Robert Goodspeed defended his dissertation on planning support systems for spatial planning through social learning. His dissertation examined how spatial planning support systems contribute to social learning in participatory workshops. Goodspeed studied workshops in Boston and Austin that used different tools, such as computer models and paper maps, to understand what factors facilitated single and double loop learning among participants. He also looked at how metropolitan regions develop infrastructure to support social learning in spatial planning over time. The dissertation provided insights into how technology and tools are used in planning practice and opportunities to enhance learning.

1. Planning Support Systems for Spatial Planning
Through Social Learning
Robert Goodspeed
Dissertation Defense
MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning
May 22, 2013
Dissertation Committee:
Professor Joseph Ferreira, Jr. (chair)
Professor Annette M. Kim
Professor Brent D. Ryan
Fig. 5.3c

2. Introduction
• Thank you to everyone who helped make this possible!
• Figures and tables are labeled with their numbers from
the dissertation.
It is an exciting time for U.S. metropolitan
spatial planning …
2

3. Vignette: Salt Lake City, Utah
Photo: Flickr/arbyreed
1990s 1999-present
Photo: Flickr/Porchista
• Adopted Envision Utah/Quality Growth Strategy
• 40+ miles of new light rail, 50 stations
• New TOD: Daybreak (4,000 acres, 10k people, 1 in 6
new homes being sold in Utah, 70% walk to school)
• 1970-1990, 65% population growth,
38% growth in land area
(Kolankiewicz and Beck 2001)
3See Briggs (2008), Matheson (2011), and Scheer (2012)

4. New Planning Practices have Emerged …
4
Sacramento spatial planning workshop. Laptop
running I-PLACE3S PSS. Photo: SACOG.
Envision Utah planning workshop. Outputs from
participatory meetings analyzed in GIS to create two
alternative scenarios, subsequent meetings have
used PSS. Photo: Envision Utah.
Weston Nursery: Sasaki developed and used
computer tool: “The software would do the scenario, so
if you changed the density you get new numbers ...
[helped people] argue about what it means, [develop] a
bit of a common language.”

5. … that Feature New Spatial Planning Support Systems
Envision
Tomorrow
INDEX Urban
Footprint
I-PLACE3S
Where?
Across the
U.S.
30 states and
6 countries
California
Metros
Metro
Sacramento
Illustrative
Indicators
• Estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled / Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Impervious Surface
• Housing Diversity / Affordability
• Energy Use
• Air Quality
INDEX PlanBuilder Getting Started Guide
505/200 59 June 2010
Indicator maps are also accessed through the Indicator Results table by clicking the map icon in the
right-side column.
I-PLACE3S User Guide Chapter 8
Page 90 Revised: 4/29/08
Figure 108
Select Mark Place Type from the command menu and then select the Place Type you'd like to
mark (Figure 109). Clicking on a polygon will mark all parcels that are contained within the
polygon with the Place Type you have selected.
Figure 109
For tool description see Chapter 3. 5

6. Research Motivation
• Many forces at work in new spatial planning practice, my
interest is in the creation and implementation of specific
spatial plans.
• GIS and new planning support systems (PSS) are widespread
in professional practice (Grant, Rooney, and Assasie 2010; Condon, Cavens
and Miller 2009; Hoglund 2011)
• Time is ripe for close empirical examination of these
processes:
• Opportunity to learn from and scrutinize professional techniques
• Context to answer theoretical questions about planning & social
learning
• Provide useful insights at a time of rapid technological development
• This dissertation is set in regional planning contexts but NOT
about regional planning as a whole – only one part of it.
6

7. Overview
1. Introduction
2. Theories & Previous Research
3. Hypotheses, Cases and Research Methodology
4. Results
5. Discussion & Topics for Future Research
6. Conclusion
7

8. 1. Introduction

9. The “oft-foretold revolution in computer-aided
planning” has arrived!
9
Galveston, Texas
Cape Cod, Mass.
Meridian, Idaho
Medford, Mass.
Sources: Medford (MAPC), Marshfield (author), all
others from CommunityViz case studies
South Holland, Netherlands
Marshfield, Mass.
(Similar to Fig. 5.9)
Klosterman (1997)

10. Theoretical Perspectives on PSS
10
GIS-based modeling systems used for:
• Interactive Representation
• Rule Extrapolation
• Indicator Construction and Calculation
Used in specific sociocultural practices
(spatial planning)
Alternative theoretical perspectives:
• Social Learning: Changes to factual knowledge, skills, attitudes, and emergence of new
collective understanding (Wenger 1998; Muro and Jeffrey 2008; Holden 2008).
• Social choice: Planning primarily about trade-offs, interests and preferences pre-existing
(Sager 2002; Arrow 1951).
• Structured coercion: Elite manipulation or coercion (Peattie 1987; Arnstein 1969).

11. Theoretical Approach
Artifacts
Methods
Tools
Behavioral
Theories
Social Learning
Psychology
Framing Theories
Collaborative Planning
Pragmatism
Diagram inspired by Allmendinger (2002)
See Chapter 2 for full description of theoretical framework.
“Design Research”
March and Smith (1995)
Hevner et al. (2004)
Planning Support Systems
Participatory GIS
Link learning & planning:
• Frames (Schön and Rein 1994)
• Institutions (e.g., Powell and Dimaggio 1991;
Kim 2011) 11

12. Which scales?
12
Planning Process
Knowledge Infrastructure
Interacti
on
Opportu
nities
Interacti
on
Opportu
nities
Individual interaction
LongerScalesofSpace&Time
Micro
Meso
Macro
After Edwards (2003)

13. 2. Theories and Previous Research

14. Previous Paradigms Do Not Fully Describe
Planning Practice
Burnham (1909);
Calthorpe (2001)
Kent (1964)
Susskind (1987);
Healey (1997)
Davidoff (1965)
Bartholomew and
Ewing (2008)
14

15. Spatial planning combines communicative,
instrumental, strategic, and value rationality.
Albrecht (2004) 15

16. What is (Social) Learning?
• Historical Views
• Behaviorism (Skinner 1974)
• Constructionism (Piaget 1963)
• Psychological Social Learning (Bandura 1977)
• Individual development in an environment (Vygotsky, from Rogoff 1990)
• Phylogenic – slowly changing species history (genes)
• Sociocultural – changing cultural history, artifacts & norms
• Ontogenetic – Changes in individuals over their life history, such as
childhood or educational experiences
• Microgenetic – “moment-to-moment learning by individuals” built on
specific genetic and sociocultural backgrounds.
• “Social” perspectives emphasize the importance of social context in
understanding individual development, and the emergence of uniquely
social phenomenon like new understandings
16

17. Social Learning Theories
• Macro (Sociocultural)
• Frames (Schön and Rein 1994) and Institutional Theory (e.g., Kim 2011, 2012;
Powell and Dimaggio 1991)
• Diffusion Theory (Rogers 2003)
• Meso (Ontogenetic and collective)
• Organizational Learning (single/double loop) (Argyris and Schön 1978, 1996)
• Wenger (1998)
• Micro (Microgenetic)
• Wenger’s “social theory of learning” (1998)
• Three infrastructures for design: imagination, alignment, and engagement
• Design for learning:
• participation/reification
• designed/emergent
• local/global
• identification/negotiability
17

18. Double-loop Learning Adds Detail To
Collaborative Planning Theory
Argyris and Schön (1996, 1978)
18

19. Operationalizing Learning
Single Loop/”Factual” Learning
• “I learned a great deal.”
• Widespread use in education assessment, correlated with student stimulation (Holmes
1971)
Double Loop Learning
• Five questions used to create a summative scale (Spector 1992)
• Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.82 for all surveys, 0.86 for Austin workshops
19Table 4.1

20. Categorizing Computation in Planning
• Many possible ways to categorized models/tools: substance, technical or theoretical
approach, complexity (e.g., Klosterman 2012; Klosterman and Pettit 2012; Landis 2011)
• “Epistemic lifestyles” of climate modeling (Shackley 2001)
• Study informed by studies in participatory GIS and modeling and GIS evaluation
(Arciniegas, Janssen, and Rietveld 2012; Jones et al. 2009; Salter et al. 2009; Smith et al. 2012; Nyerges and
Aguirre 2011; Schively 2007; Van den Belt 2004; Cockerill, Tidwell, and Passell 2004)
20
Urban System Models Planning Support Systems
Primary focus
Represent complexity of
urban system
Practical usefulness in
planning process
Advantages
(selected)
Capture interactions &
emergent behavior of
complex systems
Practical, easier to understand
&
less data required
Disadvantages
(selected)
High cost and complexity
Limited topical scope, simplicity
can lead to misleading results
Examples UrbanSim, SLEUTH
CommunityViz, Envision
Tomorrow
For discussion see Chapter 3

21. 3. Hypotheses, Cases and Research Methodology

22. Research Questions & Hypotheses
22
Research Questions
• Q1: How do spatial PSS contribute to social learning in participatory workshops, in
light of evolving technology and infrastructure?
• Q2: What characteristics of the sociotechnical PSS process facilitate single loop
and double loop learning?
• Q3: How do metropolitan regions develop a sociotechnical infrastructure for social
learning in spatial planning?
Summary of Hypotheses
Q1 and Q2:
• What type of workshops resulted in the greatest learning? How did PSS compare
with paper maps only? (1.1)
• What factors of the workshop and participant backgrounds helped explain this
learning? (1.2, 1.3 2.1, 2.2)
• What is the relationship between the two learning measures at the workshops?
Are they complements or substitutes? (2.3)
Q3:
• What can we learn from applying Rogers’ theory of the diffusion of innovations or
frame analysis to understand how PSS are developed?

23. Potential Cases
• Boston
• Hingham Master Plan
• Marshfield Buildout and
Alternative Futures Project
• North Suburban Priority
Mapping Project
• Boston (BRA)
• Fairmount-Indigo Planning
Initiative
• Austin
• Hutto
• Dripping Springs
• Elgin
• Lockhart
• Austin
• Kansas City
• State Avenue Corridor
• North Oak
• U.S. 40
• Troost
• Rock Island
• Shawnee Mission/Metcalf
• Others
• Singapore
• Tacoma, WA
• East Tennessee
• Central Arkansas
• Provincetown, MA
• North Kingstown, RI
23

24. Final Cases
• Boston
• Hingham Master Plan
• Marshfield Buildout and
Alternative Futures Project
• North Suburban Priority
Mapping Project
• Boston (BRA)
• Fairmount-Indigo Planning
Initiative
• Austin
• Hutto
• Dripping Springs
• Elgin
• Lockhart
• Austin
• Kansas City
• State Avenue Corridor
• North Oak
• U.S. 40
• Troost
• Rock Island
• Shawnee Mission/Metcalf
• Others
• Singapore
• Tacoma, WA
• East Tennessee
• Central Arkansas
• Provincetown, MA
• North Kingstown, RI
24

25. Cases
25Fig. 4.1

26. Workshop Data Collection Summary
Additional data sources:
• Key informant interviews
• Many internal documents/meetings
• Two planner focus groups
Table 4.7
26

27. Case Contexts
Fig. 4.23
27

28. Austin
Fig. 4.9
Image: Tour Texas
28

29. “Gateway to the hill
country”
“BBQ Capital of Texas”
“Perfectly Situated”
“Growing a Quality
Community”
See Fig. 4.11,
4.13, 4.14, 4.16
Austin
29

30. Boston
Fig. 4.3 30

31. Boston
See Fig 4.4,
4.21, 4.6
31Fig. 4.3

32. 4. Results

33. Which workshops had the most learning?
33
Table 5.3

34. Mediated PSS
Austin Sustainable Places Project, Lockhart, TX (Fig. 5.3) 34
34

35. Mediated PSS Workshop Dynamics
Dourish (2001)
See Fig. 5.3
35

36. Austin Workshop Interaction Design
36
Map
d
d d
Development Type
Chips
Descriptive
Indicators
Project
Plan
Existing
Plans
External
Knowledge
Participants
Digitizer
Fig. 5.1

37. Interactive PSS
37
Fig. 5.5
Fig. 5.8

38. Paper Map Exercises
Upham’s Corner Visioning Forum North Suburban Priority Mapping Project
Public Forum
Fig. 5.13
Fig. 5.12
Fig. 5.6
Fig. 5.7
38

39. Does participant personality explain learning?
Percentage of
Participants
Sensation Seeking
(e.g., Zuckerman 1979)
Goal Orientation
(e.g., Locke and
Latham 1990)
Very strong preference
(≈ 95th percentile) 84.1% 58.6%
Moderate preference
(≈ 50th percentile) 9.9% 21.2%
Low Preference
(< 50th percentile) 5.9% 20.2%
Operationalization and percentile from Jackson’s Learning Styles Profiler
instrument (Jackson 2005). For integrated model see also O’Connor and
Jackson (2008) and Jackson (2008).
Table 5.7
39

40. Participation, Identification, and Reification of
PSS and Learning Variables
• Participation not strongly related with either type of learning; may also
reflect the lack of participation in this project as a whole
• Agreeing with the statements, “The computer tool reflects my unique
issues and concerns” (identification) and “workshop participants felt free
to question the outputs from the computer tool” (reification) were
positively related to learning.
40
Table 5.8

41. Analyzing the Learning Context
Source: Wenger (1998: 237)
Also:
• Participant Self-Perception (Rogoff 1990; Lave and Wenger 1991)
41

42. 42
Fig. 5.6

43. 43
Fig. 5.9

44. Model Summary
Positive Impact on Double
Loop Index
• Wenger’s model
• Participant identity
• Learning from model
feedback (imagination)
Negative Impact on Double
Loop Index
• Attend frequent meetings
• 3D visual rendering
(possibly)
44
Differences in model for Reported Learning:
• Identity and previous meetings less important
• Larger coefficients on PSS variables, smaller on
discussion-related variables

45. Complements or substitutes?
45
2.50
2.70
2.90
3.10
3.30
3.50
3.70
3.90
4.10
4.30
4.50
3.50 3.70 3.90 4.10 4.30 4.50 4.70
ReportedLearning
Double Loop Index
Reported learning and double-loop index
Fig. 5.17

46. View Diversity and Learning
Fig. 5.15
46

47. The Puzzle of Non-Adoption
Kansas City Creating Sustainable Places:
• HUD funding
• Fregonese & Associates provided detailed, day-long
trainings to project planners on Envision Tomorrow
• Original focus on new PSS has shifted to focus on
“toolbox,” and only two of the corridors using it in any
way at all
• Why?
47

48. First Perspective: Diffusion of Innovations
Rogers (2003) diffusion characteristics:
• Relative advantage
• Compatibility
• Complexity
• Trialability
• Observability
Theory predicts slow adoption
However, poorly describes PSS – uniquely dependent on
contextual factors
48
Wikipedia Authors, “Diffusion of Innovations,” Last modified
18 May 2013.

49. Second Perspective: Frames
• Kansas City Planner: “If we were using it more
appropriately, none of us could perceive it could be handy that way.
We saw a bunch of quantitative numbers … I didn’t realize it could
be used in a visionary planning kind of way.”
• Uncertain role for PSS in Focus Groups:
• Provide factual inputs?
• Help develop a “bit of a common language”?
• “Make them think … allowed some questions to be asked”?
• Reconcile “tradeoffs” and “competing values”?
• Conclusion: Adoption requires professional reframing, one reason
PSS are adopted as part of a new planning paradigm (scenario
planning)
49

50. 5. Discussion, Recommendations, & Future Research

51. Discussion Issues
• Demographics: Limited ability to explore
race, culture, class.
• Gender: Qualitative evidence that highly gendered
patterns occurred for one table, facilitators helped avoid
elsewhere
• The Black Box: Two “errors,” only one detected, raise
important issues regarding trust and transparency
51

52. Recommendations
1. Planners should incorporate PSS into projects, focusing
on their use to facilitate stakeholder dialog and learning.
2. Metropolitan planning agencies should use projects to
develop PSS and broader IT capacity.
3. Planning agencies should cultivate organizational
learning, including evaluating workshops and projects.
4. Planning researchers should develop theoretical models
which acknowledge dimensions beyond communicative
rationality
5. Planning as a field needs sociotechnical research and
research paradigms in planning (forthcoming article)
52

53. Further Research
Developed in Optional Slides:
• Trust in PSS
• Linking micro and macro
• Analyzing PSS as sociotechnical infrastructures
53

54. 6. Conclusions

55. Conclusions
55
A survey finds find very high reported learning and double
loop index scores at workshops which use PSS. Designs
which use a mediated PSS have the highest learning
outcomes. Participant personality and planner identity
partly explains learning. Findings confirm the
communicative planning paradigm, but with a framing
theory that adds additional dimensions.
In these cases, participation in PSS development is not
related to learning measures, but there must be high
identification and low reification of the PSS, translating
and testing Wenger’s theory in a new context.
Qualitative evidence suggests that while “innovation
characteristics” from conventional diffusion theory explain
slow adoption, the durability of professional frames is a
more nuanced explanation.

56. Thank you!
Robert Goodspeed
PhD Candidate
MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning
rgoodspe at mit.edu
Fall 2013
Assistant Professor of Urban Planning
A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
University of Michigan
rgoodspe at umich.edu
56

57. Works Cited (A-G)
Albrechts, L. 2004. Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment and Planning B 31:743-758.
Allmendinger, P. 2002. Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory 1 (1):77.
Arciniegas, Gustavo, and Ron Janssen. 2012. Spatial decision support for collaborative land use planning workshops. Landscape and Urban
Planning 107 (3):332-342.
Arciniegas, Gustavo, Ron Janssen, and Piet Rietveld. 2012. Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: Results of an
experiment. Environmental Modelling &amp; Software (0).
Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schön. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schön. 1978. Organizational learning. 2 vols, Addison-Wesley OD series. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub.
Co.
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4):216-224.
Arrow, Kenneth Joseph. 1951. Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.
Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Bartholomew, K., and R. Ewing. 2008. Land use–transportation scenarios and future vehicle travel and land consumption: a meta-analysis.
Journal of the American Planning Association 75 (1):13-27.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2008. Democracy as problem solving : civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Calthorpe, Peter, and William B. Fulton. 2001. The regional city : planning for the end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Clarke, Karen. 2006. Trust in technology : a socio-technical perspective, Computer supported cooperative work. Dordrecht: Springer.
Condon, Patrick, Duncan Cavens, and Nicole Miller. 2009. Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation. In Policy Focus Report.
Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Davidoff, P. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 31 (4):331-338.
Dourish, Paul. 2001. Where the action is : the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Edwards, P.N. 2003. Infrastructure and modernity: force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In Modernity and
technology, edited by T. J. Misa, P. Brey and A. Feenberg. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Grant, Michael, Kathleen Rooney, and Kojo Assasie. 2010. WA 4-55 Smart Growth and Climate Protection Policy Analysis, Task 3 -
Assessment of Tools. ICF International, for U.S. EPA.
Guhathakurta, S. 1999. Urban modeling and contemporary planning theory: Is there a common ground? Journal of Planning Education and
Research 18 (4):281-292.
57

58. Works Cited (H-K)
Healey, P. 1998. Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A 30:1531-1546.
Healey, Patsy. 1997. Collaborative planning : shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Hevner, A. R., S. T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram. 2004. Design science in Information Systems research. Mis Quarterly 28 (1):75-105.
Hoglund, Mike. 2011. Memorandum to the Oregon Modeling Steering Committee on Climate Smart Communities Scenarios: Portland Metro
Greenhouse Gas Scenario Planning (House Bill 2001) - Requirements & Technical Approach. Portland, OR: Metro.
Holden, M. 2008. Social learning in planning: Seattle's sustainable development codebooks. Progress in Planning 69 (1):1-40.
Holmes, David S. 1971. The Teaching Assessment Blank: A Form for the Student Assessment of College Instructors. The Journal of
Experimental Education 39 (3):34-38.
Jackson, C.J. 2008. Measurement Issues Concerning a Personality Model Spanning Temperament, Character, and Experience. In The SAGE
Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, edited by G. Boyle, G. Matthews and D. Saklofske: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Jackson, Chris. 2005. Learning Styles Profiler (LSP-iii).
Jankowski, P., and T. Nyerges. 2003. Toward a framework for research on geographic information-supported participatory decision-making.
URISA Journal 15 (1):9-17.
Jankowski, Piotr, and Timothy L. Nyerges. 2001. Geographic information systems for group decision making : towards a
participatory, geographic information science, Research monographs in GIS series. London ; New York: Taylor & Francis.
Joerin, F., and A. Nembrini. 2005. Post-Experiment Evaluation of the Use of Geographic Information in a Public Participatory Process. URISA
Journal 17 (1).
Jones, N.A., P. Perez, T.G. Measham, G.J. Kelly, P. d’Aquino, K.A. Daniell, A. Dray, and N. Ferrand. 2009. Evaluating participatory
modeling: Developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environmental management 44 (6):1180-1195.
Kent, T. J. 1964. The urban general plan. San Francisco,: Chandler Pub. Co.
Kim, A.M. 2011. Unimaginable Change. Journal of the American Planning Association 77 (4):328-337.
Kim, Annette M. 2012. The Evolution of The Institutional Approach in Planning. In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning, edited by R. Crane
and R. Weber: Oxford University Press.
Kim, Annette Miae. 2008. Learning to be capitalists : entrepreneurs in Vietnam's transition economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Klosterman, R. E. 2012. Simple and complex models. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39 (1):1-6.
Klosterman, R.E., and C.J. Pettit. 2012. An update on planning support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32 (4):477-
484.
Klosterman, Richard E. 1997. Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer-Aided Planning. Journal of Planning Education and
Research 17 (1):45-54.
Kolankiewicz, Leon, and Roy Beck. 2001. Weighing sprawl factors in large US cities. Washington, DC: NumbersUSA. com.
58

59. Works Cited (L-S)
Landis, J.D. 2011. Urban Growth Models: State of the Art and Prospects. In Global urbanization, edited by E. L. Birch and S. M. Wachter.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation, Learning in doing. Cambridge England ; New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, J. David, and Andrew Weigert. 1985. Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces 63 (4):967-985.
Lewis, J. David, and Andrew J. Weigert. 2012. The Social Dynamics of Trust: Theoretical and Empirical Research, 1985-2012. Social Forces 91
(1):25-31.
March, S. T., and G. F. Smith. 1995. Design and Natural-Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15 (4):251-
266.
Matheson, Alan, Jr. 2011. Envision Utah: Building Communities on Values. In Regional Planning for a Sustainable America, edited by C. K.
Montgomery. New Brunsick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Merrill, Fred, Elaine Lazarus, Steven Zieff, and Joe Markey. 2011. Smart Growth in Action: The Legacy Farm Story, Hopkinton, MA.
Muro, M., and P. Jeffrey. 2008. A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management
processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (3):325-344.
Nyerges, Timothy, and Robert W. Aguirre. 2011. Public Participation in Analytic-Deliberative Decision Making: Evaluating a Large-Group Online
Field Experiment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (3):561-586.
O'Connor, Peter J., and Chris Jackson. 2008. Learning To Be Saints or Sinners: The Indirect Pathway From Sensation Seeking to Behavior
Through Mastery Orientation. Journal of Personality 76 (4):733-752.
Peattie, Lisa Redfield. 1987. Planning: Rethinking Ciudad Guayana. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Piaget, Jean. 1963. The origins of intelligence in children, Norton library. New York: W.W. Norton.
Powell, Walter W., and Paul DiMaggio. 1991. The New institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.
Rogoff, Barbara. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking : cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, BD. 2006. Incomplete and incremental plan implementation in Downtown Providence, Rhode Island, 1960-2000. Journal of Planning
History 5 (1):35.
59

60. Works Cited S-W
Sager, T. 2002. Democratic planning and social choice dilemmas : prelude to institutional planning theory. Aldershot, Hampshire, England ;
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Salter, J.D., C. Campbell, M. Journeay, and S.R.J. Sheppard. 2009. The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive
visualisation tools in participatory planning. Journal of environmental management 90 (6):2090-2101.
Scheer, Brenda. 2012. The Utah Model: Lessons for Regional Planning. Brookings Mountain West
University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Schön, Donald A., and Martin Rein. 1994. Frame reflection : toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.
Shackley, S. 2001. Epistemic lifestyles in climate change modeling. Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental
governance:107-33.
Skinner, B. F. 1974. About behaviorism. [Book Club ed. New York: Knopf.
Smith, Eric Legge, Ian D. Bishop, Kathryn J. H. Williams, and Rebecca M. Ford. 2012. Scenario Chooser: An interactive approach to eliciting
public landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning (0).
Spector, Paul E. 1992. Summated rating scale construction : an introduction, Sage university papers series Quantitative applications in the
social sciences. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Stone, C.N. 2001. Civic capacity and urban education. Urban Affairs Review 36 (5):595-619.
Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey L. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse : consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York:
Basic Books.
Weigert, Andrew J. 2011. Pragmatic trust in a world of strangers: trustworthy actions. Comparative Sociology 10 (3):321-336.
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice : learning, meaning, and identity, Learning in doing. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, N.Y.:
Cambridge University Press.
60