Temat: spatial planning systems

Skocz do pozycji: 1.

Tytuł:: Problemy polskiego systemu planowania w świetle dyskusji międzynarodowej na temat porównań krajowych systemów planowania przestrzennego. Kluczowe tezy i wnioski
The problems of the Polish spatial planning system in the light of the international discussion on the comparison of national spatial planning systems. Key theses and conclusions
Autorzy:: Nowak, Maciej N.
Tematy:: spatial planning systems
local development plan
spatial order
spatial chaos; Pokaż więcej
Wydawca:: Kancelaria Sejmu. Biuro Analiz Sejmowych
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2192752.pdf Link otwiera się w nowym oknie
Opis:: The aim of the paper is to pinpoint criteria and key aspects that allow to compare national spatial planning systems. This identification was made on the basis of a critical analysis of the literature on the subject. It should be emphasised that the publications used in the process have been relatively rarely referred to in the Polish scientific discussion. Then, the issues identified were related to the problems of the Polish spatial planning system. An attempt was made to draw conclusions which the discussion on international classifications may lead to for the Polish system solutions.
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 2.

Tytuł:: Multi-level regional development governance: A European typology
Autorzy:: Cotella, Giancarlo
Janin Rivolin, Umberto
Pede, Elena
Pioletti, Maurizio
Tematy:: EU cohesion policy
multi-level governance
territorial governance
spatial planning systems
regional development; Pokaż więcej
Wydawca:: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1892152.pdf Link otwiera się w nowym oknie
Opis:: The European Union identifies the regional level as the ideal spatial scale for resources’ redistribution, in so doing turning European regions into key spatial development players. This raises challenges due to the heterogeneity of the EU in terms of administrative configurations, and spatial governance and planning systems. The contribution of this article draws on the results of three interlinked ESPON research projects to shed light on the matter. Building on an overview of the institutional variables that may influence successful regional development, it proposes a typology of multi-level regional development governance in the EU and reflects upon the potentials for delivering economic, social, and territorial cohesion.
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 3.

Tytuł:: Problemy polskiego systemu planowania w świetle dyskusji międzynarodowej na temat porównań krajowych systemów planowania przestrzennego. Kluczowe tezy i wnioski
Autorzy:: Nowak, Maciej J.
Wydawca:: Biuro Analiz Sejmowych
Cytata wydawnicza:: Nowak, M. (2023). Problemy polskiego systemu planowania w świetle dyskusji międzynarodowej na temat porównań krajowych systemów planowania przestrzennego. Kluczowe tezy i wnioski. Studia BAS, 1(73), s. 9-20. https://doi.org/10.31268/StudiaBAS.2023.02
Opis:: The aim of the paper is to pinpoint criteria and key aspects that allow to compare national spatial planning systems. This identification was made on the basis of a critical analysis of the literature on the subject. It should be emphasised that the publications used in the process have been relatively rarely referred to in the Polish scientific discussion. Then, the issues identified were related to the problems of the Polish spatial planning system. An attempt was made to draw conclusions which the discussion on international classifications may lead to for the Polish system solutions.
Dostawca treści:: Repozytorium Centrum Otwartej Nauki

Artykuł

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 4.

Tytuł:: Changing institutional framework for spatial planning in the western Balkan region. Evidences from Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina and Croatia
Europa XXI 30 (2016)
Autorzy:: Cotella, Giancarlo
Berisha, Erblin
Wydawca:: IGiPZ PAN
Powiązania:: 28. Janin Rivolin U., Faludi A., 2005. The hidden face of European spatial planning: Innovations in Governance. European Planning Studies, 13(2), pp. 195-215.
10. Cotella G,. 2009. Governance territoriale comunitaria e sistemi di pianificazione. Riflessioni sull'allargamento ad Est dell'Unione europea. PhD Thesis, Italy: Politecnico di Torino.
31. Maleković S., Puljiz J., Bartlett W., 2011. Decentralization and Regional Policy in Croatia: The impact of EU Accession and the prospect of territorial reorganization. Research on South Eastern Europe, London.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203427941 -
20. Georgiadis G., 2008. The convergence – divergence debate revisited: framing the issues. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Routledge.
37. Reimer M., Getimis P., Blotevogel H., 2014. Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe. A Comparative Perspective on Continuity and Change. London: Routledge.
43. Toto R., 2012. Rajonalizimi i Shqipërisë në debat – fuqizimi i decentralizimit dhe evoluimi drejt zhvillimit rajonal 2. Linjat e debatit për zhvillim rajonal apo rajonalizim në Shqipëri, pp. 317–344.
7. Commission of the European Communities, 1998. Report on Community Policies and Spatial Planning: Working Document of the Commission Services. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
24. Graham J., Amos B., Plumptre T., 2003. Principle for good governance in the 21st Century. Policy Brief 15, Ottawa: Intitute on Governance.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661181 -
42. Tendler J., 2000. Why are social funds so popular? [in:] Y. Shahid et al. (eds.) Local Dynamics in the Era of Globalization. Oxford: University Press, pp. 114-129.
27. Janin Rivolin U., 2012. Planning Systems as Istitutional Tecnologies: a Proposed Conceptualization and Implication for Comparison. Planning Practice and Research, vol. 27(1), pp. 63-85.
38. Schimmelfennig F., Sedelmeier U., 2005. The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Cornell University Press.
41. Stead D., Cotella G., 2011. Differential Europe: Domestic actors and their role in shaping spatial planning systems. disP-The Planning Review, vol. 47(186), pp. 13-21.
15. DE Presidency, 2007, Territorial Agenda of The European Union: Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Region. Informal Ministry Meeting on the Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion, Leipzig, Germany.
16. Dhimitri E., Cucllari F., Cini M., 2013. Local Government Reform and Regional Development in Albania. International Journal of Innovations in Business, pp. 277–292.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628351 -
34. Newman P., Thornley A., 1996. Urban planning in Europe. London: Routledge.
46. Vachudova A., 2005. Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage and Integration After Communism. OUP Oxford.
https://doi.org/10.12942/lreg-2006-3 -
Europa XXI
26. HU Presidency, 2011. Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 – Toward an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Region. Informal Ministry Meeting on the Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion, Gödöllö, Hungary.
12. Cotella G., Janin Rivolin U., 2010. Institutions, discourse and practices: towards a multidimensional understanding of EU territorial governance. Paper presented at the 24th AESOP Annual Conference, Helsinki, Finland.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175173 -
https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001 -
https://doi.org/10.1093/0199241198.001.0001 -
39. Sedelmeier U., 2006. Europeanisation in new member and candidate states. Living Reviews in European Governance, vol. 6(1), pp. 1–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500418259 -
33. Nadin V., Stead D., 2008. European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. DISP 172, pp. 35-47.
4. Bojičić-Dželilović V., 2011. Decentralization and Regionalization in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Issues and Challenges, Research on South East Europe, London: London School of Economics.
1. Adams N., Cotella G., Nunes R., 2011. Territorial Development, Cohesion and Spatial Planning: knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU. Ashgate, Aldershot.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000321785 -
11. Cotella G., Adams N., Nunes R., 2012. Engaging in European spatial planning: a Central and Eastern European perspective on the Territorial Cohesion debate. European Planning Studies, vol. 20 (7), pp. 1-24.
40. Stead D., Nadin V., 2009. Planning cultures between models of society and planning systems [in:] J. Knieling F. Othengrafen (eds.), Planning Cultures in Europe: Decoding Cultural Phenomena. Urban and Regional Planning, Ashgate.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0365431042000321857 -
45. Tsenkova S., Nedovic-Budic Z., 2006. The urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe: Space, Institutions and Policy. Physica-Verlag, A Springer Company.
2. Böhme K., Waterhout B., 2008. The Europeanization of Planning [in] A. Faludi (ed.) European Spatial Research and Policy, Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 225-248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.673567 -
21. Getimis P., 2012. Comparing Spatial Planning Systems and Planning Cultures in Europe. The Need for a Multi-scalar Approach. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), pp. 25–40.
30. Knill C., Lehmkuhl D., 1999. How Europe matters. Different mechanisms of Europeanization. European Integration online Papers, vol. 3(7).
9. Commission of the European Communities, 2008. Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion. Turning territorial diversity into strength. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
13. Cotella G., Janin Rivolin U., 2015. Europeizzazione del governo del territorio: un modello analitico. Territorio, vol. 73, pp. 127-134.
14. Davies H., Edwards D., Hooper A., Punter J., 1989. Comparative study [in:] H.W.E. Davies (ed.) Planning Control in Western Europe, London, pp. 409–442.
25. Howell K., 2002. Developing Conceptualizations of Europeanization and European Integration: Mixing Methodologies. Sheffield.
35. Osmanković J., 2004. Regionalization and Regional Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Post-War Period. Ljubljana: Institute for Economic Research.
5. Commission of the European Communities 1990. Green Paper on the Urban Environment, COM (1990) 218 final. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.
6. Commission of the European Communities, 1997. The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, Regional Development Studies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
8. Commission of the European Communities, 1999. European Spatial Development Perspective, Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
44. Toto R., 2014. Shqiperia-Riforma Territoriale Perkundrejet Rajonalizimit, pertej decentralizimit, Ministria e Integrimit Europian, Tirane.
3. Börzel T., 2003. How the European Union Interacts with its Member States, Political Science Series no. 93.
https://doi.org/10.3280/TR2015-073019 -
https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.659520 -
18. European Commission, 2015. Progress Report of Bosnia Herzegovina, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament. SWD (2015), Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels.
29. Kitschelt H., Mansfeldova Z., Markowski R., Toka G., 1999. Post-Communist Party Systems: Competititon, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Pallagst K., 2006. European spatial planning reloaded. Considering EU enlargement in theory and practice. European Planning Studies, vol. 14(2), pp. 253-272.
17. Elster J., Offe C., Preuss K., 1998. Institutional Design in Post-Communist Societies: Rebuilding the Ship at Sea, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Giannakourou G., 2012. The Europeanization of National Planning: Explaining the Causes and the Potentials of Change. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), pp. 117–135.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661195 -
22. Giannakourou G., 2005. Transforming spatial planning policy in Mediterranean countries: Europeanization and domestic change. European Planning Studies, 13(2), pp. 319-331.
19. Fagat A., 2012. Building Environmental Governance in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Europeanization and transnational assistance in the context of limited statehood. School of Politics and International Relation, London: University of London.
32. Maleković S., Puljiz J., 2009. Challenges of a New Approach to Development on the Local and Regional Level in Croatia. New Croatian Local and Regional Self-Government, Zagreb: Croatian Academy of Science and Arts.
Opis:: The contribution aims at providing a preliminary insight on the evolution of the institutional framework for spatial planning in the Western Balkan Region since 1989. It does so by proposing a conceptualization of spatial planning domestic contexts as dynamic objects subject to continuous change, and by identifying the main driving forces that contribute to shaping their patterns of change in the geographical area at stake: (i) domestic transition from a centrally planned economic model to a decentralized model based on free market rules, (ii) process of European integration and the Europeanization mechanisms triggered by the latter. On this basis, the authors explore the territorial administration reforms and evolution of spatial planning legislation specific for Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina and Croatia in the last 25 years in more detail manner, highlighting and discussing both similarities and differences.
Każdy numer posiada własny tytuł.
Dostawca treści:: RCIN - Repozytorium Cyfrowe Instytutów Naukowych

Książka

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 5.

Tytuł:: Gender-specific preferences regarding urban green areas
Autorzy:: Bąkowska-Waldmann, Edyta
Piniarski, Witold
Tematy:: urban green areas
spatial planning
public participation
gender mainstreaming
geographic information systems; Pokaż więcej
Wydawca:: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/52570245.pdf Link otwiera się w nowym oknie
Opis:: Development of urban green areas and awareness of their value among citizens and local authorities is rapidly growing. This trend is not only the result of the coronavirus pandemic, but also reflects a belief in the role of green areas in reducing the negative effects of climate change and supporting overall well-being. As a consequence, more and more local governments are promoting local policies focused on the development of urban green areas with the participation of citizens. Using data collected in Zielona Góra, Poland, this study explores the gender patterns and differences in use and preferences according to the development of urban green areas. The main goals of the study were (1) to evaluate the possible relationship between gender and preferred types of visited green areas and transport modes used to reach them and (2) to explore the differences in expectations regarding the spatial development of green areas among men and women. The result of the study shows that women more often than men visit green areas closer to their place of residence and more often indicate playgrounds and other forms of greenery of an aesthetic function as proposed green areas. Furthermore, there are also differences regarding the means of transport used and preferable distance to green areas. Women visibly prefer green areas within the city centre, mostly use individual means of transport, and are more likely to travel on foot than men. Men prefer more distant green areas and mostly travel longer distances.
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 6.

Tytuł:: Strategic Spatial Planning in Lebanon: An International “Recipe”. The Case of The Union of Municipalities
Autorzy:: Darwich, Rozana
Tematy:: Strategic Spatial Planning
planning systems
unions of municipalities
circuit of knowledge
localisation
International Development Funds
Lebanon; Pokaż więcej
Wydawca:: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/623683.pdf Link otwiera się w nowym oknie
Opis:: In 1977 the municipal law authorised the creation of unions of municipalities in Lebanon. However, only recently have they actually begun to emerge; 13 unions existed in 1990 while 57 were created by 2017. Over the last decade these unions have assumed an important role within the local dynamics, particularly in the field of strategic planning. This article aims to analyse that shift by answering the following questions: first, what is the positioning of the unions, as institutional planning actors, on the planning chessboard? Second, how was strategic planning transferred to the unions of municipalities? And finally, what was the echo of this transfer on other national or local actors?
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 7.

Tytuł:: Koncepcja zagospodarowania terenów Politechniki Krakowskiej w Czyżynach w powiązaniu z systemem transportowym
Conception of development of Cracow University of Technology area in Czyżyny in conjuction with transport system
Autorzy:: Faron, A.
Tematy:: planowanie systemów transportowych
planowanie zagospodarowania przestrzennego
transport zrównoważony
planning of transport systems
spatial development planning
sustainable transport; Pokaż więcej
Wydawca:: Stowarzyszenie Inżynierów i Techników Komunikacji Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/192596.pdf Link otwiera się w nowym oknie
Opis:: Planowanie struktur mieszkaniowych i biurowych powinno uwzględniać możliwość powiązania obszaru z systemami transportowymi. Niezwykle ważne jest, aby lokalizacja dużych generatorów ruchu, jak zespoły biurowe, osiedla mieszkaniowe czy jednostki oświatowe była planowana w takich obszarach, które mogą zapewniać powiązania z transportem zbiorowym i rowerowym. Niezwykle istotne jest także zadbanie o atrakcyjną jakość dojścia o przystanku. Jednocześnie przy planowaniu zabudowy o charakterze monofunkcyjnym należy zastanowić się nad jego dodatkową rolą, jaką będzie pełnił w powiązaniu z sąsiadującym otoczeniem i ewentualnie wprowadzić istotne zmiany w jego strukturze. W artykule przedstawiono przykład przekształcenia planowanej struktury monofunkcynej, w funkcji usługowo-biurowej w Krakowie, na wielofunkcyjną, w powiązaniu z system transportu zbiorowego, rowerowego i pieszego, a także z sąsiadującą zabudową mieszkaniową. Niniejszy artykuł jest wynikiem warsztatów transportowo- urbanistycznych „Ripari urbo – napraw miasto!”, które zostały zorganizowane przez Koło Naukowe Systemów Komunikacyjnych przy merytorycznym wsparciu pracowników Zakładu Systemów Komunikacyjnych Politechniki Krakowskiej, w tym autorki niniejszego artykułu.
Urban planning process, especially for housing and office buildings, should consider connection with the transport systems. It is essential to plan the location of traffic generators such as office complexes, residential areas and educational units close to the public transport and bicycle infrastructure. The quality of walking access to the public transport stops is also significant. At the same time the monofunctional areas should be planned taking role and connection with the surroundings into consideration and it case it is needed – its structure should be changed. This article presents changes from the planned monofunctional structure in Cracow (as a service function) into the multifunctional area – the main emphasis was put on the area accessibility to the public and bicycle transport. The article is a result of the “Ripari urbo – repair city” workshop which was organized by the Student Research Group of Transportation Systems with the support of research employees of Cracow University of Technology, including author of this article.
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 8.

Tytuł:: Geographia Polonica Vol. 97 No. 4 (2024)
The prospects for the implementation of Planning Support Systems (PSS) in participatory decision-making in local governments in Poland
Autorzy:: Bąkowska-Waldmann, Edyta. Autor
Wydawca:: IGiPZ PAN
Powiązania:: Murray, M., & Greer, J. (2002). Participatory planning as dialogue: The Northern Ireland regional strategic framework and its public examination process. Policy Studies, 23(3), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144287022000045984
Bąkowska-Waldmann, E., & Kaczmarek, T. (2022). PPGIS potential in local governance and spatial planning: Lessons from Poland. In C. S. Silva (Ed.), Trends and innovations in urban e-planning (pp. 17-41). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9090-4.ch002
Miller, D., Vogt, N., Nijnik, M., Brondizio, E., & Fiorini, S. (2009). Integrating analytical and participatory techniques for planning the sustainable use of land resources and landscapes. In S. Geertman & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning Support Systems. Best Practice and New Methods (pp. 317-345). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8952-7_16
Stevens, D., Dragicevic, S., & Rothley, K. (2007). iCity: A GISeCA modelling tool for urban planning and decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22, 761-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.02.004
Kahila-Tani, M., Kyttä, M., & Geertman, S. (2019). Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 186, 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019
Craig, W., Harris, T., & Weiner, D. (2002). Community participation and Geographic Information Systems. In W. J. Craig, T. M. Harris, & D. Weiner (Eds.), Community participation and Geographic Information Systems (pp. 3-16). London: Taylor and Francis.
Flacke, J., Shrestha, R., & Aguilar, R. (2020). Strengthening participation using interactive planning support systems: A systematic review. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9010049
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
Tulloch, D. L., & Shapiro, T. (2003). The intersection of data access and public participation: Impacting GIS users' success? Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) Journal, 15 APA II, 55-60.
Würstle, P., Santhanavanich, T., Padsala, R., & Coors, V. (2021). Development of a digital 3D participation platform - Case study of Weilimdorf (Stuttgart, Germany). The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLVI-4/W1-2021, 123-129. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVI-4-W1-2021-123-2021
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Act of 7 July 2023 amending the Act on Spatial Planning and Development and certain other acts, Journal of Laws 2023, item 1688.
Fowler, F. J. (2013). Survey research methods. Sage.
Klosterman, R. E. (1999). New perspectives on planning support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 317-320. https://doi.org/10.1068/b260317
Falco, E. (2016). Digital community planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 5(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2016040101
Davoudi, S. (2015). Planning as practice of knowing. Planning Theory, 14(3), 316-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215575919
Quan, S. J., Li, Q., Augenbroe, G., Brown, J., & Yang, P. P. (2015). Urban data and building energy modeling: A GIS-based urban building energy modeling system using the Urban-EPC engine. In S. Geertman, J. Ferreira, R. Goodspeed, & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities (pp. 447-470). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_24
Friedmann, J. (1993). Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(4), 482-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975902
Elwood, S. (2006). Negotiating knowledge production: The everyday inclusions, exclusions, and contradictions of Participatory GIS research. The Professional Geographer, 58(2), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00526.x
Geertman, S. (2002). Participatory planning and GIS: A PSS to bridge the gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2760
Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2009). Planning support systems: Best practice and new methods. Springer
Peltonen, L., & Sairinen, R. (2010). Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban planning: Experiences from Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 328-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.006
Kahila-Tani, M. (2015). Reshaping the planning process using local experiences: Utilising PPGIS in participatory urban planning (Doctoral dissertation). Aalto University.
Velibeyoglu, K. (2010). E-Planning applications in Turkish local governments. In S. N. Silva (Ed.), Handbook of Research on E-Planning: ICTs for Urban Development and Monitoring (pp. 420-434). Hershey: IGI Global.
Herzog, R. H., Gonçalves, J. E., Slingerland, G., Kleinhans, R., Prang, H., Brazier, F., & Verma, T. (2022). Identifying public values and spatial conflicts in urban planning. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.04719
Jordan, T. (2014). Deliberative methods for complex issues: A typology of functions that may need scaffolding. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 13, 50-71.
Vonk, G., Geertman, S., & Schot, P. (2005). Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A, 37(5), 909-924. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3712
Jeon, C. M., & Lee, H. C. (2016). The trends and characteristics of engaged urban planning in Korea: Focused on 2030 master plans for Cheongju, Suwon, and Seoul. Seoul Studies, 17, 1-16.
Jankowski, P., Czepkiewicz, M., Młodkowski, M., & Zwoliński, Z. (2016). Geo-questionnaire: A method and tool for public preference elicitation in land use planning. Transactions in GIS, 20(6), 903-924. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12191
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x
European Commission. (2022). eGovernment Benchmark 2022. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/egovernment-benchmark-2022
Lohr, S. (2009). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Cengage Learning.
Stepanova, O., Polk, M., & Saldert, H. (2020). Understanding mechanisms of conflict resolution beyond collaboration: An interdisciplinary typology of knowledge types and their integration in practice. Sustainability Science, 15, 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00690-z
Yigitcanlar, T., Saygin, O., & Han, J. H. (Eds.). (2008). Online Participatory Decision Support Tools for Knowledge-Based Urban Development. Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-838-3.ch011
Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2003). Planning support systems in practice. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24795-1
Kahila-Tani, M., Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., & Tyger, T. (2016). Let the citizens map -Public Participation GIS as a planning support system in the Helsinki master plan process. Planning Practice & Research, 31(2), 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1104203
Shiffer, M. J. (1995). Interactive multimedia planning support: Moving from stand-alone systems to the World Wide Web. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 22, 649-664. https://doi.org/10.1068/b220649
Cardullo, P. (2021). Citizens in the 'Smart City': Participation, co-production, governance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429438806
Jankowski, P., Czepkiewicz, M., Zwoliński, Z., Kaczmarek, T., Młodkowski, M., Bąkowska-Waldmann, E., Mikuła, Ł., Brudka, C., & Walczak, D. (2019). Geoweb methods for public participation in urban planning: Selected cases from Poland. In K. Koutsopoulos, R. Gonzalez, & K. Donert (Eds.), Geospatial Challenges in 21st Century (pp. 249-269). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04750-4_13
Denters, B. (2017). Participation and democratic accountability: Making a difference for the citizens. In Ch. Schwab, G. Bouckaert, & S. Kuhlmann (Eds.), The future of local government in Europe: Lessons from research and practice in 31 countries (pp. 79-100). Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845280639-79
Kaczmarek, T., & Mikuła, Ł. (2021). Konsultacje społeczne w planowaniu przestrzennym z użyciem narzędzi PPGIS. In A. Bochentyn, & J. H. Szlachetko (Eds.), Cyfrowa czy analogowa? Funkcjonowanie administracji publicznej w stanie kryzysu (pp. 410-433). Pelplin: Wydawnictwo Bernardinum.
Bąkowska-Waldmann, E., & Kaczmarek, T. (2021). The use of PPGIS: Towards reaching a meaningful public participation in spatial planning. International Journal of Geo-Information, 10, 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10090581
Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004
Keenan, B. P., & Jankowski, P. (2019). Spatial decision support systems: Three decades on. Decision Support Systems, 116, 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.10.010
Jiang, H., Geertman, S., & Witte, P. (2020). Avoiding the planning support system pitfalls? What smart governance can learn from the planning support system implementation gap. Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(8), 1343-1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320934824
Klosterman, R. E. (2009). Planning support systems: Retrospect and prospect. In S. Geertman & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning Support Systems. Best Practice and New Methods (pp. V-VII). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8952-7
Sugumaran, R., & DeGroote, J. (2019). Spatial Decision Support Systems: Principles and Practices. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Johnson, P. A., Corbett, J. M., Gore, C., Robinson, P., Allen, P., & Sieber, R. (2015). A web of expectations: Evolving relationships in community participatory Geoweb projects. ACME: An International Journal of Critical Geography, 14(3), 827-848. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v14i3.1235
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Miessen, M. (2010). The Nightmare of Participation: Crossbench Praxis as a Mode of Criticality. New York: Sternberg Press.
Campagna, M., Steinitz, C., Di Cesare, E. A., Cocco, Ch., Ballal, H., & Canfield, T. (2016). Collaboration in planning: The Geodesign approach. Rozwój Regionalny i Polityka Regionalna, 35, 55-72.
Jędraszko, A. (2008). Gospodarka przestrzenna w Polsce wobec standardów europejskich, czyli jak ustanowić dobre prawo dla zrównoważonego rozwoju. Biblioteka Urbanisty, 13. Warszawa: Urbanista.
Schlossberg, M., & Shuford, E. (2005). Delineating "Public" and "Participation" in PPGIS. URISA Journal, 16(2), 15-26.
Silva, C. S. (Ed.). (2022). Trends and Innovations in Urban e-Planning. Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9090-4
Wouters, R., De Fraine, B., & Simons, M. (2019). What is at stake in deliberative inquiry? A review about a deliberative practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 32, 193-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9457-8
Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R., & Turton, I. (2001). Public participation, GIS, and cyberdemocracy: Evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(6), 907-921. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2751t
Jankowski, P., Czepkiewicz, M., Młodkowski, M., Zwoliński, Z., & Wójcicki, M. (2017). Evaluating the scalability of public participation in urban land use planning: A comparison of Geoweb methods with face-to-face meetings. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(3), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317719709
Talen, E. (1999). Constructing neighborhoods from the bottom up: The case for resident-generated GIS. Environment and Planning B, 26, 533-55. https://doi.org/10.1068/b260533
Bąkowska-Waldmann, E. (2023). Residents' experiential knowledge and its importance for decision-making processes in spatial planning: A PPGIS based study. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 12, 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12030102
Brown, G., & Raymond, C. M. (2014). Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 196-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.007
Hansson, K., Göran, C., Love, E., & Mats, D. (2013). The importance of recognition for equal representation in participatory processes: Lessons from Husby. Footprint, 13, 81-98. https://doi.org/10.7480/footprint.7.2.771
Kingston, R. (2002). The role of e-government and public participation in the planning process. Paper presented at XVI AESOP Congress, Volos, Greece, July 14-20.
Koekoek, A., Van Lammeren, R., & Vonk, G. (2009). The potential of integrating e-participation in planning support systems. URISA Journal, 21(2), 39-47.
Panek, J. (2018). Mapping citizens' emotions: Participatory planning support system in Olomouc, Czech Republic. Journal of Maps, 15(1), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2018.1546624
Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L., & Bryman, A. (2021). Bryman's social research methods (6th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of planning support science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Hampshire and London: McMillan Press Limited.
Lehtiö, A., Hartikainen, M., Ala-Luopa, S., Olsson, T., & Väänänen, K. (2023). Understanding citizen perceptions of AI in the smart city. AI & Society, 38, 1123-1134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01589-7
Geertman, S., Ferreira, J., Goodspeed, R., & Stillwell, J. (Eds.). (2015). Planning support systems and smart cities. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8
Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x9501400307
Batty, M. (2007). Planning support systems: Progress, predictions, and speculations on the shape of things to come. UCL Working Paper Series, 122, 1-25.
Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (2009). Planning support systems: Content, issues, and trends. In S. Geertman & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning support systems: Best practice and new methods (pp. 1-26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8952-7_1
OECD. (2023). Economic Survey of Poland 2023. Retrieved May 7, 2023, from https://www.oecd.org/economy/poland-economic-snapshot/
Fischer, F. (2012). Participatory governance: From theory to practice. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 457-471). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0032
Pantić, M., Cilliers, J., Cimadomo, G., Montaño, F., Olufemi, O., Torres Mallma, S., & van den Berg, J. (2021). Challenges and opportunities for public participation in urban and regional planning during the COVID-19 pandemic -Lessons learned for the future. Land, 10, 1379. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121379
Kahila, M., & Kyttä, M. (2009). SoftGIS as a bridge builder in collaborative urban planning. In S. Geertman & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning Support Systems: Best Practices and New Methods (pp. 389-412). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8952-7_19
Gunton, T. (2007). Collaborative planning. In M. Bevir (Ed.), Encyclopedia of governance (pp. 106-107). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Steinitz, C. (2012). A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design. Redlands: Esri Press.
Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-Up GIS: A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(3), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976107
Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23(2), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1068/b230217
Obermeyer, N. J. (1998). The evolution of public participation GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 65-66. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304098782594599
Geographia Polonica
Aspen, D. M., & Amundsen, A. (2021). Developing a participatory planning support system for sustainable regional planning - A problem structuring case study. Sustainability, 13, 5723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105723
Zhang, L., Geertman, S., Hooimeijer, P., & Lin, Y. (2019). The usefulness of a Web-based Participatory Planning Support System in Wuhan, China. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 74, 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.11.006
Alfrink, K., Keller, I., Doorn, N., & Kortuem, G. (2022). Tensions in transparent urban AI: Designing a smart electric vehicle charge point. AI & Society, 38(3), 1049-1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01436-9
Pfeffer, K., Martinez, J., O'Sullivan, D., Scott, D. (2015). Geo-technologies for spatial knowledge: Challenges for inclusive and sustainable urban development. In J. Gupta, K. Pfeffer, H. Verrest, & M. Ros-Tonen (Eds.), Geographies of Urban Governance: Advanced Theories, Methods and Practices (pp. 147-174). Berlin: Springer.
Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Niewiadomski, Z. (2002). Planowanie Przestrzenne. Zarys Systemu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis.
Harris, B. (1989). Beyond geographic information systems: Computers and the planning professional. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55, 85-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368908975408
Klosterman, R. E. (1997). Planning support systems: A new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(1), 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9701700105
Luusua, A., Ylipulli, J., Foth, M., & Aurigi, A. (2023). Urban AI: Understanding the emerging role of artificial intelligence in smart cities. AI & Society, 38, 1039-1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01537-5
Blijleven, W. (2022). Expert, bureaucrat, facilitator: The role of expert public servants in interactive governance. Local Government Studies, 49(4), 841-860. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2022.2047028
Opis:: The aim of the research was to investigate the use and potential of Planning Support Systems (PSS) in public participation within spatial planning in Polish local governments. Data from 718 local spatial planning departments, collected using CATI method, reveals limited current use of PSS tools in public participation, primarily passive online document viewing. Despite this, there is a growing potential for online methods, such as interactive meetings, necessitating PSS tools for real-time interaction. The study highlights a strong adherence to statutory consultation forms, suggesting a need for PSS development focused on legal requirements in public participation.
24 cm
Dostawca treści:: RCIN - Repozytorium Cyfrowe Instytutów Naukowych

Książka

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 9.

Tytuł:: Wykorzystanie GIS jako kompleksowego narzędzia waloryzacji ,środowiska przyrodniczego pod kątem planowania przestrzennego zagospodarowania terenu
Using GIS as a special tool in valorisation of natural conditions made for land management and spatial planning
Autorzy:: Kuraś, B.
Tematy:: waloryzacja
metody taksonomiczne
systemy informacji geograficznej
zagospodarowanie przestrzenne
valorisation
taxonomic methods
geographical information systems (GIS)
spatial planning; Pokaż więcej
Wydawca:: Stowarzyszenie Geodetów Polskich
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/130614.pdf Link otwiera się w nowym oknie
Opis:: Waloryzacja środowiska przyrodniczego została przeprowadzona w oparciu o trzy metody taksonomiczne: diagram Czekanowskiego, dendryt wrocławski i metodę Warda przy zastosowaniu specjalnego narzędzia w postaci Systemów Informacji Geograficznej. Technologia GIS została wykorzystana głównie w celu konstrukcji cyfrowego modelu wysokości oraz różnorodnych transformacji tego modelu, np. obliczania średnich temperatur powietrza i rocznych sum opadów. Z punktu widzenia planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego, który winien uwzględniać naturalne predyspozycje danego obszaru, w badaniach wykorzystano piec typów zagospodarowania: rolnictwo, komunikacja, zabudowa mieszkaniowa i przemysłowa, turystyka i ochrona środowiska.
Valorisation of natural conditions has been carried out using three taxonomic methods: diagram of Czekanowski, Wroclaw dendrite and Ward’s method, with the aid of special tool in a form of the Geographical Information Systems and functions they offer. GIS technology was used especially for calculating digital elevation model and various transformations of elevation data, for example estimating the mean air temperature and annual precipitation. As regards the land use and spatial planning, which should include natural predispositions of given area, five main land types were assumed: agriculture, communication, urban and industrial buildings, tourism and preservation of the environmentment.
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

na półce

Skocz do pozycji: 10.

Tytuł:: Multilevel integration of design and the quality of life in urban space issue
Wielopoziomowa integracja projektowania a zagadnienie jakości życia w przestrzeni zurbanizowanej
Autorzy:: Barełkowski, Robert
Rosolski, Sławomir
Tematy:: spatial planning
urban design
design integration
quality of life
holarchic systems
projektowanie urbanistyczne
planowanie przestrzenne
integracja projektowania
jakość życia
systemy holarchiczne; Pokaż więcej
Wydawca:: Zachodniopomorski Uniwersytet Technologiczny w Szczecinie. Wydawnictwo Uczelniane ZUT w Szczecinie
Powiązania:: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2147195.pdf Link otwiera się w nowym oknie
Opis:: The essence of urban design is the transformation of the environment in a way that maximizes the quality of human life. The tools to achieve this goal must cope with the complexity of natural and urbanized spaces, and designers use them to anticipate future environmental states. The article presents theoretical considerations, supplemented by the practical implementation of the area in the Swarzędz community, on the relationship between the organization of urban design in the context of multi-level integration (planning, design) and the emergence of a high-quality urban environment. This process requires controlling many parallel threads between which there are dynamic changes in the relationship - the holarchy.
Istotą projektowania urbanistycznego jest transformacja środowiska w sposób zapewniający maksymalizację jakości życia człowieka. Narzędzia służące do osiągania tego celu muszą mierzyć się ze złożonością przestrzeni naturalnej i zurbanizowanej, a projektanci używają je do antycypowania przyszłych stanów środowiska. Artykuł prezentuje teoretyczne rozważania, uzupełnione praktyczną implementacją terenu w Gminie Swarzędz, na temat relacji między organizacją projektowania urbanistycznego w kontekście integracji wielopoziomowej (planowanie, projektowanie), a powstawaniem środowiska zurbanizowanego o wysokiej jakości. Proces ten wymaga kontrolowania wielu paralelnych wątków, między którymi zachodzą dynamiczne zmiany relacji - holarchii.
Dostawca treści:: Biblioteka Nauki

Artykuł

na półce

Informacja

Wyszukujesz frazę "spatial planning systems" wg kryterium: Temat