1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

PLANNING DECISION SUPPORT AUSTRALIAN EXAMPLES

1

S.N. Lieske1,2, K. Lyons2,3, K. Wall4and R Wall4

Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA
2
University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Australia.
3
Spatial Information Services Pty Ltd, Montville, Australia.
4
Geodata Services, Inc. Missoula, Montana, USA.

Abstract
Growth pressure, concerns about climate change, and increased public involvement in planning are raising concerns for
communities and planners. Planners and resource managers are looking for solutions for engaging the public,
developing transparent planning processes, quickly generating and evaluating alternatives and developing quality plans
with high likelihoods of being adopted and implemented. Easy to use planning support instruments such as keypad
polling and on-screen sketch tools integrate with geographic information systems based planning support systems to
allow planners to easily visualize and assess alternatives and demonstrate the incorporation of public values and
transparency throughout planning processes. We present here several Australian project examples and demonstrate how
these tools can facilitate analysing and quantifying alternative scenarios and economic, social and environmental
aspects of planning proposals at the local and regional level.
Project examples include: evaluation of a structure plan in Brisbane; urban development alternatives in Gosford, NSW;
rural economic development in Hunchy, QLD; contrasting suburban and mixed-use development alternatives in
Palmwoods, QLD; and, greenfield site development in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland, QLD. These examples
demonstrate that placed based decision making with planning support tools can help communities develop, respond to
change, and preserve their amenities, character and the environment.
Keywords: planning support systems, impact analysis, scenario planning, visualization
Introduction
Planning support is defined by Geertman (2006) as, dedicated information, knowledge, and instruments that people
actively involved within formal [planning] practices can receive to enlighten their planning tasks and activities.
(Geertman, 2006, p. 864) As a category of planning support, Geertman defines planning support instruments as
computer based tools dedicated to the support of spatial planning tasks. Planning support instruments are often defined
more broadly as any of a range of tools enabling civic engagement and public decision making. Some of these
instruments support collaborative work. Some, but not all, of these instruments are digital technologies. Of the digital
technologies, some of these instruments incorporate geospatial data and information.
The term planning support system (PSS) refers to the subset of planning support instruments representing,
geoinformation-technology-based [planning support] instruments that incorporate a suite of components (theories,
data, information, knowledge, methods, tools) which collectively support all or some part of a unique professional
planning task, (Geertman 2006, 864). In a more application oriented definition, PSSs bring together the
functionalities of geographic information systems (GIS), models, and visualization, to gather, structure, analyse, and
communicate information in planning, (Vonk et al. 2005, 910).
There are two primary trends in the literature surrounding PSSs. Firstly, the utility of planning support tools (NedoviBudi 2000, Snyder 2003 and Couclelis 2005) and, secondly, the underutilization of these tools (Nedovi-Budi 1998 &
2000, Geertman 2002, Geertman and Stillwell 2003a, Geertman and Stillwell 2003b, Vonk et al. 2005, Geertman 2006).
The utility of PSSs are broadly supported in the literature. Couclelis (2005) lists the development of scientifically based
insights, communication, the testing of alternative planning strategies, assistance with visioning, and assistance with
storytelling as some of the potential benefits of PSSs. Snyder (2003) writes PSSs could transform decisions in two
ways: Firstly, by shifting planning from the currently typical regulatory approach to a more forward looking pro-active
performance based approach. Secondly, by enabling public involvement in planning and decision making processes.
Nedovi-Budi lists what planning support systems are expected to do: help with data management, analysis, problem
solving, design, decision making and communication as well as facilitate group understanding in collaborative planning
processes (Nedovi-Budi, 2000, p. 83). PSS can also incorporate decision analysis techniques such as multi-criteria
analysis (MCA) which help in assimilating values and moving past values disagreements in the planning process
(Malczewski, 1999).
In spite of the potential of PSSs, the literature makes clear adoption and implementation of PSSs are not on par with
utility. As a general summary, Geertman (2006) puts forth that planners have not embraced tools available to them and
goes on to address the mismatch between supply, demand and applications of PSS. Vonk et al. (2005) summarize

Paper No. 0052

62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124

existing research and conclude PSS usage is not widespread listing both many general (e.g. institutional) and specific
(e.g. too complex) reasons for underutilization.
Ways to more effectively implement and expand use of these tools are actively being explored (e.g. Couclelis 2005;
Klosterman and Pettit 2005; Vonk et al. 2005).Ideas surrounding PSSs literature have evolved to the point where there
are well informed recommendations for enhanced utilization and broader implementation. Some of the most important
are a shared commitment among PSS users to well-defined methods and the ability of PSSs to provide needed outputs
for a substantial user community (Klosterman and Pettit, 2005). In order to reach this desirable state, Vonk et al. (2005)
recommend disseminating information and knowledge about PSS through real world example projects. In order to
disseminate knowledge about PSS applications in Australia, we present here several example projects from Queensland
and New South Wales.
Example Projects
Evaluation of a Structure Plan in Brisbane
The West End of Brisbane is a cosmopolitan, older, low-density, mixed-use area separated by the Brisbane River from
the central business district (CBD). Historically it was an area of worker cottages with industrial sites fronting the river.
There was an interesting mix of shops, many with an ethnic flavour. The area was predominately single story with some
higher buildings, generally not more than three stories.
In 2006 the Brisbane City Council released a Proposed Structure Plan for part of the West End. The plan allowed for the
transformation of this area to a high rise mixed use development and satellite of the CBD. The West End Community
Association (WECA) was very concerned about the plan. The proposed structure plan showed a 2D thematic map with
an associated table indicating proposed classes of land use with allowable building stories and use mix. There was very
little on what likely impacts would be. WECA sought a way to determine what the impacts of the plan would be and to
use that information to engage with the local community and also the Council.
Planning support enabled analysis of the proposed structure plan consisted of:
(1) classifying existing land use [Figure 1] into the same categories as those of the proposed land use (to ensure
valid impact comparisons);
(2) developing a flexible database for each proposed land use with a range of attributes;
(3) deciding on a number of suitable impact indicators;
(4) deciding on values for underlying assumptions;
(5) setting up and verifying the computational formulae that link database variables, assumptions and indicators;
(6) creating a range of presentation material in 2D and 3D;
(7) finally, discussion of results with WECA and the local Councillor.
Figure 1. Current (left) and proposed (right) land uses

Indicators evaluated for the project include: number of buildings (total and by type), jobs created by type, daytime and
night time populations (total and by source), open space per 1000 residents and volumetric space by land use.
An often used component of indicator development is the variable assumption. Assumptions allow transparency in
process and flexibility in analysis. With assumptions, by simply moving a slider bar a variety of What ifs? can be
explored. Approximately thirty variable assumptions were used in evaluating the West End Structure plan including the
likely different sizes (sq m) of affordable housing and residential dwelling units presented in Figure 2. The figure
Paper No. 0052

125
126
127
128
129

130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182

illustrates how indicator values can be portrayed in graphical form and how the assumptions can be quickly modified
and the results of the what if? portrayed. By using the slider bar to lower the average size of dwelling units, the effect
on total number of dwelling units can be quickly assessed.
Figure 2. The effect of changing the assumption of dwelling unit size

One of the benefits of planning decision support is to be able to cogently and simply portray to community members,
elected officials and decision makers (and indeed to planning professions) the magnitude and location of the likely
impacts of planning alternatives. 3D visualization tools are very useful for this task. The following are a series of
examples where Google Earth, Sketchup, and ESRIs ArcScene were used in conjunction with CommunityViz.
Figure 3 demonstrates differences between day and night populations by parcel. Figure 4 demonstrates current and
future building heights based on the proposed structure plan.
Figure 3. Day (left) and Night (right) populations of the proposed plan

Paper No. 0052

183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245

Figure 4 Building heights current (purple, solid) and proposed (yellow, translucent)

In any proposed land use change there are benefits to all parties if fact can be separated from opinion and values and if
transparency and basis can be clearly shown. In the evaluation of the West End Structure plan, planning support
systems enabled this to happen. The results enabled WECA to understand what the likely impact of the Councils
proposed structure plan would be and facilitated a very intelligent dialogue with Council.
Urban Development Alternatives in Gosford, NSW
Geodata Services, Inc. contracted with ESRI Australia to develop and conduct a three day training exercise and pilot
project in Gosford, working with local government council GIS staff and planners. The city of Gosford was interested
in expanding tourism options for the community and in attracting a new demographic of young urban professionals
commuting to day jobs in Sydney. They had purchased licenses of CommunityViz to assist in decision support and
planning efforts and were interested in applying the software to a planning issue. Following introductory training
sessions in the basics of CommunityViz, Geodata and ESRI staff met with several planners and identified two
introductory demonstration oriented pilot projects, a tool to assess developer contributions based on different
alternatives for residential development, and visualization tools to assess different alternatives of mixed commercial and
residential use in the urban development district adjacent to the commuter rail line.
The authority of the development contribution system in New South Wales was established under S.94 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act of (1979). Local authorities are required to establish a S.94 development
plan based on anticipated demographic trends and growth measured against the demand for public infrastructure that
would be required for the expanded population base. In previous years, planners in Gosford had developed a Visual
Basic program to calculate S.94 developer contributions assessments. The program required tabular input for individual
components of a development and provided numeric cost computations and summation of the developer contributions.
Geodata demonstrated how the CommunityViz planning support system could assist in both the planning and
application of S.94 developer costs.
Studies have shown there are varying levels of understanding of residents on developer costs and their application to
public infrastructure. Planning support software, with the ability to dynamically adjust assumptions about infrastructure
costs in different situations, allows planners flexibility in developing S.94 development plans. In the Gosford example,
shown in Figure 5, this was demonstrated by varying the mix of residential and commercial development in the urban
development district with different combinations of selected parcels and building footprints. This simple example could
be fully developed with other infrastructure improvements that are typically the recipients of funding derived from S.94
funds such as libraries, parks, open space and bush land. Unlike the visual basic program, the flexibility of interactive
assumptions could be manipulated by many planners interactively and adjusted over time.
On the application side of S.94 contributions, CommunityViz was demonstrated to be useful in providing cost estimates
in evaluating proposed developments. With dynamic formulas tied to contribution elements picked by users, and the
ability to enter new building footprints and number of building stories, contributor costs could be calculated
interactively with the developers and adjusted as required. The instant reporting and documentation functions of
CommunityViz provided detailed documentation on the assumptions and data characteristics of the preferred
alternative.
As the Urban Design Institute of Australia , New South Wales (Anderson and Hurni, 2006) found in their assessment of
public perceptions of S.94, a substantial proportion of homebuyers have limited knowledge of developer contributions
as a mechanism for funding community facilities/services. Moving the planning and application of developer
Paper No. 0052

246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308

contributions into a decision support framework with direct manipulation from planners of the database elements and
the spatial components provides a powerful method to enhance visibility, transparency and the ability to track to the
process for the public.
The second component of the project is a 3D visualization of the urban development district illustrating two alternatives
development concepts: a hotel complex and a multi story office complex.
Figure 5. Development Alternatives in the Gosford CBD.

Prior to this project, Gosford had invested in an extensive 3D model of the city that the planners and council used in
visualizing how a new development might look against existing infrastructure. The existing 3D model only included the
existing infrastructure from two years earlier, and was in a proprietary format that could not be adjusted locally by the
Gosford planning staff. It required contracting for adjustment, scenario construction, and updates. There was also no
capability to add new facilities and fly or walk through the results. CommunityViz, in conjunction with several
commercial off the shelf 3D software packages provides the ability to modify and adapt visualizations as new proposals
are evaluated.
Custom models for each building could be constructed (as was done in the original proprietary 3D model). However,
custom work raises the modelling cost into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a town the size of Gosford. Using
pre-existing 3D models accomplishes the work at a fraction of the time and cost. In many cases this is adequate for a
visualization for all areas except the specific area of a new development where realistic models are often created for
adjoining buildings and street landscapes. Virtual 3D tours are available to fly, walk or drive the site results with 3D
Analyst, or global viewer software such as GoogleEarth, Microsoft VirtualEarth, or ESRI ArcGISExplorer.
Several thematic views of the mix of residential and commercial development in the central business district were
created to demonstrate the use of transparent extruded polygons as a visualization tool that is easily understood and
interpreted. Figure 6 shows a D and an extruded polygon 3D view of buildings that could be potentially converted from
pure commercial to a commercial/residential mix. This type of 3D visualization can be created in minutes with any 3D
software package.

Paper No. 0052

309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370

Figure 6. 2D and 3D Representation

Rural Economic Development in Hunchy, QLD

On June 30, 2005 the State Government of Queensland, Australia released the South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional
Plan. In response to tremendous growth pressure, the plan establishes urban footprints as well as regional landscape and
rural production areas. This effectively stopped subdivision of rural land and caused rural landholders to re-evaluate the
way in which they can generate an economic return from their land. In order to better understand the changes brought
about by the SEQ Regional Plan, the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center in collaboration with the
University of the Sunshine Coast, Spatial Information Services Pty Ltd and the Queensland Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries used the CommunityViz planning support system to evaluate different possibilities for
economic development in Hunchy, a rural community of nearly 1000 hectares.
In addition to the SEQ Regional Plan, properties in the study area are impacted by State Government vegetation laws,
local government special management areas (SMAs) and local government compliance codes for specific development
activities. The effects of the SMAs on landholders was evaluated by using GIS to build a simple overlay model and
using the spatial spreadsheet capabilities of CommunityViz to calculate model outputs. Those outputs allow landholders
to understand how much of their land is impacted by each SMA and, in consultation with the local planning
guidelines, the level of application required for a potential project. In order to gauge the potential for specific economic
opportunities, a series of workshops explored developing farm forestry and cattle operations . Similarly to the SMA
model, local government codes for these activities were built into an MCA model and outputs were processed on a
parcel basis [Figure 7].
Figure 7. Lands suitable for farm forestry (left) and cattle grazing (right)

Paper No. 0052

371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433

CommunityViz was used to create and evaluate three scenarios: current conditions, build-out of vacant parcels, and
build-out as cluster development [Figure 8]. The build-out analysis revealed 360 hectares on 68 properties that could be
developed
as large lot residences or used for forestry or agriculture. The cluster scenario explores the option of using a transfer of
development rights or similar legal mechanism to allow the best of both worlds, full as-of-right residential development
while maintaining the maximum amount of open lands for production based rural economic development.
Figure 8. Land use maps of three scenarios: current conditions (left), build-out (centre) and cluster development
(right)

SiteBuilder 3D was used to develop several 3D scenes, which generated considerable enthusiasm and discussion.
Landholders found the scenes to be an immediately and intuitively understandable way to communicate planning and
development ideas.
For a detailed look at the Hunchy project, see Lieske, S.N., Lyons, K., Hamerlinck, J.D. and Vock, N. (under review).
GIS-Based Evaluation of Rural Economic Opportunity in Hunchy, Queensland. In the Proceedings of the Queensland
Spatial Conference 2008.
Development Alternatives in Palmwoods, QLD
One of the goals of the South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan is to support a compact, well-serviced and
efficient urban from; (Office of Urban Management, 2005 p. 1). In order to quantitatively compare two options for
urban form, the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center in collaboration with the University of the Sunshine
Coast and Spatial Information Services Pty Ltd used CommunityViz to contrast a suburban single family residential
subdivision on the outskirts of Palmwoods with a hypothetical mixed-use development in the heart of town. Scenario
planning and impact analysis techniques were used to evaluate impacts of potential suburban single family residential
development and central mixed-use development in a small town experiencing substantial development pressure.
The project resulted in a quantitative comparison of the number of dwelling units, population, total vehicle trips per day,
vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT per dwelling unit per day), jobs, and the number of new public facilities (e.g. day
care centres, fire stations etc) needed for each scenario.
Full build-out of the single-family residential subdivision consisted of an estimated 340 homes on lots averaging just
under 800 square meters. The total development footprint, combining residential lots and common open space is 0.42
square kilometres. The hypothetical mixed-use development was based on an urban development pattern with a floor
area ratio (FAR) of 1.5. The modelled breakdown of one-third residential, one-third office and one-third residential use
allows 9,594 square meters of space for each activity. Population in the mixed-use scenario, based on an assumption of
20 square meters per apartment, was slightly higher at 954 people than the subdivision scenario with 768 [Figure 9].
Even with the higher population, based on a lower assumption for vehicle trips per day per household in the more urban
setting, total vehicle trips from the mixed-use scenario were less than from the subdivision scenario. VKT were also less
in the mixed-use scenario [Figure 9]. Because of the substantial quantities of both retail and office space the mixed-use
scenario provided substantially more jobs for the area, an estimated 414 more than the subdivision alternative. With the
exception of the mixed-use scenario requiring 1 new day care centre in Palmwoods, neither development had a
substantial enough impact to require any additional public facilities.

Paper No. 0052

434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496

Figure 9. Indicators for suburban (left bar) and mixed-use (right bar) alternatives

Greenfield Site development in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland, QLD

The authors developed demonstration scenarios and an analysis framework for exploring alternatives and incorporating
a wide range of public opinion in a politically contentious development in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland. The site is a
126 ha greenfield within the urban footprint of a medium sized (population 7,000), rapidly growing town. Given the
size of the site, the size of the town, and the proximity to the central business district the development presents a once in
a generation opportunity to guide growth and influence the character of the community. A large number of diverse uses
are being proposed by the community. Views of what the development should and should not be are strongly held and
passions are high.
In order to address the variety of opinions on site development and present local government with an opportunity to
integrate public opinion with development of a structure plan, CommunityViz was used to create and evaluate four
land-use scenarios: current conditions [Figure 10] (upper left), mixed use (upper right), golf course (lower left) and
cluster residential (lower right).
Figure 10. Scenarios and Land Use

The project model consisted of impact analysis through indicator evaluation, public input weighted analysis of land
sensitivity, and public input weighted intra-site development potential (site develop-ability). 3D scenes were created to
present the visual implications of the development alternatives. The project team also developed a sketch tool which
allows planners with minimal GIS experience to alter scenarios and determine the impacts of their changes. This allows
rapid and easy incorporation of additional ideas for exploration beyond the four demonstration scenarios.
For this and similar site development projects, impact analysis assists in answering the question, What are the effects
of the development alternative on population, jobs, infrastructure, economic and environmental factors? The
CommunityViz common impacts wizard was used to create a set of 20 standard indicators including: annual CO2 auto
emissions, commercial energy use, commercial floor area , jobs housing balance, labour force, population, residential
dwelling units, residential energy use, residential water use, school kids and vehicle trips per day. The common impacts
Wizard allows, Simple, highly automated creation of over a dozen commonly used impact analyses of economic,
social, and environmental indicators. (Placeways LLC, 2007, p. 2) The wizard creates assumptions, attributes,
indicators, charts and reports as needed and provides detailed information and references for model inputs. In addition
to the indicators developed by the Common Impacts Wizard, project specific indicators were developed to evaluate
infrastructure costs including storm sewer, sanitary sewer and road costs by type.
Paper No. 0052

497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557

Both land sensitivity and site development potential were modelled to be able to include community values as weighted
assumptions. Community values are easily obtained via paper surveys or keypad polling at public meetings or through a
variety of other survey mechanisms. Planners being able to clearly demonstrate how community values are incorporated
into an analysis promotes transparency in the planning process and gives fair weighting to differing points of view.
Most importantly, it makes clear to the public that planning outcomes are based on community input. This is especially
important in politically contentious situations and has the potential to assuage controversy and last-minute derailment of
planning efforts. The land sensitivity analysis consisted of site geology, landslip, slope classes, ecologically significant
vegetation, waterways, wetlands and flood prone areas, a scenic buffer, bushfire hazard and cultural heritage data.
Results were presented as chart and mapped output [Figure 11].
Figure 11. Site Sensitivity Model Output mapped (left) and in chart format (right)

The evaluation of development potential was modelled in a similar way to site sensitivity. Model components were
viewshed, aspect, proximity to infrastructure, slope, and soils. As with the site sensitivity model weighting factors can
be adjusted and suitability thresholds changed.
Using the sketch tool developed for the project, planners are able to quickly and easily develop and evaluate additional
scenarios using relatively simple GIS tools. As site plans are digitally sketched on the map, the model automatically
calculates all impact indicators including hectares of land use, population, jobs, et cetera.
In addition to the analytical aspect of the project, several 3D scenes were created. Hanna and Culpepper (1998) argue
that work in site planning requires greater vitality and depth than most GIS projects. They present the example of using
shadows and textures to give a 3D quality to their illustrations (Hanna and Culpeppper, 1998, p. 93). The contemporary
GIS and planning support based equivalent is the development of 3D scenes using technologies such as ESRIs
ArcScene, CommunityViz Sitebuilder 3D, Google Earth or any of a number of similar software packages. 3D scenes,
more so than planning documents and even standard GIS maps, are intuitively understandable and of great assistance in
communicating and increasing overall comprehension of planning ideas. Figure 12 shows a number of scenes
illustrating some of the scenarios from this hinterland development site.
Figure 12. 3D Scenes of alternative scenarios

Paper No. 0052

558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622

The goal of the Greenfield site development project was not to advance any particular scenario, rather to take advantage
of scenario planning to provide alternatives for discussion and the power of planning support technologies to quantify
the differences between alternatives and present the different alternatives visually.
Conclusions
Planning support instruments and planning support systems offer solutions for engaging the public, developing
transparent planning processes, quickly generating and evaluating alternatives and developing quality plans. The project
examples discussed above demonstrate that placed based decision making with planning support tools can help
communities develop, respond to change and preserve their amenities, character and the environment.
The project in Brisbanes West End showed that it is possible to clearly, objectively and transparently determine and
visualise the likely impacts from a major rezoning, to quickly explore a wide range of what ifs, and to use these to
effectively engage the community and the proponents of espoused change.
The project in Gosford resulted in planning and GIS staff trained with a useful tool that could be integrated with longterm planning efforts.
In the evaluation of residential development alternatives in Hunchy, GIS based planning support has proven to be a
highly effective tool for understanding government regulations and the implications of those regulations on economic
development in rural areas.
In Palmwoods, and several of the other project presented above, CommunityViz is a demonstrateably powerful tool
for evaluating the real impacts and consequences of land development choices. These tools allow local government to
make truly informed decisions and may help effectively implement plans such as the South East Queensland Regional
Plan.
In the greenfield site development, planning support systems show demonstrated potential to help in assimilating values
and moving past values disagreements in the planning process (Malczewski, 1999).
With the cost of GIS based planning support having dropped significantly in the past few years the key benefits of
planning decision support: public engagement, impact analysis and alternatives analysis through scenario planning are
within reach.
Acknowledgements
These projects were carried out with a variety of partners and the following are acknowledged: the Sunshine Coast
Rural Livelihoods Project involving a partnership between the Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries and the
Blackall Range Institute and funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, the University of Queensland, the Blackall Range Institute, the three
Sunshine Coast Councils, and the University of the Sunshine Coast. The Wyoming Geographic Information Science
Center (USA), The West End Community Association, Bimap and Brisbane City Council.
References
Anderson, K. and A. Hurni. 2006. Not just all houses in Homebuyer Preferences and Developer Contributions in New Release
Areas in Sydney. Centre for Cultural Research. University of Western Sydney.
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.
Geertman, S. (2006) Potentials for planning support: a planning-conceptual approach, Environment and Planning B, 33: 863-880.
Hanna, Karen C. and R. Brian Culpepper. 1998. GIS in Site Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York
Klosterman, R.E and Pettit, C. (2005) An update on planning support systems, Environment and Planning B, 32: 477-484.
Malczewski, J. (1999) GIS and Multicrtieria Decision Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Nedovi-Budi, Z. (1998) The impact of GIS technology, Environment and Planning B, 25: 681-692.
Nedovi-Budi, Z. (2000) Geographic information science implications for urban and regional planning, URISA Journal, 12(2): 8193.
Office of Urban Management. (2005). South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005 2026.Queensland Government Office of Urban
Management. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from Department of Infrastructure and Planning: http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/seq
Placeways 2007. http://www.placeways.com/pdf/Scenario360factsheet.pdf
Snyder, K. (2003) Tools for community design and decision-making, in Geertman, S. and Stillwell, J. (eds.) PlanningSupport
Systems in Practice, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 99-120.
Vonk, G.A., Geertman, S. and Schot, P. (2005) Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment
and Planning A, 37: 909-924.

Paper No. 0052

10