The Potential of GeoDesign for Linking Landscape Planning ......The paper addresses these questions (with the exception of the second problem, which requires basic research) with the

168

The Potential of GeoDesign for Linking Landscape Planning and Design

Barty WARREN-KRETZSCHMAR, Christina v. HAAREN, Roland HACHMANN and Christian ALBERT

Keynote: 1 June 2012

1 Introduction

In many European countries, landscape planning and landscape design have developed in different directions. It appears that the more environmental planning is legally codified and elaborated, the more the prototypes of landscape planning and landscape design differ from each other. This development is especially evident in Germany. Furthermore, the legal implementation of the European Landscape Convention may well increase this dichotomy.

Landscape planning and design emphasize different values, such as creativity or transparency, and they typically use different methodological approaches. For example, landscape design relies more on intuition and creativity to generate design ideas and concepts. On the other hand, landscape planning is often restricted by legal and implementation considerations and required to use transparent approaches such as standardised procedures and GIS analysis. In order to explore this relationship, landscape planning and design prototypes can be used to characterise hybrid approaches in practice and to identify opportunities for integrating design approaches into landscape planning. (V. HAAREN, submitted 2012)

Without doubt, linking the diverging approaches is a desirable goal. Landscape design ideas and concepts can help to communicate and even implement landscape planning objectives. Convincing landscape designs hold the power to engage and persuade citizens, politicians and land users. Even conservation objectives may be more easily implemented in the wake of a fetching design idea.

A prerequisite for better integration of design into landscape planning is the definition of situations where design approaches are feasible and preferable in the context of landscape planning. Conversely, situations need to be identified in which planning approaches can support the design context. The underlying hypothesis is that the design or planning approach has evolved based on requirements of the different tasks and situations where it is applied. However, there is rarely a situation or homogenous context that demands the application of only one approach, either a design or planning type. Growing recognition of the need for hybrid design-planning theory is acknowledged in the increasing spectrum and systemization of approaches (STEINITZ 2010). A concept for linking the approaches must consider the different applications, ethics and values to be implemented as well as the methods and processes of planning and design. Furthermore, the complex integration of planning and design approaches can be supported by GeoDesign. In this paper, the understanding of GeoDesign follows Flaxman (2009) and

The Potential of GeoDesign for Linking Landscape Planning and Design 169

especially the wider definition of VargasMoreno (2010): GeoDesign is defined “as the act of integrating the constantly transforming techniques, concepts and approaches in design and planning with GeoSpatial systems and technologies. GeoDesign’s aim is to create more comprehensive and rapid solutions for both processes and forms of the built and natural environment. This definition suggests transforming design and planning practices to a technology-supported feedback loop that allows the rapid conceptualization, articulation, visualization, modeling, and monitoring of transformations in a variety of geographic environments”. This definition of GeoDesign encompasses both elements of planning (GIS, geodata, impact analysis) as well as design (feed back loops). We use the term GeoDesign here in a restricted sense: as an IT supported approach, which systematically uses an IT toolset for combining geodata, as well as analyzing and visualization models/techniques that support the rapid generation of spatial scenarios in planning and design processes. For the purposes of this paper, we view the GeoDesign toolbox as a complete and integrated toolset, even though the present technology may not yet be able to achieve this.

In Vargas-Morenos’ definition, the planning and design processes are not specifically differentiated. Therefore, we need to examine the different requirements of the planning and the design processes in the European context, before we can identify opportunities for GeoDesign to support their integration. Furthermore, we need to investigate the role of available GeoDesign tools for integrating the planning and design processes.

2 Objectives and Approach

In order to understand how GeoDesign can strengthen the relationship of landscape planning and design processes, the following questions present themselves:

1. How can we classify and describe an integrated planning and design procedure? 2. To what extent can we support or replace intuition by automated analysis and

generation of solutions? 3. In which context is the digital dashboard approach – multiple loop approach - the most

efficient way to plan or design, and when is a more linear approach more efficient? 4. Which role can visualization and collaborative planning approaches play in the

different hybrid situations?

The paper addresses these questions (with the exception of the second problem, which requires basic research) with the objective to define the design and planning context and requirements for using GeoDesign technologies, and thus, focus on contributions to its application and conception (in a European setting).

In a first step, the preconditions and requirements of planning as well as hybrid planning-design situations were summarized in a framework based on an existing review of the literature. Second, we integrate theoretical potentials of GeoDesign into this framework and discuss consequences for the approaches. Finally, we examine the application context of different visualization methods and of participatory GIS technology.

B. Warren-Kretschmar, C. v. Haaren, R. Hachmann and R. Albert 170

3 Landscape Planning and Design Prototypes

3.1 What are typical tasks of the landscape planning and design processes?

Landscape planning is an analytical process based on a legal framework that uses science-based methodologies to evaluate landscape functions and inventories. The legally binding nature of the landscape planning decisions requires that the process be transparent. Therefore, landscape planning relies on clearly derived planning objectives, reliable methods and comprehensive site analysis. The content of the core tasks and phases of landscape planning are closely linked (see Fig. 1):

Fig. 1: Typical processes landscape planning and design

Inventory and evaluation: Geodata and local knowledge of citizens provide the basis for the inventory and assessment of the existing landscape condition and help to identify development opportunities of the natural resources and landscape functions, as well as potential impacts of existing and planned uses.


Planning objectives and concepts for development: The development of objectives and measures is based on the planner’s analysis of the landscape and includes the comments of citizens and stakeholders. Scenarios are often used to formulate the objectives and possible alternative for the remediation, conservation, and development of nature and landscape. Proposed planning measures: Finally, the requirements and measures for implementing the objectives are formulated in concrete planning proposals. This may include descriptions of alternatives that solve conflicts and information about their implementation. In participatory situations, visualization and scenarios can be helpful to prioritise concrete measures for preserving the most valuable landscapes.

Landscape planning tasks are characterized by a forward looking, precautionary and normative approach to changes in the landscape. They often address legal requirements or spatial land use conflicts. For the most part, existing land uses and ownership requires solutions that go beyond a physical or spatial solutions, for example economic, social or legal measures for safeguarding the environment. Furthermore, landscape planning solutions must be accurate, convincing and legally defensible. The implementation of landscape planning objectives becomes an important consideration in the development of solutions, and it depends on active participation, environmental awareness and the use of diverse legal and planning instruments.

The design process, on the other hand, is a combination of knowledge and intuition in an iterative, non-linear process. It includes discovery, research, analysis, testing, presentation, implementation, evaluation in an ongoing process of applying and adapting. (STOKMAN &

V. HAAREN 2011) The process of reducing complex information into coherent designs is a central part of the process which designers perform. Visualization tools, such as sketches, photomontages and models, play an important role not only in the design process to help move the process forward, but also to communicate design proposals to clients. Comments and suggestions from clients are then incorporated into the re-design solution before it is constructed (see Fig. 1)

Landscape design tasks are characterised by the freedom to create something new on a site where change is expected by the client. Landscape designers consider economic, social and technical requirements when envisioning and shaping the landscape in order to create environmental and aesthetic experiences. Furthermore, the design results are tangible and visible as well as aesthetically pleasing and often stimulate public interest.

3.2 How do landscape planning and design tasks differ?

Landscape design is an experimental approach in contrast to the deductive approach of planning. The design mandate encourages a creative approach based on a strong design idea that produces an aesthetically pleasing solution. Transparency of the design process is not prerequisite for the acceptance of the results. This allows a non-linear, iterative, creative process. The planning mandate, on the other hand, is not necessarily to create something new in the landscape, but rather to safeguard or re-establish landscape functions or ecosystem services. Because the implementation of the planning result requires economic and legal measures, the planning process must be transparent, documented and reproducible. This requires a thorough analysis of the landscape and its impairments and projected changes and reflects a more linear process. Monitoring and participation add iterative loops to the process, but they remain traceable and reproducible.


The most distinct differences between the tasks and application of landscape planning and landscape design lie in the fact that landscape planning is restricted by governmental directives that have precautionary objectives. Landscape design tasks, on the other hand, focus on creating or improving the environment so it is aesthetically pleasing to everyone. There may not be a sharp divide between planning and design tasks, rather a different corset of requirements or conditions, in which the client relationships, legal requirements, potential for fundamental change of the existing site differ. Landscape planning and design share a common set of values, e.g. creativity, transparency, participation, however the emphasis and freedom to interpret the individual values vary when carrying out the tasks. Furthermore, the tasks not only overlap, but hybrid tasks have also developed, such as designs for urban brownfields.

3.3 Where are opportunities at the interface between planning and design?

The interface between landscape planning and design offers the chance to draw on information and applications from both. The synergy of approaches can improve the quality and acceptance of the respective planning and design solutions. Fig. 2 shows potential ways in which landscape planning and design approaches and applications can support each other.

Fig. 2: Opportunities for integration of planning and design


A framework has been proposed (in V. HAAREN 2012 submitted) in order to identify situations in landscape planning where a design approach may support or improve for communication and implementation.

3.4 How can landscape design improve landscape planning?

In landscape planning, decisions are made about the management of the landscape that may not create a visible change in the landscape. Instead the landscape planning measures may protect a resource that is invisible to the observer, i.e. water quality or biodiversity. The importance and tangibility of such planning proposals is difficult to communicate to the public. Consequently, it is difficult to illicit support from politicians or local enterprises because there is nothing to show. Planners are forced to consider methods and means to obtain the public’s acceptance for such projects, even when citizens and stakeholders may have to relinquish some of their privileges. Landscape design may offer opportunities to solve such landscape planning dilemmas.

Landscape designers have the creative freedom to develop design ideas that convey non-visible landscape concepts. Furthermore, designers are involved in the “creation of images, ideas and concepts” as well as “places that have meaning and that mirror the interests of the residents.” (LYNCH & HACK 1984/2005) Such an approach may be exactly what landscape planning needs to make their “invisible” objectives and solutions to environmental problems visible to the public. A design that brings the issues of the landscape to life, communicates the underlying issues of a landscape plan, could be an answer to the Achilles heal of landscape planning. Creative designs can also emotionally engage citizens, politicians and land users and raise awareness about land degradation problems or reconcile the functional and aesthetic requirements of the landscape. Finally, designers can give planning measures a concrete expression or transform citizen proposals into a design solution. Such physical expression of planning objectives in small projects, which can be implemented during the planning phases, can move the abstract planning objectives to understandable, visible solutions for the citizens.

3.5 How can landscape planning support design?

Landscape planning can provide landscape design with a wealth of information about the landscape that can be used to reframe the design problem. Designers can draw on the planners’ landscape analyses as well as methods and models. Environmental information can be used not only to substantiate the design proposals but also to provide an important understanding of the site context. As SWAFIELD (2002) points out that the design action may be at the site scale, but design thinking must embrace other relevant scales. Finally, landscape planning information can help to distinguish the limits of design ideas in terms of legal restrictions i.e. by species protection which is also relevant in urban areas. Finally, ecological and economic information and experience in (web) participation processes may also improve communication about design ideas.

The opportunities to combine planning and design (Fig. 2) stress the possibilities to improve transparency and communication in both processes. In the following, we look at the capacities of GeoDesign (GIS, scenario technique and visualizations) to support these common objectives, especially in a participation or collaborative planning process.


4 The Capacities of GeoDesign for Supporting Collaborative Planning

4.1 Requirements of Participation

For participation it is important that the range of services of the administration is organized so that citizens are able to actively participate and communicate. This includes direct contact through emails or forms, involvement of citizens in decision making processes, or the possibility to voice opinions about public issues. Transparency is guaranteed primarily when comprehensive and current information about legislative processes are made available, but also when responses to inquiries are documented. For this, the administrations use not only web-based GIS but also other solutions in the appropriate participation phases, such as systems for: content management, document and work flow management.

In addition to the current technical standards and the legal requirements that are involved in the development of an e-participation system or an integrated GeoDesign system, the needs of the involved parties must be considered first. This is the only way can the administration efficiently provide citizens and interest groups with useful participation tools. Assuming an intuitive interface, new ideas can be developed with these tools and alternatives, e.g. with respect to environmental impacts, can be publicly discussed or in a forum that use a limited access concept. Furthermore, the plausibility control of interactive scenarios can be integrated, which provide the initial spatial analyses of the input on-the-fly.

It must be possible at any time during the participation process to add or edit written background information, to integrate further geodata, to change participation deadlines, or to include other stakeholders. Furthermore, the individual interest groups should be informed and extensive access authorisation should be given to the respective parties, before the participation process starts, and all changes need to be documented, i.e. protocol of versions. A statistic about how the participation proceeding was used should summarize the number of visits and hits on different pages. Following an initial review and evaluation of the submitted comments, a simple classification and internal assessment is undertaken before it is presented to the political bodies.

4.2 GeoDesign in participation

Visualization supports citizen participation in the decision making process by responding to participants’ needs for understanding the planning situation. Participants require orientation, the ability to picture planning changes and to understand the effects of planning proposals. Above all, they look for interactivity or the chance to interact with the information and to try out their own ideas and proposals. Interactivity of the visualization plays an important role in engaging citizens’ interest as well as promoting credibility of the visualization (WARREN-KRETZSCHMAR 2011). GeoDesign responds to many of these requirements for successful participation (see Fig. 3). It offers the possibility to visualize the results with many different output types, e.g. maps, diagrams, models. This variety allows viewers with different spatial understanding capabilities to choose the visualization type that they understand, e.g. 2D map for overview or a 3D model that shows spatial relationships or both. Although GeoDesign may not yet satisfy the participants need for a


“picture” or quickly rendered image of the landscape change, it does provide participants with the opportunity to interact and exercise control over the planning information and proposals.

Fig. 3: GeoDesign supports the visualization requirements of participants

5 GeoDesign at the Interface between Landscape Planning and Design

The workflow and software capabilities of GeoDesign can support the tasks of both landscape planning and design during different phases of the processes (see Fig. 4).

Landscape planning already takes advantage of GIS and models. The first steps of the ideal GeoDesign workflow (FLAXMANN 2009), which starts with the study area and existing digital information about the site, are identical with that of landscape planning. An array of site information as well as models or analysis methods, which can be adjusted to the requirements of the planner or designer, are also available. In addition, IT tools that support citizen participation are used in landscape planning practise. However in public participation, the ability to quickly portray landscape change, design ideas or citizen proposals remain unsatisfactory. Visualisation (supported by GIS data) is used, for the most part, to show an overview of the landscape, while detailed or realistic visualisation of small projects “on the fly” remain the exception. In addition, impact modelling, which uses GIS exclusively, is not fast enough for the face-to-face participation process.

Integrated visualisation components of GeoDesign, which encompass tools for visualizing large complex areas as well as smaller project sites could play an important role at the interface between planning and design. Such components offer the ability to bridge the scale change often associated with the different tasks of planning and design. For example, with GIS based visualization software, e.g. VNS from 3DNature, it is possible to frame the information for the design and planning question according to scale and point of view and thus to overcome the CAD fixation of design (see Fig. 5). The hybrid tasks of landscape planning and design may range from landscape scale analysis down to site design decisions.


For example, decisions are required at both the landscape and site scale when a landscape planning proposal for a habitat network is incorporated into the site design of urban open spaces that supports both biodiversity and recreational use. While the data base remains the same, the flexibility of the view and scale of the visualization support the transition from landscape analysis to detailed, site specific design.

Fig. 4: GeoDesign supports the different phases of the landscape planning and design processes

Fig. 5: Flexible scale and view point of visualization support hybrid tasks and bridges scale differences of landscape planning and design. (VNS renderings created by Anne Meise)


However, the greatest innovation of GeoDesign for landscape planning lies in the sketch component and the related rapid assessment options. This is very important for improving both the participation and political decision making processes. It can be used to visualize citizen proposals and analyse their environmental impact very rapidly. GeoDesign not only makes the planning process more intuitive and accessible to participants; it also allows citizens to participate at the beginning of the planning process, by visioning their ideas. Furthermore, the sketch function can be used not only to design planning and citizen proposals but also to complement the planning proposal with respective design projects.

The sketch function supports an intuitive approach and encourages a more informal design attitude. Subsequently, “sketching” may stimulate ideas for small planning projects that can be implemented during the landscape planning process. Studies show that such fast and tangible outcomes of the planning increase citizen’s acceptance of the planning measures (OPPERMANN et. al 1997). The combination of sketching capabilities and impact analysis together with a broad variety of visualisation options (including software not supported by GIS) can help to focus planning. These capabilities integrated with web participation tools would be a desideratum for technical development that offers an integrated approach to online participation.

On the other hand, when GeoDesign tools and workflow introduce planning elements into landscape design process, some principal changes can be expected. In the initial design step, a digital data base (GIS) about the existing situation and context can substantiate site information. Furthermore, the environmental or social impacts of the subsequent design proposals can be rapidly assessed, thereby supporting communication with the client or public participation. Although, as mentioned, landscape planning can profit from detailed visualisations of planning measures, landscape design might profit from GIS based visualisations that show the landscape context of a project site. In addition, web based participation tools could open design projects to public participation. At present, the use of visual media to creatively illustrate design concepts prevails in design. A GIS based program could expand these communication tools with new opportunities to communicate non-visible site factors as well as project features and impacts with easily processed charts of information.

Clearly, the strength of GeoDesign to quickly analyse and test ideas along the way is beneficial for both landscape planning and design. GeoDesign workflow and infrastructure can be integrated into the different planning and design approaches. This is important in both large scale planning tasks, but also in design projects However, while we see advantages for integrating GeoDesign tools into landscape planning in general, there may be less of an advantage (unfavourable cost benefit ratio) in using GeoDesign in small landscape design projects. The investment for preparing the GIS data base and implementing the models for analysis must be considered.

Furthermore, some shortcomings of using currently available technology for GeoDesign in planning practice were revealed when tested in a landscape planning case study in the region of Hanover, Germany. The case study found that further technological improvements are needed in order to enhance the tools’ capacities for conducting complex analyses quickly, and to improve software usability by non-experts. Harnessing the power and usability of web-based GIS could alleviate this problem. Furthermore, discussions with planning practitioners revealed that the automated impact assessments of GeoDesign were


insufficient in cases that required local interpretation and case-sensitive expert judgment in addition to rule-based analyses.

6 Conclusions

In conclusion, the technical support system of GeoDesign has the potential to be considered a “natural” interface between planning and design approaches, because it supports hybrid tasks of both processes. GeoDesign tools could help both landscape planners and designers to incorporate new approaches. Geodesign reflects the existing workflow and approaches of landscape planning. It may support participation by fast, simple modeling of planning alternatives which are proposed by citizens, especially if the the tools’ capacities for conducting complex analyses quickly will be enhanced in the future. The use web-based GIS could alleviate the present problems.

The capacity of Geodesign for speedy modeling may also support typical elements of the design process (iterative loops) by fast assessment of design alternatives. In addition, for landscape design, Geodesign offers opportunities for an improved information base and context information by linking design to GIS. However, it may not yet reflect the requirements of the creative design process sufficiently. As ERVIN (2011) points out, more information about the different design approaches used by designers and planners is needed. The designer aims to reduce complex information into a strong design idea by using analytical knowledge and creative abilities (compare SCHWARZ-V.RAUMER & STOKMAN 2011). When the creative process can be understood better and models developed for the process, then GeoDesign moves closer to not only supporting the analytical processes but also the creativity of the designer. An understanding of the different methods and decision processes in different situations could be translated into GeoDesign. Finally, the user interface may be the key to the intuitive thinking of the designer. If GeoDesign can develop an interface that supports the way the designers develop ideas, it then offers the intuitive designer (and planner) a treasure of information to support design decisions.

GeoDesign can encourage designers to see GIS as a useful tool, and planners, who engage in Geodesign, may be able to use design methods to give form to planning measures. Nevertheless, an efficient adoption of different GeoDesign tools and components must reflect the different tasks and applications of landscape planning and design, how they can complement each other and which modeling detail is needed for the respective planning or design task. Finally, GeoDesign now offers a combination of sketching capabilities and impact analysis. When detailed visualization options and web participation tools are integrated into GeoDesign, it will not only become an indispensable part of participatory planning, but it may also smooth the gap between planning and design applications.

References

Ervin, S. (2011), Object Oriented GeoDesign. Redlands, California: 2011, GeoDesign Summit, 06-07 January 2011.http://video.esri.com/watch/195/object-oriented-geodesign.


Flaxman, M. (2009), Fundamental Issues in GeoDesign. Digital Landscape Architecture, Keynote Lecture.

v. Haaren, C. (submitted 2012), Ethics and Aesthetics in Landscape Design and Landscape Planning: Conflicting concepts or potential for integration? A theoretical approach from the perspective of landscape planning. Submitted to JOLA, 1/2012.

Lynch, K. & Hack, G. (1984, 2005), Site Planning. MIT Press. Oppermann, B., Luz, F. & Kaule, G. (1997), Der 'Runde Tisch' als Mittel zur Umsetzung

der Landschaftsplanung. Angewandte Landschaftsökologie, 11. Luz, F. (1994), Zur Akzeptanz landschaftsplanerischer Projekte. Frankfurt am Main,

P. Lang. Schwarz-v.Raumer, H. G. & Stokman, A. (2010), GeoDesign – Approximations of a

catchphrase. In: Buhmann, E. et al. (Eds.), Digital Landscape Architecture: Teaching & Learning with Digital Methods & Tools. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences.

Steinitz, C. (2010), Ways of Designing. Redlands, California 2010, GeoDesign Summit, 06-08 January 2010. http://video.esri.com/watch/54/2010-geodesign-summit-carl-steinitz-ways-of-designing

Stokman, A. & von Haaren, C. (2010), Integrating Science and Creativity for Landscape Planning and Design of Urban Areas. In: Weiland, U. & Richter, M. (Eds.), Urban Ecology – a global Framework. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Swafield, S. (2002), Theory in Landscape Architecture: A Reader. (Penn Studies in Landscape Architecture). University of Pennsylvania Press.

Terzidis, K (2006), Algorithmic architecture. Elsevier. Vargas-Moreno, J. C. (2010), GeoDesign: The Emergence of a Tight-coupling Approach in

GIS and Spatial Planning. In: Planning and Technology Today, 2010. Warren-Kretzschmar, B. (2011), Choosing appropriate visualization methods for public

participation. Dissertation, Leibniz University Hannover.

Documents

The Potential of GeoDesign for Linking Landscape Planning ......The paper addresses these questions (with the exception of the second problem, which requires basic research) with the