GeoDesign Approach in Vital Landscapes Project

GeoDesign Approach in Vital Landscapes Project 

Abstract 

Sándor JOMBACH, László KOLLÁNYI, József László MOLNÁR, 

Áron SZABÓ and Tádé Dániel TÓTH 

Vital Landscapes Project aims to interpret landscape management as an interactive, 

integrative, conscious and open procedure. Geodesign approach supports the frames of the 

research workflow and study area activities of the Hungarian project partner. It uses various 

combination of spatial data and software to interpret landscape in general and in the pilot 

area involving regional stakeholders. It integrates 3D visualisation, photography, landscape 

assessment, personal impressions, surveys of tangible landscape values and intangible 

heritage, future scenarios and decision support for a complex online landscape 

management. Geodesign approach has relevant mission in the project especially as the 

study site is probably the most controversial landscape of the country. This kind of 

exceptionally transformed landscape needs interpretation, awareness raising and vision for 

the future. 

1 Introduction 

Vital Landscapes Project is an international institutional cooperation of eight partners from 

seven Central European countries with the common aim of analysing different methods of 

landscape maintenance in the aspects of European landscape protection, environment and 

rural development policies. The general goal is to contribute to the sustainable development 

of cultural landscapes in Central Europe. Further aims are: 

� Maintenance and protection of vital and attractive cultural landscapes, 

� Enhancement of local’s sensitivity towards landscape values, 

� Involvement of inhabitants, farmers, media into the local decision-making process, 

� Visualisation of landscapes and their changes, 

� Exchange of experience and good practice of Central European landscape management 

methods. 

Generally visual interpretation of landscapes is an essential part of raising awareness in the 

project. Landscape is considered in the project as European Landscape Convention defines. 

It is an area, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or 

human factors. Most of the partners use huge amount of photograps or historical maps to 

interpret landscape changes. The geodesign approach, that has a wide range of 

photographic and GIS applications and is presented in this paper, mostly represents the 

Hungarian partner’s application at the Department of Landscape Planning and Regional 

Development in Corvinus University of Budapest. 

Application of innovative tools like 3D visualisation of landscapes and achieving active 

public participation in the project is a basic requirement. The idea of integrating GIS and 

planned or designed elements in visualisation brought the necessity of a complex geodesign 

211

212 

S. Jombach, L. Kollányi, J. L. Molnár, Á. Szabó and T. D. Tóth 

application. Geodesign is hold as a combined “toolset” of future world developers in 

various fields from transport network planners to social science. Some think that geodesign 

is one form of decision making (TOMLIN 2011), some considers as a convergence-program 

for bridging the gap between spatial analysis, and shaping the future of spatial 

environments (SCHWARZ 2011). It is obvious that geodesign can involve efforts to analyse, 

plan or interpret alternative futures, describe landscape and its changes for stakeholders as 

many applications show (STEINITZ 2003, WOLF & MEYER 2010, LANGE & HEHL-LANGE 

2010). It has relevance to be used for planning of complex systems where geographical, 

visual and design aspects do matter. From our landscape architect’s point of view 

Geodesign is the combination of software from GIS to CAD, that integrates materials from 

photographs to digital maps, believes the purpose of informing locals and planners, and 

supports the activities from planning to implementation. Some believe that geodesign is not 

a new enterprise for landscape architects (ERVIN 2011) as only the supporting tools were 

strengthened by new computing technology and deeply renewed its concept. Definitely 

true. The task is to prove that we can analyse, assess and manage landscapes better and 

communicate this process more clever than without digital geodesign. Are we able to do it? 

2 Study Area 

Nagyberek Pilot Area in Southwest-Hungary used to be the largest swampy bay of Lake 

Balaton. This is one of the most transformed landscapes of Hungary with many 

contradictory characteristics. After the water regulations of the 19th century and the 

intensive agricultural use in the middle of 20th century it still plays an important role in the 

ecological system of the largest lake in Central Europe. This drained but still swampy 

region is mostly dominated by patches of forests, agricultural land, reeds, built up areas, 

network of channels and the international highway line between Ljubljana and Budapest or 

generally between Italy and Russia. The area of about 300 km2 is represented by water 

management, forestry, hunting, fishing activities, nature protection, extensive agriculture of 

pasturing, viticulture, fruit and honey production, highway and railway lines, traditional 

crafts, rural tourism and mass lakeshore tourism (Fig 1.). 

Due to the changing environmental circumstances, the disadvantageous economic 

tendencies and peripheral location in the Lake Balaton touristic area, Nagyberek is bankrupt 

and has tremendous conflicts at the moment. Increasing unemployment, aging population, 

low level of infrastructure, opposition of nature protection, agriculture and forestry do all 

represent the site. Due to the poor soil quality and extreme water conditions agriculture has 

low productivity. The mass tourism at the Balaton lakeshore has very slight effect on local 

rural tourism of the whole area right now. Depopulation and ethnic conflicts make the 

situation even more difficult. Despite of dominant human influence and intensive 

agricultural utilisation in the past, the area still has relevant natural and cultural values. It 

seems like the conflicts with nature conservation of “Fehérvíz” marshland do not strengthen 

rural tourism, but decrease the breakout options in agriculture and forestry. In few 

settlements only extensive agriculture, activities related to heritage and unique landscape 

features and traditional land use can be beneficial activities for a limited number of farmers. 

There is a debate whether any of these could mean breakout choice for the study area.

GeoDesign Approach in Vital Landscapes Project 213 

Fig. 1: Location of Nagyberek and “Visual Landscape” screenshot of a settlement 

The various interests, functions, on-going political debates related to land ownership and 

land tenancy all affect landscape management in Nagyberek. It seems that the area’s future 

depends on the awareness and activities of its stakeholders. What do they consider valuable 

in the landscape and how these should be maintained? This will determine the future of the 

area. This complex, but mostly plain and hidden landscape needs interpretation supported 

by Vital Landscapes geodesign approach to be understood by its stakeholders. 

3 Method and Materials 

Geodesign is used to explain the landscape changes and to illustrate the complexity of 

landscape development. The purpose is to make landscape characteristics visible, creating a 

website where all stakeholders can see and update the virtual landscape. This landscape is 

well introduced with all internal drivers of its development. The drivers are especially 

important for the Hungarians in the countryside, who think that landscape is not an image 

or a scenery, but a place where they live in, something they act for and fits their needs. The 

website (Vital Berek: e-berek.hu), under development, supports information exchange, 

maplike illustrations, photo upload and personal annotation options, platforms for 

landscape values and visualisations (Fig. 2). The basics of the website are Google 

applications: Google Maps and Google Earth. The modules of the application are based on 

GIS layers that contain different levels of landscape and offer different interpretation of 

landscape. Besides carthographic information there is a huge amount of photo, figure, 

diagram, table and visualisation to introduce the pilot landscape of the Hungarian partner. 

“Info landscape” module presents statistical information of municipalities, micro-regions 

and micro-landscapes in the area. Written summaries of landscape characteristics are 

illustrated by diagrams, tables and figures. The future development of the module plans to 

make statistical information available on a digital vector map with attribute table. 

“Time and Space” module provides information about the past, present and future of the 

landscape, interpreting historical maps, landscape transformation, present development 

tendencies, and outlook to the future. Besides the huge amount of cartographic information 

it is necessary to explain landscape changes and development process.

214 


“Photo Landscape“ module of the website allows registered users to upload landscape 

photos. The place of photo exposition can be marked with placemark on google maps. 

Occasionally photo competition is organised in various categories. The non-relevant or 

landscape indifferent photos are removed from the platform and the most adequate, nice 

and characteristic photos win the contest. This is the very first application of the website to 

create a common online community based platform about the pilot area. 

Fig. 2: The concept of Geodesign approach in Vital Landscapes Project 

“Personal landscape” module further encourages stakeholders to participate with their 

subjective opinions in landscape analysis. Stakeholders of the pilot landscape as registered 

users of the website can upload any kind of materials about the landscape e.g.: text, photo, 

images, maps, placemarks, video and audio documents, or even recommended weblinks. 

Users can evaluate the landscape and the applications of the website too with registered 

online activity. Evaluation of the landscape has various ways. It is possible to comment 

info, to rate heritage, to vote about future alternatives as part of following modules. 

“Tangible landscape values” module presents appreciated elements of the pilot landscape. 

Old trees, significant historically relevant buildings, built structures related to land use or 

other various types of landscape values. The landscape elements are registered by users just 

as location, photos, name, description and categories of values. “Intangible heritage” 

module has a similar approach but deals with values of not exact location, not tangible


objects, but spirit and history. It manages traditional characteristics of the landscape hold as 

values. Most of the heritage and landscape values are non-protected, and are in continuous 

danger thanks to inaccurate human activities or harmful natural processes. These are 

important part of our cultural heritage and determine landscape character as well. 

“Visual landscape” module provides a 3D visualisation of landscape with help of Google 

Earth. Landscape characteristics and distinct landscape elements are visualised GIS layers 

in three dimensions. Various image and vector data is shown for the territory of the pilot 

landscape. Layers of Google Earth like road network, boundaries, panoramio photos, 3D 

buildings, sunlight etc. are integrated. Vital Landscape Project developed photo-realistic 

models of buildings in villages of pilot area, and made it visible on Google Earth. 

“Knowledge base” module is a platform that refers on all other modules or integrates parts 

of them. It offers the visibility of additional landscape analysis and assessment. These all 

contribute to the final module where the users can decide about future development of the 

landscape. In “Decision landscape” module users can express their preferences concerning 

landscape development. These two modules enhance knowledge based landscape 

assessment and stakeholder oriented decision support for future scenario assessment. 

4 Results 

The most important result is the website that follows a kind of landscape planning and 

management process. It is based on the steps of landscape perception, data collection, 

survey, analysis, evaluation, visualisation, assessment, decision and planning. Most of the 

modules are continuously under development and are uploaded with materials, maps, 

photos, descriptions and GIS datasets. The website aims the stakeholders of the Hungarian 

pilot landscape, and the partnership is kept informed about the structure, techniques and the 

general development. The users of the website do mostly belong to the younger generation. 

They visit the photo contest and visual landscape applications. The photo contest organised 

on the website resulted in more than 150 photo uploads. This is promising in this extremely 

underdeveloped landscape. Two years of surveys in the pilot area resulted more than 200 

landscape elements considered as relevant values. Students and landscape professionals do 

continuously work on further surveys. Another effort is to involve inhabitants and other 

stakeholders in heritage and landscape value surveys. 

The website has multiple functions. Besides that it shows visualisation, use of GIS data, 

and historical images, which were general requirements in the project, it has basically a 

combined role of a community based knowledge management and GIS based decision 

support. Nevertheless it applies new visualisation channels to interpret landscape by 

integrating GoogleMaps and GoogleEarth applications and photorealistic visualisations of 

SketchUp or occasionally VNS3 software. Decision module offers alternative landscape 

futures and members of the community can express their opinion and make their decision in 

personal landscape module. The different alternatives can be commented and rated, the 

proposals can be liked or disliked, territorial developments can be supported or not 

supported. Rating landscape elements and future alternatives is a very important function, 

as on one hand it enhances awareness and activity of locals, and on the other hand 

professionals can gain information about values, way of thinking, and norms of locals.

216 


Fig. 3: Visualisation of past development and future alternatives of locating shopping 

mall. (a and b) Orthophoto 2000, and 2008; (c) Birds eye view aerial photo 2011, 

(d) Draped ortho based landscape model (e, f, g, h) 2D and 3D future alternatives 

5 Discussion 

The most challenging part of the approach is the concept that landscape interpretation and 

management process should be as online as possible. Google SketchUp and Earth provide 

simple, free available, easily understandable platform in a GIS browser application with 

sketching tools. Practically in kml or kmz format most relevant formats (tiff, shp, skp) can


be transformed. Of course there are experiences involved in the approach how in general 

GIS based 3D visualisation is informative for local stakeholders and how important tool it 

is to address local communities with consultation about management (LEWIS & SHEPPARD 

2006) or in case of experts how much of realism and detail matters in visualisation 

(APPLETON & LOWETT 2003). It is also well known how virtual globe systems such as 

Google Earth and related applications have rapidly growing popularity (SHEPPARD & CIZEK 

2009). Besides visualisation the “know how” and values of active society is an important 

input for vital landscapes. We can find summaries about how much the knowledge of the 

past influences the preferences towards present values (HANLEY et al. 2009.), or how much 

the social background, ethnic origin does matter, or expert and lay-people preferences differ 

in evaluation (SWANWICK 2009, VOULIGNY et al. 2009). 

Wide range of methods to predict future land use, based on actors, driving forces and 

various scenarios, are sprawling in landscape management. There are applications which 

combine modelling results with visualisation (DOCKERTY et al. 2006), researches 

concentrating on definition of key forces that are responsible for high rate of changes 

(SCHNEEBERGER et al. 2007). Land use modelling in our project applies CLUE-s model 

chosen from a wide range of spatially explicit land use change models developed over the 

last decade (VERBURG et al. 2006). The website ending up in decision landscape module 

could provide options for territorial assessment or in some case territorial impact 

assessment. Overview of current plans, programs or policies does also belong to the essence 

of territorial impact assessment. The goal is to avoid the possible negative impacts at the 

early planning period. In the pilot region Nagyberek the highway built recently will 

definitely have territorial impacts e.g. green field investments (Figure 3). These above are 

all relevant contributions to our Vital Landscapes approach. It aims to combine the best 

practices and to integrate various popular steps of planning and management. It supports 

locals to express their opinions and add further input of e.g. landscape values and to choose 

from different geographically referenced and visualised landscape development 

alternatives. 

6 Conclusions, Outlook and Acknowledgement 

Due to the holistic geodesign approach of Vital Landscapes Project the website seemed to 

be the proper platform for the communication of landscape management. It is expected that 

the approach and its related technical applications are reusable on other pilot areas, and 

rechargeable with other maps and data. Up to now from feedbacks it is clear that huge 

effort of NGO’s and young professionals is necessary to address stakeholders, raise 

awareness with organising workshops, integrating the website introduction in student 

education. The future application should be based on more interactive participation of 

associations, organisations and municipal or regional landscape management. Thanks to 

Vital Landscapes partnership and leadership supporting activities. The content of the paper 

was prepared and the participation on the conference was supported by the Vital 

Landscapes Project (2CE 164P3) in Central Europe Operational Programme 2007-2013.

218 

References 


Appleton, K. & Lovett A. (2003), GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: defining 

‘sufficient’ realism for environmental decision-making. In: Landscape and Urban 

Planning 65, 117-131. 

Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., Appleton, K., Bone, A. & Sünnenberg G. (2006), Developing 

scenarios and visualisations to illustrate potential policy and climatic influences on 

future agricultural landscapes. In: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114, 103- 

120. 

Ervin, S. (2011), A System for GeoDesign. In: Preliminary Proceedings Teaching 

Landscape Architecture, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences Bernburg & Dessau, 

145-154 

Hanley, N., Ready, R., Colombo, S., Watson, F., Stewart, M. & Bergmann, E. A. (2009), 

The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change. In: 

Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (2009), 1404-1412. 

Lange, E. & Hehl-Lange S. (2010), Making visions visible for long-term landscape 

management. In: Futures, 42 (2010), 693-699. 

Lewis, J. L. & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2006), Culture and communication: Can landscape 

visualization improve forest management consultation with indigenous communities? 

In: Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 291-313. 

Schneeberger, N., Bürgi M., Hersperger, A. M. & Ewald, K. C. (2007), Driving forces and 

rates of landscape change as a promising combination for landscape change research – 

An application on the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps. In: Land Use Policy, 24, 

349-361 

Schwarz-v.Raumer, H.-G. & Stokman, A. (2011), GeoDesign-Approximations of a catchphrase. 

In: Preliminary Proceedings Teaching Landscape Architecture, Anhalt 

University of Applied Sciences Bernburg & Dessau, 106-115. 

Sheppard, S. R. J. & Cizek, P. (2009), The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholds 

from spatial data to landscape visualisation. In: Journal of Env. Management, 90, 

2102-2117. 

Steinitz, C., Rojo, H. M. A., Bassett, S., Flaxman, M., Goode, T., Maddock III, T., Mouat, 

D., Peiser, R. & Shearer, A. (Eds.) (2003), Alternative Futures for Changing 

Landscapes. Washington/Covelo/London, Island Press. 

Swanwick, C. (2009), Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. In: 

Land Use Policy, 26S (2009) S62-S75. 

Tomlin, D. (2011), Speaking of GeoDesign,. In: Preliminary Proceedings Teaching 

Landscape Architecture, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences Bernburg & Dessau. 

136-144. 

Verburg, P. H., Schulp, C. J. E., Witte, N. & Veldkamp A. (2006), Downscaling of land use 

change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. In: Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment, 114, 39-56. 

Vouligny, É., Domon G. & Ruiz, J. (2009), An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an 

expert and by its residents: Landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use. In: 

Land Use Policy, 26, 890-900. 

Wolf, T. & Meyer, B. C. (2010), Suburban scenario development based on multiple 

landscape assessments. In: Ecological Indicators, 10, 74-86.

GeoDesign Approach in Vital Landscapes Project

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?