Exploring the Affordances of Collaborative Problem-Solving Technologies in the Development of European Corridors

Collaborative problem-solving (CPS) technologies are increasingly being used to support spatial planning processes. Despite these advances, published accounts of their use have largely failed to explain if and how uses of these technologies differ from other forms of spatial planning support. In this chapter, we adopt an affordance perspective to examine how the material features of CPS technologies can support stakeholder interactions. We illustrate our theorising by offering an empirical case vignette of the application of InViTo, a particular CPS technology designed and used to support the planning of Eurocorridor 24, which is now called the Rhine–Alpine Corridor. We conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of adopting an affordance lens for assessing the current use of CPS technologies in spatial planning processes. Directions for future research are also proposed.

[1]  William W. Gaver,et al.  AFFORDANCES FOR INTERACTION: THE SOCIAL IS MATERIAL FOR DESIGN , 1996 .

[2]  R. Klosterman.  Planning Support Systems: A New Perspective on Computer-Aided Planning , 1997 .

[3]  Isabella Maria Lami,et al.  Dominance-based rough set approach and analytic network process for assessing urban transformation scenarios , 2013 .

[4]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with the analytic network process , 2013 .

[5]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  Geovisualization for knowledge construction and decision support , 2004, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[6]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method , 2013 .

[7]  Jacek Malczewski,et al.  GIS‐based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature , 2006, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[8]  Andreas Faludi,et al.  Multi-Level (Territorial) Governance: Three Criticisms , 2012 .

[9]  Isabella Maria Lami,et al.  Integrating multicriteria evaluation and data visualization as a problem structuring approach to support territorial transformation projects , 2014 .

[10]  F. Abastante,et al.  A complex Analytic Network Process (ANP) network for analyzing Corridor24 alternative development strategies , 2012, CCCA12.

[11]  Valerie Belton,et al.  Integrated Support from Problem Structuring through to Alternative Evaluation Using COPE and V·I·S·A , 1997 .

[12]  Daniel A. Keim,et al.  Geovisual analytics for spatial decision support: Setting the research agenda , 2007, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[13]  T. Nyerges,et al.  Geographic information systems for group decision making : towards a participatory, geographic information science , 2001 .

[14]  Isabella Maria Lami,et al.  Supporting Planning Processes by the Use of Dynamic Visualisation , 2013 .

[15]  Piero Boccardo,et al.  Remote Sensing Role in Emergency Mapping for Disaster Response , 2015 .

[16]  R. Ellis,et al.  Action priming by briefly presented objects. , 2004, Acta psychologica.

[17]  V. Ferretti,et al.  Verso la valutazione integrata di scenari strategici in ambito spaziale. I modelli MC-SDSS , 2012 .

[18]  P. Healey.  Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies , 1997 .

[19]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[20]  J. Decety,et al.  Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  I. Hutchby.  Technologies, Texts and Affordances , 2001 .

[22]  Daniel A. Keim,et al.  Challenging problems of geospatial visual analytics , 2011, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[23]  L. Alberto Franco,et al.  Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[24]  Ed Symes,et al.  Visual object affordances: object orientation. , 2007, Acta psychologica.

[25]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[26]  Jacek Malczewski,et al.  Measuring consensus for collaborative decision-making: A GIS-based approach , 2010, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[27]  T. Saaty.  The Analytic Network Process , 2001 .

[28]  Valerie Belton,et al.  A Framework for Group Decision Using a MCDA Model: Sharing, Aggregating or Comparing Individual Information? , 1997 .

[29]  Heidrun Schumann,et al.  Space, time and visual analytics , 2010, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[30]  Ana Simão,et al.  Web-based Gis for Collaborative Planning and Public Participation: an Application to the Strategic Planning of Wind Farm Sites Keywords: Spatial Planning Collaborative Planning Wind Energy Multi-criteria Spatial Decision Support System (mc-sdss) Argumentation Map Learning Environment World Wide Web , 2022 .

[31]  Jacek Malczewski,et al.  GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis , 1999 .

[32]  G. Brent Hall,et al.  International Journal of Geographical Information Science , 2022 .

[33]  C. Rinner.  Argumentation Mapping in Collaborative Spatial Decision Making , 2006 .

[34]  John Stillwell,et al.  Planning Support Systems Best Practice and New Methods , 2009 .

[35]  P. Leonardi,et al.  Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World , 2013 .

[36]  Isabella Maria Lami,et al.  Seeing is knowing: data exploration as a support to planning , 2014 .

[37]  Richard E. Klosterman,et al.  Simple and Complex Models , 2012 .

[38]  Yair Wand,et al.  Organizational memory information systems: a transactive memory approach , 2005, Decis. Support Syst..

[39]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[40]  Isabella Maria Lami.  Analytical decision-making methods for evaluating sustainable transport in European corridors , 2014 .

[41]  A. Chemero.  An Outline of a Theory of Affordances , 2003, How Shall Affordances be Refined? Four Perspectives.

[42]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies , 2011, MIS Q..