Information Support for Strategic Spatial Planning

Ningrui DU Dept. of Urban Planning

School of Urban Design, Wuhan University Wuhan, China

nrdusun@163.com

Abstract — Urban spatial development is driven by economic, social political, environmental forces. In the meantime, strategic spatial planning becomes more holistic in scope, more strategic and scenario-oriented in content and more interactive and collaborative in nature. In this article, the features and evolving view of strategic spatial planning is described and the application of information support system is identified. Based on the complex system idea, the future-oriented planning approaches are presented. Chinese strategic spatial planning is discussed and it is presented that the application of PSS in plan-making is just at the initiate stage.

Key words - strategic spatial planning;planning support systems (PSS); future-oriented planning approach; complex systems

I. INTRODUCTION As indicated by Hall and Pfeiffer (2000 p3-8), the new

millennium marks two great urban milestones: one is that the world is entering into the urban century; another is that cities worldwide are increasingly networked in complex systems of global interaction and global interdependence. The impact of this most dominant socio-spatial process has raised awareness for problems like keeping persistent economic growth, social equity and the need for healthy ecologic environments that accompany rapid urbanization. It requires new ways of understanding the dynamics of urban and regional changes so as to make a good spatial organization for the future development.

In order to respond to the changing conditions and guide urban development in a sustainable way, ‘all cities should have an effective planning system based on national laws, capable not only of making plans on paper, but of controlling and guiding development on the ground’ (Hall and Pfeiffer, 2000 p333). The political decision making regarding spatial problems related to urban development is complex, highly interrelated and subject to uncertainty and external disturbance. These circumstances require planners and politicians to respond to the need for improving the capacity for urban growth and change management. The planning practice should become more holistic in scope, more strategic and scenario-oriented in content and more interactive and collaborative in nature (Geertman and Stillwell, 2003a). Therefore, the input, throughput and output of information to support planning and design are not only physical in character. Relevant information systems which support the activities of planning are thus essential tools allowing knowledge creation to meet the above needs.

In this paper, I firstly describe the features and evolving view of strategic spatial planning and its information support system for dynamic urban regions, then tackle the future-oriented planning approaches as part of a Planning Support System (PSS). Finally, Chinese strategic spatial planning is discussed.

II. EVOLVING VIEW OF PLANNING PHILOSOPHY AND INFORMATION SUPPORT FOR STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING

A. Strategic Spatial Planning: Connotation and the Evolving View Strategic planning was originally developed in military

circle and successfully applied by Royal Dutch/Shell in the 1970s. Strategic approaches are of utmost importance when thinking about the future and when handling fast-changing situations. The roots of strategic planning were tied to the need for rapidly changing and growing corporations to plan effectively for and manage their futures when the future itself seemed to be increasingly uncertain (Albrechts, 2004).

The vision of a better urban future has basically formed the target of spatial planning since the Garden City idea of Ebenezer Howard (Howard, 1902, re-edited in 1965). Spatial planning was about the design of land use and built form. So planning theories were ‘often similarly preoccupied with visionary plans or designs that showed how the ideal town or city should be spatially organized’ (Taylor, 1998 p16-17). Since this style of planning theory and practice were criticized in the late 1950s and 1960s, the blueprint planning view shifted to a wider scope of spatial planning. It was realized that plan cannot be a static document because the city is always confronted with changing social, economic and environmental circumstances.

‘Systems’ view and ‘rational process’ view of planning emerged during the mid to late 1960s. It initiated the first revolution which shifted from a design-based view of planning to the systems view of planning (Taylor, 1998 p 59-74). The British Town and Country Planning Act 1968 placed an obligation on local planning authorities to introduce a ‘two-tier’ system of development plans: broader-level and strategic or ‘structure’ plans and more detailed district or ‘local’ plans. The former one is strategic and long term and the later is local and more immediate. Taylor (1998 p160) explicitly pointed out that the systems and rational process thinking is most appropriate at the strategic scale. It is obvious that strategic

1344978-1-61284-459-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

spatial planning could help a city to envision its future and manage an urban transformation process to realize its vision in an effective and efficient manner.

Albrechts (2004; 2006) put forward the normative viewpoint of strategic spatial planning as ‘a transformative and integrative, public-sector-led socio-spatial process through which a vision, coherent actions, and means for implementation are produced that shape and frame what a place is and what is might become’. It has to determine strengths and weaknesses in the context of opportunities and threats so as to specify the sequent actions to realize the better futures. He summarized the view of strategic spatial planning as a set of concepts, procedures and tools that must be tailored carefully to whatever situation is at hand. It implicates a lot of uncertainties and competing values during the plan-making process. Albrechts (2006) further presented the five main characteristics (selective, relational annex inclusive, integrative, visioning, and action orientated) as the hard core of strategic planning. From his research, we could understand that strategic spatial planning should not only focus on the long term vision but also the short term action. It is an open, democratic, participative and dynamic process that can offer a better environment for plan-making and plan implementation.

The strategic planning system is not just to put forward a desired future outcomes. It also seeks to arouse the public to realize the challenges and problems which the city is facing, and to find a coherent ways to solve them. Therefore the new situation of urban development requires the shift from the rigid system where all planning issues had to be addressed as part of a single development plan, to a new system in which plans are continuously updated and are evaluated so as to adapt to the changing situation i.e. plans should be mutually adjustable. Planning must consider not only the impact of the trajectory of former urban development, but also the impact of the plan implementation of the sequent actions. The knowledge and information support for the strategic planning must include the past and present situation which is used for the analysis for trajectory and driving forces; on the other hand the creative and visioning knowledge, which is value-laden, is essentially important as well.

B. Information support for strategic spatial planning

It is the ‘system’ and ‘rational process’ view of planning that first introduced computer and information technologies into planning in the 1950s and 1960s. Klosterman (2001, pp6-15) summarized explicitly the evolving view on both sphere of planning and information systems technology. The dominant perception of planning has shifted since 1960s from ‘planning as applied science’ (1960s), to ‘planning as politics’ (1970s), to ‘planning as communication’ (1980s) and finally to ‘planning as reasoning together’ (1990s) (Klosterman, 2001, p7). These shifts reflect different roles which information technology played for planning process based on the context of urban development at different stages. In the meantime, since 1960s information technology has developed its roles in various organizations from ‘operational data’ (1960s), to ‘information management’ (1970s), to ‘executive-level knowledge’ (1980s)

and to ‘intelligence’ (1990s) (Klosterman, 2001, p11), which has orientated more and more towards decision-making support and participatory planning support. The parallel development of both streamlines (planning and information technology) offers the fundamental basis to apply information technology to dealing with ill- or semi-structured problems during managing and organizing the future space in urban region.

Geertman and Stillwell (2003b, p5) advanced that ‘Planning Support Systems (PSS) involve a wide diversity of geo-technology tools (geographical information and spatial modeling systems) that have been developed to support public or private planning processes (or parts thereof) at any defined spatial scale and within any specific planning context’. Therefore they pointed out that PSS, GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and SDSS (Spatial Decision Support Systems) are not mutually exclusive but have certain distinguishing characteristics (Geertman and Stillwell, 2003b, p6). PSS should be designed based on the planning context and planning problems.

As our view of urban development and cities now recognizes more complexity and becomes more uncertain, the undertaking of strategic spatial planning for any urban region is a considerable challenge. It needs the development of new instruments and approaches that can take advantage of the advancements of computer and information technologies but do so in a manner which reflects current thinking about the importance of accountability and transparency in decision making i.e. about the need for good governance. PSS therefore provides a broadening sphere that advanced information technology can play an important role in strategic spatial planning.

III. CITIES AS COMPLEX SYSTEMS AND FUTURE-ORIENTED PLANNING APPROACHES

Because of the inherent complexity, cities can be viewed as complex systems. Batty and Torrens (2005) pointed out that ‘a complex system is an entity, coherent in some recognizable way but whose elements, interactions, and dynamics generate structures and admit surprise and novelty that cannot be defined a priori’. Some scholars (Kay et al., 1999; Moobela, 2006) proposed criterion for identifying complex systems as: non-linearity, hierarchical, internal causality, window of vitality (edge of chaos), dynamically stable, multiple stead states, catastrophic behavior and chaotic behavior. So such system cannot be simplified in the conventional way by reduction or aggregation, for in doing so, the richness of their structure would be lost (Batty and Torrens, 2005). For this system, understanding everything about the parts cannot be enough to know the whole because the whole entity is more meaningful and large than the sum of the parts.

Urban spatial development is always driven by economic, social, environmental and political forces which can work in parallel or opposite directions and are highly sensitive to variations in regional and local contexts. Urban development is always facing the change and uncertainty caused by the different needs (internal and external) which are difficult to predict. Therefore urban systems can be understood as complex systems. As a complex system, city possesses the

1345

characteristics, such as uncertainty, diversity, multi-level, dynamic, and stochastic.

Couclelis (2005) identifies three future-oriented planning approaches for strategic spatial planning that are explained here. There are scenario writing, visioning and storytelling. As the rational techniques, they could be considered useful to structure the political debate during plan-making and final decision making.

A. Scenario writing As indicated above, it is important to develop a very

flexible idea of strategy in the context of implementation process. Strategy must embrace ‘what if?’ questions. Based on this perspective, strategic planning is a learning process rather than a fixed plan.

Scenarios are distinctly structured views of the future that are self-consistent and plausible. Scenario planning is an ideal way of trying to anticipate the possible futures and is treated as a strategic tool to get more detailed understanding of the future. According to Geertman (2003a p27), ‘Spatial scenarios offer various views of the future, based on different assumptions or underlying trends and on what might be the best or, at least, the satisfactory spatial outcome(s)’. The aim of spatial scenario planning is not to try to predict the future but to come to a greater awareness of the possibilities.

Constructing several different views of the future is not easy. We need a process that helps participants to escape their dominant mindset. Scenario writing helps us ‘explore the possible future discontinuities and surprises in the broader environment – the external events and circumstances that could change drastically the socioeconomic, natural, or other critical conditions that govern the evolution of the system being planned’ (Couclelis, 2005, p1362). Scenario writing could be used as a means to challenge decision-makers to broaden their thinking about what the future might be.

Hodgson (2003) put forward several aspects to develop scenarios for the future. There are: (1) Gathering a wide variety of perspectives; (2) Writing stories of the future from combination of these perspectives, imagination and logic; (3) Understanding of the driving forces that are likely to be shaping the future; (4) Paying attention to the turning points which are like the switches that route us to one future rather than another; (5) Defining deep structures of forces that determine varieties of behavior..

B. Visioning Visioning became widely used in the planning process

during the 1980s and 1990s. Shipley (2000; 2002; 1999) made a detailed study to clarify the concepts, distinguish the meaning of vision, visionary and visioning, and articulate the theory-like statements about visioning as a new and innovative technique. Visioning is the process of arriving at or developing a vision within which the public are involved in the decision-making. The purpose of visioning is to engage the public in normative debates about what should or ought to be in the community, and to expand people’s imagination as to what a desirable future might look like (Couclelis, 2005).

Shipley and Newkirk (1999) also suggest a number of functions of the visioning process: to identify the priority issues or an agenda for future cooperation; to generate solutions, alternative options and pathways; to generate commitment and build consensus around a common purpose; and to enable participation or manipulate opinion through debating long-term goals. Unlike scenarios strengthening the future orientation of planning, visioning speaks primarily to its normative function (Couclelis, 2005). The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) offers a very good example of a transnational vision that has been based on an exchange of positions and understandings to reach some agreement about what is rather than what will be. This process has made to develop a shared understanding and common language about the nature of spatial development and the possibilities of cooperation (Nadin, 2002 128). Visualization is an important function used in visioning and it can include both spatial and non-spatial visualization techniques.

C. Storytelling Narratives and stories have long been considered important

in securing and endorsing the premises needed to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and complexity (Guhathakurta, 2002). Storytelling is a semantic structure that uses elements of systems-dynamic method to construct ‘stories’ of the past and possible futures of the urban region. It offers an approach to understand the evolution of an urban region environment.

Storytelling is based on the argument that rhetoric and science can and do coexist. Because facts and values are so intertwined in planning and policy-oriented disciplines, logical deduction and rational argumentation are essential tools in the rhetoric of planning. More generally, information for planning is not a just a quantity measurable by formula but has qualitative content that depends on how meaningful and useful a story the information receiver is able to construct on its basis. So it is important for spatial planning to build good stories which should be logically consistent, empirically testable, morally acceptable, actionable and aesthetic.

IV. STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING IN CHINA Like many other developing countries, China is facing the

rapid changes in economic, social and political transformation. Simultaneously, the pressure of large scale urban spatial expansion has resulted in a serious deterioration of the quality of the environment. The conflicts between various requirements, such as economic development, social progress, public participation from political aspect and environmental protection advocates, bring much discussion and critique about the current urban planning system. Strategic spatial planning (also called concept planning or urban strategic planning or urban development strategic planning) is a kind of response. After 2000, it is becoming a hot topic (Li and Liu, 2006; Su et al., 2003; Sun and Zhao, 2001; Wu and Chao, 2001; Wu et al., 2003).

Under the present situation in China, the main purpose of making strategic spatial plan in many cities is trying to search a way to compensate the deficits of original master planning.

1346

Facing the external and internal uncertainty of development, local government feels urgent to grasp the development opportunities either from the higher level of government or various sources of investment. It is at the initial stage where much work focuses on the definition of external and internal potential factors for development. The SWOT approach which stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, is widely used during the process of analysis. The strategic spatial planning lacks of rational analysis, especially on the future possibilities and their evaluation. People are not familiar with the wide discussion about the conflicts. The discussion about planning support system is not prevalent nowadays in planning arena. Public participation is only the involvement of experts and decision-makers. The limitation of citizenry communication is apparent.

To sum above, strategic spatial planning needs the open and continuous knowledge support to explore rational, heuristic and visionary future of the urban development. In the Chinese context, strategic spatial planning is still at the stage to pursue the optimum end-state plan and there is a long way to go to accept the idea that strategic spatial planning should be a continuous and interactive political process which needs the integration of new information analysis and generation qualitatively and quantitatively.

[1] Albrechts, L., 2004. Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined.

Environmental and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31: 743-758. [2] Albrechts, L., 2006. Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence

from Europe and Australia. Environmental and Planning A, 38: 1149-1170.

[3] Batty, M. and Torrens, P.M., 2005. Modelling and Prediction in a Complex World. Futures, 37: 745-766.

[4] Brajnik, G. and Lines, M., 1997. Qualitative Modeling and Simulation of Socio-economic Phenomena, pp. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/brajnik97qualitative.html.

[5] Couclelis, H., 2005. "Where has the future gone?" Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A, 37(8): 1353-1371.

[6] Geertman, S. and Stillwell, J., 2003a. Interactive Support Systems for Participatory Planning. In: S. Geertman and J. Stillwell (Editors), Planning Support Systems in Practice. Springer, Berlin Herdelberg.

[7] Geertman, S. and Stillwell, J., 2003b. Planning Support Systems: An Introduction. In: S. Geertman and J. Stillwell (Editors), Planning Support Systems in Practice. Springer, Berlin Herdelberg.

[8] Guhathakurta, S., 2002. Urban modeling as storytelling: using simulation models as a narrative. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 29(6): 895-911.

[9] Hall, P. and Pfeiffer, U., 2000. Urban Future 21: A Global Agenda for Twenty-first Century Cities. E & FN Spon, London.

[10] Harris, B. and Batty, M., 2001. Locational Models, Geographic Information, and Planning Support Systems. In: R.K. Brail and R. E.Klosterman (Editors), Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models and Visualization Tools. ESRI Press, California, USA.

[11] Hodgson, T., 2003. Strategic Thinking with Scenarios. In: MetaBridge (Editor).

[12] Howard, E., 1902, re-edited in 1965. Garden Cities of To-morrow. In: F.J. Osborn and L. Mumford (Editors). Faber and Faber LTD, London.

[13] Kay, J.J., Regier, H.A., Boyle, M. and Francis, G., 1999. An Ecosystem Approach for Sustainability: Addressing the Challenge of Complexity. Futures, 31: 721-742.

[14] Klosterman, R.E., 2001. Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer-aided Planning. In: R.K. Brail and R.E. Klosterman (Editors), Planning Support Systems. ESRI Press, California.

[15] Li, X. and Liu, K., 2006. The Application of Concept Planning in China. Modern City Study(1): 45-48.

[16] Lunze, J., 1998. Qualitative Modelling of Dynamical Systems Motivation, Methods, and Prospective Applications. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 46: 465-483.

[17] Malafant, K.W.J. and Fordham, D.P., 1996. Scenario Development, Decision Support and Visualisation in Spatial Planning and Monitoring, Proceedings of the Role of GIS for the Enhancement of National Spatial Planning, Jakarta, Indonesia.

[18] McIntosh, B.S., 2003. Qualitative Modelling with Imprecise Ecological Knowledge: a Framework for Simulation. Environmental Modelling & Software, 18: 295-307.

[19] Moobela, C., 2006. From Worst Slum to Best Example of Regeneration: Complexity in the Regeneration of Hulme - Manchester. available at: http://www.isce.edu/ISCE_Group_Site/webcontent/ISCE_Events/Cork_2005/Papers/Moobela.pdf.

[20] Nadin, V., 2002. Visions and Visioning in European Spatial Planning. In: A. Faludi (Editor), European Spatial Planning. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[21] Rebolledo, M., 2006. Rough Intervals - Enhancing Intervals for Qualitative Modeling of Technical Systems. Artificial Intelligence, 170: 667-685.

[22] Salles, P. and Bredeweg, B., 2006. Modelling population and community dynamics with qualitative reasoning. Ecological Modelling

[23] Selected Papers from the Third Conference of the International Society for Ecological Informatics (ISEI), August 26--30, 2002, Grottaferrata, Rome, Italy, 195(1-2): 114-128.

[24] Shipley, R., 2000. The Origin and Development of Vision and Visioning in Planning. International Planning Studies, 5(2): 225-236.

[25] Shipley, R., 2002. Visioning in Planning: Is the Practice Based on Sound Theory? ENvironment and Planning A, 34(1): 7-22.

[26] Shipley, R. and Newkirk, R., 1999. Vision and Visioning in Planning: What Do These Terms Really Mean? Environment and planning B: Planning and Design, 26(4): 573-591.

[27] Steckler, A., Mcleroy, K.R., Goodman, R.M., Bird, S.T. and Mccormick, L., 1992. Toward Integrating Qualitative and Quntitative. Health Education Quarterly, 19(1): 1-8.

[28] Su, Y., Yi, D., Gu, C. and Jiang, H., 2003. On the Competition-oriented urban Development Strategies: A Case Study of Harbin. Urban Planning Forum, 147(5): 68-72.

[29] Sun, H. and Zhao, C., 2001. Building the 21th Century Seabeach City: the International Consultancy about Concept Planning in Shenzhen. City Planning Review, 25(10): 75-80.

[30] Taylor, N., 1998. Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

[31] Uprichard, E. and Byrne, D., 2006. Representing Complex Places: A Narrative Approach. Environment and Planning A, 38: p665-676.

[32] Wong, Y.H., Rad, A.B. and Wong, Y.K., 1997. Qualitative Modeling and Control of Dynamic Systems. Artificial Intelligence, 10(5): 429-439.

[33] Wu, W. and Chao, R., 2001. My View on the Concept Planning. City Planning Review, 25(8): 72-76.

[34] Wu, Z., Yu, H. and Jiang, N., 2003. The Research on the Integrative Approach about Urban Development Strategic Planning: a Case of Introduction of Rational Thinking of Shenyang. City Planning Review, 27(1): 38-43.

1347