Land Management Policies for a Water Quality Perspective. URISA Journal 5, no. 2: 44-54.
COMMUNITY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLANNINGBrown, Cynthia R., and Floyd O. Stayner. 1995. Toward No Net Loss: A Methodology for Identifying Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a GIS. URISA Journal 7, no. 1: 38-.
Grabaum, R., and B. C. Meyer. 1998. Multicriteria optimization of landscapes using GIS-based functional assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 43, no. 1-3: 21-34.
Nedovic-Budic, Zorica, Gerrit Knaap, and Brant Scheidecker. Forthcoming. Advancing the Use of Geographic Information Systems for Park and Recreation Management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration .
Welch, R., M. Remillard, and R. F. Doren. 1995. GIS Database Development for South Florida's National Parks and Preserves. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 61, no. 11: 1371-81.
Yeh, Anthony Gar-On, and Man Hong Chow. 1996. An Integrated GIS and Location-Allocation Approach to Public Facilities Planning -- An Example of Open Space Planning. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 20, no. 4/5: 339-50.
TRANSOPORTATION PLANNING
Azar, Kamal T., and Joseph Ferreira, Jr. 1994. Using GIS Tools to Improve Transit Ridership on Routes Serving Large Employment Centers: The Boston South End Medical Area Case Study. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 18, no. 3: 205-31.
Choi, Keechoo, and Tschangho John Kim. 1996. A Hybrid Travel Demand Model with GIS and Expert Systems. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 204/5, no. 247-259.
Kim, Karl, and Ned Levine. 1996. Using GIS to Improve Highway Safety. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 20, no 4/5: 289-302.
Peng, Zhong-Ren. 1997. A Methodology for Design of a GIS-based Automatic Transit Traveler Information System. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 21, no. 5: 359-72.
Peng, Zhong-Ren, and Kenneth J. Dueker. 1995. Spatial Data Integration in Route-Level Transit Demand Modeling. URISA Journal 7, no. 1: 26-.
Peng, Zhong-Ren, Jonathan N. Groff, and Kenneth J. Dueker. 1998. An Enterprise GIS Database Design for Agency-Wide Transit Applications. URISA Journal 10, no. 2: 46-55.
Special GIS-T Issue. 1998. URISA Journal 10, no. 1.
Thong, C. M., and W. G. Wong. 1997. Using IS to Design a Traffic Information Database for Urban Transport Planning. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 21, no. 6: 425-43.
You, Jinsoo, Zorica Nedovic-Budic, and T. John Kim. 1997. Part I: A GIS-based Traffic Analysis Zone Design: Technique; Part II: A GIS-based Traffic Analysis Zone Design: Implementation and Evaluation. Transportation Planning and Technology 21: 45-68; 69-91.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Aldosary, Adel S., and Syed Aijaz Zaheer. 1996. An Application Mechanism for a GIS-based Maintenance System: The Case of KFUPM. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 20, no. 6: 399-412.
Garson, G. David. 1999. Analyzing Hazardous Waste Facility Location by Racial Composition of Census Tract With LandView III: A Brief Tutorial. Social Science Computer Review 17(1): 64-68.
Jong, Tom de, and Jan Ritsema van Eck. 1996. Location Profile-based Measures as an Improvement on Accessibility Modelling in GIS. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 20, no. 3: 181-90.
Kim, Hyong-Bok, and Lewis D. Hopkins. 1996. Capacity Expansion Modeling of Water Supply in a Planning Support System for Urban Growth Management. URISA Journal 8, no. 1: 58-66.
Mainguenaud, Michel. 1996. Constraint-based Queries in a Geographical Database for Network Facilities. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 20, no. 2: 139-51.
White, Sean, and Gary Higgs. 1998. A GIS-based methodology for analysing accessibility levels to public and private services in the UK. Presentation Association of the Collegiate Schools of Planning Annual Meeting.
Copyright © 2000, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association
Comments/Questions: info@urisa.org