{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015549076773566569, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001943634596695821, 'mean_word_length': 5.394409937888199, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Presence in the planning process: Social Interaction and Shared Reality

Planners create a process in their interaction with the people affected by a plan. Information is emotionally and cognitively perceived and accepted in that process to arrive at decisions on future plans. A planning process occurs in a constructed reality. This reality must be shared among the participants of this planning process. Shared reality emerges out of interaction and communication in groups. To communicate it is necessary to get into contact and to come to a mutual understanding. Mutual understanding is possible if the participants have corresponding perceiving capacities and interpretation patterns used for coding and decoding. In my planning practice I have organized the mutual experience of concrete situations to create corresponding structures between participants. Groups of people affected by a plan are invited to show me their daily environment, the “object” of the plan. We start our contact by with walking together. I call this a moved planning process. This paper analyzes my practical experience in planning in small rural towns in the light of different theories about communication and understanding. I discovered that walking contributes to the decision process in groups. At the beginning walking strengthens the experience of presence in concrete situations. This then reduces discussions and common decisions are better accepted and supported by the group. A moved planning process leads to a correspondence between the participants and therefore to consensus. In geocollaboration (Mac Eachren, Brewer 2004) they point out four contexts which should be supported: knowledge construction, to create meaning out of collaborative extraction of information; support of common design in the group; group decisions that use geospatial information; training and education (to advance group learning). To connect my results with the complementary discussion about geocollaboration I will list conditions for collaboration to enable successful group work.