144

Cross-Case Comparison of Four Climate-Related Geodesign Processes over Time

Olaf SCHROTH, Ellen POND and Stephen SHEPPARD

1 Introduction

In the presented multiple-case study, we analyzed collaboration processes over three years in four landscape-related planning processes in Canada that address climate change using geodesign tools including environmental modeling and 3D landscape visualization (POND et al., 2012). The case study sites were located in Greater Toronto, Metro Vancouver, the Calgary/Elbow River watershed, and Clyde River, Nunavut. The multiple-case study shows that the underlying Local Climate Change Visioning (LCCV) framework (POND et al., 2010) was successfully applied to local climate change adaptation and mitigation and gives insights in the adaptation of a planning framework to local circumstances over time.

Fig. 1: Locations of the four case study sites (source: Google Maps)

Although the term geodesign was not used in the case study areas, it well describes the application of geospatial tools in the analyzed design process, which is inherently the idea of geodesign. The terms’ origins go back to MCHARG (1969) and his concept of layers. According to SCHWARZ VON-RAUMER & STOKMAN (2012), KUNZMANN (1993) was then the first to use the actual term geodesign in the context of European spatial development. Later, the term was introduced by ESRI with the release of ArcSketch in 2010. The idea of geodesign basically refers to the interdisciplinary collaboration of public stakeholders, natural sciences, design professionals and geospatial information experts (STEINITZ, 2012). Although geodesign could be both, an output and a process, or rather a noun or a verb, Steinitz puts the emphasis on geodesign as a verb. Steinitz further develops a geodesign

Buhmann, E., Ervin, S. M. & Pietsch, M. (Eds.) (2013): Peer Review Proceedings of Digital Landscape Archi-tecture 2013 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences. © Herbert Wichmann Verlag, VDE VERLAG GMBH,Berlin/Offenbach. ISBN 978-3-87907-527-0. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Cross-Case Comparison of Four Climate-Related Geodesign Processes over Time 145

framework and goes through its iterations, i.e. A) scoping the study, b) designing the study and c) carrying out the study. In the cross-case study presented here, we looked at the third iteration, i.e. the carrying out of a geodesign project. With regard to geodesign case studies, he asks the questions what, where and when regarding the implementation phase and looks at tools, techniques and methods; representation; process; evaluation; change; impact; decision-making; the level of spatial-analytic complexity; ways of designing and visualiza-tion and communication.

2 Methods: Local Climate Change Visioning (LCCV)

The case studies in this paper all looked at landscape-related climate change impacts and mitigation and/or adaptation responses on local (e.g. hamlet) to regional (e.g. watershed) scales. All four planning processes were informed by the LCCV framework (Fig. 2., POND et al., 2010), cases differ with regard to landscape types (urban, suburban, rural, Arctic), scale, the nature of climate change impacts, and adaptation and/or mitigation measures. All case studies were part of the GEOIDE network and applied geospatial information systems (GIS).

Fig. 2: LCCV process diagram

Although none of the projects used a complete geodesign approach as defined by ERVIN (2012) or STEINITZ (2012), several important geodesign tools and technologies were applied: geodatabases with base data, objects and constraints; collaboration tools; regional environmental models; site-level design-oriented approaches; diagrams; and 3D landscape simulations for contentious issues at hamlet scales (Fig. 3).

O. Schroth, E. Pond and S. Sheppard 146

Fig. 3: Use of photomaps, 3D models and indicators in the Clyde River case

For the evaluation, the study builds on the case study method (FRANCIS, 2001), qualitative data collection methods, and STEINITZ (2012) geodesign framework for cross-case comparison. On May 18, 2010, researchers from all four case study sites met at the University of Toronto and discussed the collaboration process, the use of geospatial tools, and products and outputs in a workshop. Key part of the workshop was a mapping exercise, in which the researchers drew process diagrams for each case exploring and documenting the collaboration process among researchers, students and local stakeholders over time. Later in 2011, we conducted phone interviews with local stakeholders from three case study areas to evaluate the outputs and outcome of the project.

3 Results of the Comparison of Process Methods through Flowcharts and Timelines

The cross-case comparison exemplifies the trend towards climate change mainstreaming, i.e. the integration of climate change issues into everyday landscape architecture and planning. The cases address traditional landscape related themes (water, infrastructure, housing development, and green roofs), balancing quality of life, design, and mitigation/ adaptation. The additional long-term evaluation of the planning outcomes provides further insights into local capacity building with regard to mitigation and adaptation. Key factors are local champions and change agents, who can be supported through the right choice of geodesign tools (please see POND et al. 2012 for a discussion of geodesign tools and collaboration).

Key outcome of the May workshop was a set of collaboratively drawn process diagrams for each case. The diagrams illustrate the different adoptions of the LCCV process and how modeling and visualization tools were integrated. The following diagrams are unitized simplifications of the original sketches.

Cross-Case Comparison of Four Climate-Related Geodesign Processes over Time 147

3.1 Toronto case study: Design-driven non-linear process on neighbourhood to building scales leading to best practise example

In Toronto, the overall project on the city scale (Toronto A)early branched into multiple design-driven projects (Toronto B) on scales of individual lots and buildings (Fig. 4). Adaptation to urban heat islands was a key consideration in the design process and the design interventions targeted the areas where the highest surface heat had been predicted from thermal images (STEINITZ 2012: “anticipatory design”). The branching process is particularly interesting because it allowed working around institutional barriers and opened new opportunities such as implementation of demonstration projects with business partners. In this regard, the Toronto case has proven to be the most flexible among the four cases, although such an approach could easily become fragmented. Hence, Toronto was the only case with an actual demonstration project being implemented on the ground.

Fig. 4: Toronto process flowchart

3.2 Delta: Stakeholder-driven process on city scale leading to policy recommendations

In Delta, a participatory modeling approach was implemented together with City staff (Fig. 5). After a shared delineation of scenarios and indicators, modeling and staff meetings took place iteratively. Outputs were produced throughout the whole process and iteratively improved. SALTER & ROBINSON (2010) describe such a way of designing, informed through participatory meetings, as “facilitated modeling approach”; STEINITZ (2012, 57) as “participatory design approach”. Again, key drivers were local policies and the stakeholder needs. Participation in the Delta process was particularly successful because the design team could build on six years of shared work with the community and support through champions in local administration.

O. Schroth, E. Pond and S. Sheppard 148

Fig. 5: Delta process flowchart

3.3 Clyde River: Community-driven bottom-up process on Hamlet-scale leading to policy recommendations

The Clyde River process was implemented by partly the same researchers as the Delta case and is therefore similar to Delta. In comparison to Delta, even more emphasis was put on community participation as can be seen in Fig. 6 (community meetings instead of stakeholder workshops). The strong community orientation lead to an early re-framing of the project goals; away from climate change mitigation/adaptation towards the exploration of new housing sites and the design of more resilient and more liveable housing types that respond not only to climate change but also to current housing shortages and social problems caused by overcrowding.

Fig. 6: Clyde River process flowchart

Cross-Case Comparison of Four Climate-Related Geodesign Processes over Time 149

3.4 Calgary: Model-/stakeholder-driven process on watershed scale leading to regional strategies

The Calgary case covered the whole Elbow River watershed on a regional scale. Therefore, a very structured model-driven approach was chosen with an early stakeholder workshop for the collaborative definition of shared goals and structured stakeholder interviews to inform the modeling process (WIJESEKARA et al., 2011). In terms of STEINITZ (2012), the methods resembled mixed sequential and agent-based change models (called “hybrid modelling”, Fig. 7.) with participatory elements. In comparison to the other three case studies, the Calgary study covered the largest area (watershed) and worked on the highest level.

Fig.7: Calgary Elbow River process flowchart

3.5 Cross-case comparison with regard to spatial-analytic complexity, process, design and decision-making

The cross-case comparison provides examples and anecdotal evidence how to adapt a geodesign framework (e.g. STEINITZ 2012 for an overall geodesign framework), here particularly the LCCV framework (POND et al., 2010), to individual sites and contexts. With regard to spatial-analytic complexity, the Calgary case covered the biggest area applying the most sophisticated hybrid models whereas Delta and Clyde River focused on participatory processes on Hamlet and city scale and Toronto finally scaled down from neighbourhood to building scale emphasizing the anticipatory design approach. In order to adapt the LCCV framework, not all processes ran linear: while the high-level intervention in Calgary was still the most linear, the participatory processes in Delta and Calgary had to respond to stakeholder needs and changed directions. Finally, the design process in Toronto branched out into multiple sub-projects. Similarly, the design process varies from model-driven to open and anticipatory. Topics (“what”) changed in Toronto and Clyde River due to policy changes and community/stakeholder needs and focused even on different sites than previously anticipated (“where”). The example shows that geodesign has to respond to community/stakeholder input and policy change.

O. Schroth, E. Pond and S. Sheppard 150

Finally, all cases follow different approaches of impacting the decision-making process: While Calgary addresses the high-level long-term planning of land use and water manage-ment on a regional scale (top-down approach, but with stakeholder participation in the mo-delling); Delta and Clyde River impact change through participatory bottom-up approaches. Toronto finally attempts a third way: inspiring change through the implementation of best practise examples.

4 Conclusions: Case by Case Application of the Visioning Process

The cross-case comparison clearly shows that a geodesign framework such as the LCCV guidance manual cannot be replicated without case-by-case adaptation and changes. Some of the cases in this study change scope and area size during the process and in respond to stakeholder needs and policy change, i.e. there is no “one size fits all” approach to local climate change visioning. However, there are replicable principles: a) the level of spatial-analytical complexity has to be adapted to scope and scale of the planning task at hand; and b) the process has to be flexible enough to respond to external drivers such as policy change, stakeholder needs and data issues (to name the three most important in these case studies).

Although not designed as a geodesign tool, the LCCV guidance manual (Pond et al., 2010) can provide process approaches, modeling and visualization tools that provide solutions for a range of scales and scopes in geodesign, particularly to climate-related questions. This cross-case comparison and previous work by Pond et al. (2012) have shown that hybrid modeling approaches with stakeholder participation work best on a regional scale for a watershed, whereas more community-driven approaches facilitate small working groups in neighbourhoods and towns and the design-driven process successfully engaged business partners and led to implementation. The cases show three ways of fostering change: Working on long-term regional plans; bottom-up community participation; and change through best practise examples. Only the latter has resulted in a visible change yet but it is the nature of plans that there outcome will take more time the larger area and scope are. Therefore, it is too early for a final assessment of the outcomes of community participation and regional plans at this point.

References

Ervin, S. M. (2012), A System for GeoDesign. In: Buhmann, E., Ervin, S. M. & Pietsch, M. (Eds.), Peer Reviewed Proceedings Digital Landscape Architecture 2012 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences. Berlin/Offenbach, Wichmann, 158-167.

Francis, M (2001), A Case Study Method For Landscape Architecture. In: Landscape Journal, 20 (1), 15-29.

Kunzmann, K. R. (1993), Geodesign: Chance oder Gefahr? In: Planungskartographie und Geodesign. Hrsg.: Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landeskunde und Raumordnung. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 7/1993, 389-396.

McHarg, I. L. (1969), Design with Nature. New York, Wiley.

Cross-Case Comparison of Four Climate-Related Geodesign Processes over Time 151

Pond, E., Schroth, O., Sheppard, S., Feick, R., Marceau, D., Danahy, J., Burch, S. (2012), Collaborative Processes and Geo-Spatial Tools in Support of Local Climate Change Visioning and Planning. In: Chrisman & Wachowicz (Eds.), The Added Value of Scientific Networking: Examples Contributed by GEOIDE Network Participant 1998-2012. Quebec City, GEOIDE Network.

Pond, E., Schroth, O., Sheppard, S. R. J., Muir-Owen, S., Liepa, I., Campbell, C., Flanders, D. & Tatebe, K. (2010), Local Climate Change Visioning and Landscape Visualiza-tions: Guidance Manual. Vancouver, Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning.

Salter, J., Robinson, J. & Wiek, A. (2010), Participatory methods of integrated assessment-a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1 (5), 697-17.

Steinitz, C. (2012), A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design. Red-mond, ESRI.

Schwarz-v.Raumer, H. G. & Stokman, A. (2011), GeoDesign-Approximations of a catch-phrase. In: Buhmann, E., Ervin, S. M. & Pietsch, M. (Eds.), Peer Reviewed Proceedings Digital Landscape Architecture 2012 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences. Berlin/Offenbach, Wichmann, 106-115.

Wijesekara, G. N., Gupta, A., Valeo, C., Hasbani, J.-G., Qiao, Y., Delaney, P. & Marceau, D. J. (2011), Assessing the impact of future land-use changes on hydrological processes in the Elbow River watershed in southern Alberta, Canada. In: Journal of Hydrology, 412-413, 220-232.