Nama : Yehia Ayasha Rafidhah Planning Support System

NIM : 113.14.003

PLANNING SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Computers first entered planning a generation ago on the crest of a widespread belief that
scientific methods and computer-assisted methods could solve societys most pressing
problems. This optimism was reflected in two influential issues of the Journal of the American
Institute of Planners (Voorhees 1959; Harris 1965) and a number of ambitious, expensive, and
spectacularly unsuccessful attempts to build large-scale metropolitan simulation models and
urban information systems (Hemmens 1971; Webber 1965). These efforts generated an
impressive body of literature (e.g., Harris 1985; Klosterman 1994b) but had little impact on
planning practice. Continued dramatic improvements in computer hardware and software have
made the tools available on planners desks faster, more powerful, and cheaper than could be
imagined a decade ago. A wealth of spatially related data are becoming available, increasingly
via the Web. Freely available Web-based mapping tools such as Google Earth and Microsoft
Virtual Earth are dramatically enhancing the publics appreciation for spatially referenced
information. Perhaps most importantly, an increased concern with issues such as global
warming, urban sprawl, and environmental degradation are creating an increased demand for
computer-based analysis and forecasting tools. Together, these factors have stimulated a new
generation of planners to develop a diverse and growing collection of computer-based tools for
planning (e.g., Brail and Klosterman 2001; Geertman and Stillwell 2003b; Koomen et al.
2007).
Three Images of Planning In this environment of exciting technological possibilities, the
question should not be what kinds of models can we build (what kinds of tools will current
technology allow us to develop) but what kinds of models should we build (what kinds of tools
are most appropriate for planning)? The development and use of any tool implies a theory of
practice that defines the contexts in which it shouldand should notbe applied, the issues it
addressesand ignoresand the roles of experts and nonexperts in using the tool and its
products. As a result, the current effort to develop computer-based planning support systems
must consider the professional environment in which they will be used. In this regard, it is
useful to consider three ideals that have shaped planning practice and education and the
implications they have for computer-based planning support.
Planning as Design
Planning emerged in the United States roughly one hundred years ago as part of a broader
attempt to deal with the ugliness, inefficiency, disorder, and corruption of the new industrial
city. Reflecting its roots in the professional fields of architecture, landscape architecture, and
civil engineering, the early profession concerned itself with the physical city and the
preparation of master plans laying out a long-range, comprehensive design for the citys future
form. Informed by an underlying physical determinism, the early planners assumed that social
reform could be achieved by improving the physical environment and viewed the city as a
collection of land uses and facilities that could be easily modified without considering the
economic, social, and political structures that shaped it.
From architecture and landscape architecture the early planners adopted the perspective
of architecture writ large, the belief that the process of planning a city is fundamentally the
same as the process of designing a building or a landscape. That is, it was assumed that planners
could achieve in the public sector the deliberate outcomes that are readily accomplished in a
private firm or a centrally controlled government enterprise. In these settings there is generally
a single client with a clearly defined future, well-defined objectives, well-established means
for achieving those objectives, and centralized control over the resources needed to achieve the
objectives. Together, these factors allow designers to prepare blueprints that provide detailed
guidance for constructing the structure or landscape that will best serve their clients needs
(Webber 1969).
Planning as Applied Science
Planning abandoned its traditional concern with the design of the physical city in the 1950s and
1960s for a new focus on the quantitative techniques and theories of the social sciences.1 Under
this new ideal of planning as applied science, the intuitive designs of the planner-architects
were assumed to be replaced by the scientific and objective methods and findings of the
emerging fields of regional science, urban economics, and operations research. Computers
were assumed to play a central role in the new scientific planning by improving planners
understanding of the urban development process, expanding their ability to determine the direct
and indirect effects of public and private actions, and allowing them to forecast accurately
future states of the metropolis (Harris 1965; Webber 1965).
Planning as Reasoning Together
The optimism of the applied science ideal was severely questioned in the 1970s and 1980s.
The early attempts to develop computer-based urban models and information systems efforts
of the 1960s failed miserably, due in large part to their over-ambitious goals, the inadequacies
of the available technology and information, and a limited understanding of the urban
development process (Lee 1973; Brewer 1973; Batty 1994). Quantitative techniques such as
operations research and linear programming that were assumed to provide the foundations for
the new planning were found to be inadequate for public policy issues that are poorly
structured, have poorly defined goals, and no obvious technical solutions (Hoos 1972; Batey
and Breheny 1978). Together, academic theorizing and political expedience have replaced
earlier ideals of professional-directed planning for the public with new images of citizenbased
planning with the public. The labels for this new ideal range from civic engagement (Skocpol
and Fiorina 1999) and visioning (Shipley and Newkirk 1998) to collaborative leadership
(Chrislip and Larson 1994) and consensus building (Innes 1996; Klein 2000; Susskind,
McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer 1999). However, the underlying ideal is the same:
Democratic ideals require new forms of governance that allow private citizens to participate
more directly in the actions of government.
Public participation is hardly new. Public participationgenerally in the form of public
hearingshas been required for a wide range of federal, state, and local pro grams for decades.
In all too many cases, however, the publics participation in the policy-making process has
been perfunctory at best. Plans and proposals are generally prepared by a consultant or the
planning staff, with minimal input from citizens or interest groups. A range of techniques may
be used in an attempt to obtain public input into the planning process: Informational public
meetings may be held; attitude surveys may be mailed; and volunteer working committees may
be appointed.