Testing GeoDesign in Landscape Planning – First Results

219
Testing GeoDesign in Landscape Planning –
First Results
Christian ALBERT and Juan Carlos VARGAS-MORENO
1 Introduction
One of the fundamental aspects that is rapidly changing in design and planning is the
process by which designs are generated and developed (VARGAS-MORENO 2008). In this
context, computer-aided design tools and approaches are introduced that may provide
planners and designers with immediate feedback on the potential impacts of their
propositions, thus potentially enhancing design processes with real-time information on
design implications and opportunities for greater involvement of non-experts.
GeoDesign is at the epicenter of these discussions. GeoDesign is “a design and planning
method which tightly couples the creation of a design proposal with impact simulations
informed by geographic context” (FLAXMAN 2010a, b). The GeoDesign concept has been
proposed and fostered mainly through a series of international conferences organized by
ESRI, the leading company for GIS software solutions, and has gained increasing attention
over the last three years. GeoDesign conceptually builds upon the traditional design
approach of sketching an idea, evaluating it, and redrawing the design. What makes
contemporary approaches to GeoDesign unique however is the exploitation of nowadays
available technology to provide rapid, model-based feedback on different design proposals.
Landscape planning offers a potentially very useful field of application of GeoDesignapproaches.
Landscape planners often use scenarios as a basis for simulating and assessing
possible future landscape configurations (alternative futures). A GeoDesign approach to
landscape planning would enable planners to much more rapidly develop, alter and evaluate
alternative futures. This could ease the participation of affected and interested parties in the
planning process.
Research gaps exist on the one hand concerning the practical implementation of the
GeoDesign-approach in landscape planning. On the other hand, the potentials and
limitations of providing rapid, modeling-based feedback in participatory planning processes
have not been thoroughly explored.
2 Research Objective and Methods
As a first steps towards exploring the usefulness of a GeoDesign-approach in landscape
planning practice, one objective of this contribution is to explore how GeoDesign can be
implemented in landscape planning within the ArcGIS software environment. Another
objective is to discuss the opportunities and limitations of the currently available tools for
using a GeoDesign approach to landscape planning in practice.

220
C. Albert and J. C. Vargas-Moreno
The research questions are:
1. Which steps does a GeoDesign process consist of and which tools for implementing
them are already available in ArcGIS 10?
2. How can the identified GeoDesign tools be used to support landscape planning?
3. Which opportunities and limitations do current tools exhibit for application in planning
practice?
Questions two and three will be explored on the basis of an exemplary test in a planning
study for the region of Hanover, Germany. The region was selected due to the availability
of detailed spatial data and the diversity of site conditions. The planning process focuses on
the development of two scenarios of future landscape development, and exemplary
evaluates their respective impacts on biodiversity. The two scenarios are understood as
extreme options for landscape development that are both unlikely to occur as proposed, but
nevertheless frame the development corridor within which landscape change will probably
take place.
The research methods can be sorted to three parts: First, available literature and online
resources are reviewed. This section results in the development of a framework of essential
components of a Geo-Design process. Then, publications and online resources are used to
identify tools and extensions currently available for ESRI’s ArcGIS 10 for conducting these
steps. The identified tools and extensions are then mapped to the components of a
GeoDesign framework, resulting in an overview of available methods for each step.
Afterwards, the GeoDesign tools are applied in the landscape planning case study. The
planning process consists of five steps:
1. Developing a conceptual model for assessing biodiversity
2. Translating the conceptual model into the model builder
3. Defining and simulating two extreme scenarios for landscape development
4. Assessing and reporting the impacts of the two scenarios on biodiversity
Finally, they application of the tools is critically discussed concerning its opportunities and
limitations.
It is important to emphasize that the herein described study is only a first step for testing
and evaluating the usefulness of a GeoDesign approach to landscape planning. More
sophisticated simulations of land use changes in each scenario, as well as more elaborated
and evidence-based assessment methods for evaluating biodiversity and other landscape
functions would be needed in real planning applications. The case study therefore only
presents preliminary results on opportunities and limitations of the use of contemporary
GeoDesign tools in landscape planning, based on a critical evaluation from the planners’
perspective.
3 Results
3.1 Basic components of GeoDesign
Interestingly, a search on the ISI web of science for the term “geodesign” as the topic or
title reveals only two references, of which one is a two-page Croatian article from 2011,
and the other an Austrian article from 1994. Therefore, the following review is based on
other peer-reviewed publications, in particular DANGERMOND (2010) and FLAXMAN

Testing GeoDesign in Landscape Planning – First Results 221
(2010a) as well as grey literature (including ABUKHATER & WALKER 2010, DANGERMOND
2009, VARGAS MORENO 2010). Taken together, the literature argues that GeoDesign
process includes at least the following three components:
The input process (a.k.a the design): A sketching interface that allows for rapid
generation of alternative designs consisting of spatial features with attributes in a
geographic context.
The evaluation (a.k.a the impact): A set of spatially informed models that assess the
potential impacts of an entered design based on a series of evaluation parameters, and
The result: ( a.k.a the report): The instrument that communicates the outcomes of the
impact evaluations in rapid, predetermined and understandable ways. The fast feedback
then serves as input for another iterative cycle of sketching and evaluation.
3.2 Tools and methods for implementing GeoDesign with ArcGIS 10
The review of publications on the ArcGIS 10 software package (e.g. ALLEN 2011, HARDER
et al. 2011, ORMSBY et al. 2010) shows that no comprehensive documentation is so far
available of which tools can be used for implementing the entire GeoDesign process in a
planning project.
The currently available methods for GeoDesign with ArcGIS 10 are summarized in table 1.
For each component of the GeoDesign workflow, some tools are already existent. Other
findings include:
Sketching is implemented by a new feature of ArcGIS that was formerly known as the
ArcSketch extension (but requires some level of customization).
A useful approach for conducting rapid impact evaluations is to create a (simple)
impact evaluation model in the model builder and defining it as a new tool. This tool is
then readily available for impact evaluations. When started, it will prompt for the input
layer to use, and then conduct the analysis.
Reporting the results of the rapid impact evaluations can be accomplished in three
ways: the display of the maps created by the impact models, tables that summarize the
spatial extend of areas that fulfill specific criteria, and diagrams. In addition, a new
ESRI prototype, called dynamic charting, has been recently released for rapidly
creating and dynamically updating charts that summarize a given field of a data source
(e.g. costs or area). A significant issue identified is the restriction to move from reports
back to design or evaluation seeking iterative improvements. Other constraints will be
discussed in full manuscript.
Component I:
Sketching
Editable templates for
ArcMap s included in
mainstream ArcGIS 10
(formerly the ArcSketch
extension)
Component II:
Impact evaluation
Creating an impact
evaluation model in
model builder
Component III:
Reporting
Displaying maps that
result from impact
evaluation modeling
Displaying tables and
charts that summarize
the results
Table 1: Method components and tools for Geodesign currently available in ArcGIS 10

222
C. Albert and J. C. Vargas-Moreno
Taken together, the review has shown that tools already exist in ArcGIS to fulfil the core
ideas of GeoDesign, but all require substantial customization or advanced knowledge of the
software platform.
3.2 Test of the tools in the case study region
The region of Hanover has been established in 2001 in a unification of the former
communities of the city and the surrounding county of Hanover. Hanover region
encompasses about 230,000 hectares and is home to about 1.13 Million inhabitants. The
region is at the transition between the North-German plain and the low mountain ranges of
central Germany. The northern part of the region is a typical moor geest landscape
dominated by moor or sandy soils, pine forests, grasslands and fields. The southern part of
the region includes the fertile soils of the Hildesheimer Börde and parts of the Deister
mountain range. The Leine is the main river, trespassing the region from south to north.
The land use data for the case study is derived from a detailed land use map based on CIR
interpretation of aerial imagery. In order to make the land use map manageable, the
originally large number of land use classes was synthesized into ten land use types.
3.2.1 Conceptual model for assessing biodiversity
The literature shows various modeling approaches for assessing biodiversity. For example,
WALDHARD et al. (2004) developed a model that estimates and predicts plant species
richness at the local to regional scale based on an empirical assessment. This study uses an
approach proposed by von DRACHENFELS (2004) that employs the importance of biotope
types for nature conservation as a proxy for biodiversity. Each biotope type is evaluated on
a five point scale with reference to the situation in the state of Lower Saxony. Four
evaluation criteria are used: (i) ‘closeness to natural conditions’, (ii) endangerment, (ii)
rareness, and (iv) importance as habitats for plant and animal species. In order to make the
von Drachenfels-method applicable to the land use maps of the case study, a raster scheme
needed to be derived that connected the ten land use types with the respective value for
biodiversity (see table 2).
Land use type
Biodiversity value
Moor 5 Very high importance
Grassland 4 High importance
Forest 3 Medium importance
Moor (degenerated) 3 Medium importance
Fields 2 Low importance
Grassland (intensively used) 2 Low importance
Infrastructure 0 Not evaluated
Settlement area 0 Not evaluated
Waters 0 Not evaluated
Other land uses 0 Not evaluated
Table 2: Evaluation table of land use types and respective biodiversity value
(summarizedand altered from DRACHENFELS (2004))

Testing GeoDesign in Landscape Planning – First Results 223
3.2.2 Translation of the conceptual model into the model builder
The ArcGIS model builder is used to develop a model for evaluating biodiversity (see
figure 1) according to the evaluation rules defined in section 3.2.1. Input data for the
evaluation of scenario impacts on biodiversity include (i) a shapefile with the land use
configuration of the alternative future to be evaluated, (ii) an evaluation table (see table 1),
and (iii) a symbology layer that defines the color code for illustrating the five levels of
importance for biodiversity.
Fig. 1:
Model structure for evaluating biodiversity
The developed model first joins the evaluation table with the attribute table of the
alternative future land use map. Then, each feature in the shapefile will be attributed a
biodiversity value according to the respective land use. The symbology is altered to no
longer refer to the land use, but to the biodiversity value of each feature. In addition, a table
is created that lists the area attributed to each level of importance. Fields in figure 1 that are
indicated with a ‘P’ need to be checked and potentially altered by the user in each cycle,
including the input files and the names and folders for the created files to be saved.
3.2.3 Definition and simulation of two extreme scenarios
Two scenarios are developed in the case study. The first scenario is termed “Bioenergy”
and assumes that the production of biomass for bioenergy is strongly increased. The second
scenario, “Climate mitigation”, assumes that all arable land on organic and alluvial soils
(moor and floodplains) is converted to grasslands (Table 3).

224
C. Albert and J. C. Vargas-Moreno
Land uses type in
scenario “Status quo”
Land use type in scenario
“Bioenergy”
Grassland Fields Grassland
Fields (on organic and Fields
Grassland
alluvial soils)
Fields (all other areas) Fields Fields
Table 3: Transition rules for the two scenarios to create alternative futures
Land use type in scenario
“Climate mitigation”
The simulation of land use changes in each scenario followed the transition rules listed in
table 3. Plots of land were selected that fulfilled the land use type criterion, or the
combination of land use type and soils criteria. The attributes of the selected plots were
subsequently changed to represent the land use type of the respective scenario.
3.2.4 Assessment and report of impacts of the two scenarios on biodiversity
To assess the impacts of the two scenarios, the respective alternative futures were used as
input for the developed models in the ArcGIS model builder environment. The resulting
evaluation maps were color coded for the respective importance of each polygon on the 1 to
five scale. Furthermore, the respective distribution of areas for each level of importance
was summarized in a table, and illustrated in a bar chart for comparison (figure 2).
Fig. 2:
Simulated land use changes as well as impact evaluation maps and reports

Testing GeoDesign in Landscape Planning – First Results 225
4 Discussion and Conclusions
The herein described study used a limited land use data set of only ten classes, two extreme
scenarios, and only a simple impact evaluation model. The results therefore should not be
understood as detailed recommendations for planning, but rather as stylized study examples
for testing a procedure for implementing GeoDesign in landscape planning.
The study has shown a few opportunities and limitations. The following opportunities were
identified:
Transferring the impact evaluation concept into a model in the ArcGIS model builder
was possible. The model builder environment allowed for detailed customization of the
model to the specific planning needs. Developed models can be saved and used to
evaluate different land use maps that follow a pre-defined land use coding.
Translating the simple land use conversion rules of the scenarios into GIS was easily
doable using simple feature selection and attribute change commands.
Limitations that became apparent relate mainly to the question of how useful the developed
GeoDesign procedure would be in landscape planning practice:
Customizations of models in the model builder can often not be conducted within a
participatory planning session. Changing and pre-testing of models requires advanced
knowledge and may take quite some time.
While executing the evaluation model in the case study was possible within a few
seconds, a test with a more complex model showed that the modeling time can strongly
increase to about two or more minutes. Studies that employ large datasets and/or
complex models should therefore consider using distributed computing power in the
cloud.
The need for tools to intuitively respond to the design-evaluation process in iterative
ways has not yet been resolved. However, some discussions has started directing the
characteristics of such systems (LEE 2010, VARGAS MORENO 2010).
Most importantly, what is needed what is a way to develop a front-end appearance for
ArcGIS that combines the sketching, impact evaluation and reporting components in a
common interface that is intuitively usable for diverse audiences. This front-end
appearance should be web-based to provide access also to users that do not have access
to computing power and the ArcGIS software.
Issues for further research include (a) further developing the scenarios and models and
adding additional impact evaluation models, (b) testing the approach with real stakeholders,
(c) investigating the reactions and effects of the use of the GeoDesign approach in a
participatory planning process on participants’ perceptions and decision making (do they
find it useful?), (d) further developing the software interface for non-experts, and (e)
developing and evaluating options for transferring a front-end version of the GeoDesign
planning process to the web.
5 Acknowledgements
The authors thank Johannes Hermes, Svenja Heitkämper, Rebekka Hofmann, Christiane
Hörmeyer, Angelika Lischka, Felix Neuendorf, and Pia Wedell for support in conducting
the analyses in the case study. Johannes Hermes also helped preparing the graphics. The

226
C. Albert and J. C. Vargas-Moreno
study is related to the research project “Sustainable use of bioenergy: bridging climate
protection, nature conservation and society”, lead by the Interdisciplinary Centre for
Sustainable Development at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen and, in part, the Institute
of Environmental Planning at Leibniz Universität Hannover.
References
Abukhater, A. & Walker, D. (2010), Making Smart Growth Smarter with GeoDesign. In:
Directions Magazine, July 19.
Allen, D. W. (2011), Getting to Know ArcGIS ModelBuilder. Redlands, CA, ESRI Press.
Dangermond, J. (2009), GIS: Designing Our Future. In: ArcNews, Summer issue.
Dangermond, J. (2010), GeoDesign and GIS – Designing our Futures. In: Buhmann, E.,
Pietsch, M. & Kretzler, E. (Eds.), Digital Landscape Architecture 2010 at Anhalt University
of Applied Sciences. Berlin/Offenbach, Wichmann, 502-514.
Flaxman, M., (2010a), Fundamentals of GeoDesign. In: Buhmann, E., Pietsch, M. &
Kretzler, E. (Eds.), Peer Reviewed Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture 2010
at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences. Berlin/Offenbach, Wichmann, 28-41.
Flaxman, M. (2010b), Geodesign: Fundamentals and Routes Forward. Presentation to the
Geodesign Summit, January 6, 2010, Redlands, CA.
Harder, C., Orsmby, T. & Balstrom, T. (2011), Understanding GIS: An ArcGIS Project
Workbook. Redlands, CA, ESRI Press.
Lee, B. (2010), GeoDesign in Land-Use Planning. Presentation to the Geodesign Summit,
January 6, 2010, Redlands, CA.
Ormsby, T., Napoleon, E. J. & Burke, R. (2010), Getting to Know ArcGIS Desktop. ESRI
Press, Redlands, CA.
Vargas-Moreno, J. C. (2008), Participatory landscape planning using portable geospatial
information systems and technologies: the case of the Osa region of Costa Rica. In:
Graduate School of Design, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Vargas-Moreno, J. C. (2010), GeoDesign: The Emergence of a Tight-coupling Approach in
GIS and Spatial Planning. In: Planning & Technology Today.
Von Drachenfels, O. (2004), Kartierschlüssel für Biotoptypen in Niedersachsen. Unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung der nach § 28a und § 28b NNatG geschützten Biotope
sowie der Lebensraumtypen von Anhang I der FFH-Richtlinie. Niedersächsisches
Landesamt für Ökologie, Abt. Naturschutz, Hildesheim, 240.
Waldhardt, R., Simmering, D. & Otte, A. (2004), Estimation and prediction of plant
species richness in a mosaic landscape. In: Landscape Ecology, 19 (2), 211-226.