Collaborative Geodesign to advance multifunctional landscapes

Slotterback, Carissa Schively; Runck, Bryan C.; Pitt, David G.; Kne, Len; Jordan, Nicholas R.; Mulla, D. J.; Zerger, Cindy; Reichenbach, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.011

Cited by 42 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The paper contributes to collaborative natural resource management and collaborative landscape planning science by integrating the analyses such as stakeholder, influence/interest and conflict that are common in stakeholder engagement research and practice into the first iteration of Geodesign framework different from the previous studies (e.g. Hayek et al, 2016;Slotterback et al, 2016) to build a deeper understanding of the stakeholder conditions for developing a collaborative decision making. Thus, the adapted first iteration of geodesign framework provided a systemic thinking and understanding on the natural landscape and besides, the social landscape of the province.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Karjalainen and Järvikoski, 2010;Diduck et al, 2013), research on geodesign and collaborative planning (e.g. Hayek et al, 2016;Slotterback et al, 2016), the stakeholder analysis, stakeholder quadrant and conflict analysis that enable to understand the integrated, overall picture of the opportunities and limitations that shape the collaborative processes were applied. Moreover, various causes and types of conflicts related with hydro-energy planning, natural resource and landscape management were analyzed and displayed in the study different from de Groot (2006) which only considers the conflicts between landscape functions that were described as pressures on and degradation of landscape functions as a result of their over use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An evaluation of public power in hydro-power planning in Van (Turkey)

Baylan¹

2017

Megaron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emel BAYLAN ÖZThe number of planned and installed hydroelectric power plants has increased dramatically in the last 15 years in Turkey. The local natural and socio-cultural domains of the subject landscapes, however, have mostly been ignored in the decision-making and implementation processes for these plant projects. As a consequence, hydroelectric plants installed in the water-rich regions of the country had adverse effects on river landscapes. Local and national water and landscape stakeholders have confronted each other in several platforms as a result of their conflicting needs and interests. River landscapes in the province of Van, located in eastern Anatolia, are also faced with similar threats and disagreements as a result of multiple, river-type hydropower plants that are to be installed in the near future. A collaborative decision-making approach that would allow for active stakeholder participation and that would support negotiation and consensus among the stakeholders offers the potential to cope with the issues and to support the sustainability of the river landscape in Van. This article is an examination of the limitations and opportunities of a collaborative approach to hydroelectric energy generation planning in Van. With this aim, following a description of the landscape characteristics, the area was evaluated for its importance in landscape conservation and attractiveness for hydroelectric energy generation. The stakeholders' roles, their influence, and conflicts in hydropower planning were analyzed and assessed using qualitative procedures. Next, possible landscape changes and impacts that the hydroelectric plants may cause were identified. Based on the identified limitations and opportunities for active stakeholder participation in hydropower and landscape conservation, recommendations were provided for collaborative decision-making processes that would aim for sustainability of the river landscapes in Van.Keywords: Collaborative decision making; conflict; landscape conservation; public participation; stakeholder analysis; system thinking. ABSTRACT 658CİLT VOL. 12 -SAYI NO. 4

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of public power in hydro-power planning in Van (Turkey)

Baylan¹

2017

Megaron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These networks have been increasingly recognized by urban planners, landscape architects, and other urban development specialists, as crucial elements which enable the introduction of recent urban development challenges and paradigms [13,[42][43][44][45][46][47] into future planning activities [10].…”

Section: City Cooperation (Cc) Effect In Land Use Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multivariated Effect of City Cooperation in Land Use Planning and Decision-Making Processes: A European Analysis

Loures¹,

Castanho²,

Gómez³

et al. 2018

Urban Agglomeration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial and urban planning processes regarding border cooperation have reached unprecedented levels in recent decades, not only due to their potential for territorial integration, i.e., infrastructure construction and planning activities worldwide. Bearing in mind the European project, for a united and strong network of nations, this scenario is more evident in European territories. In this regard, through multivariated analyzes of city cooperation on European border areas, it is possible to identify the factors that influence the territorial success and also a sustainable regional development and even their effects over the urban agglomerations. From the identified factors, the study pointed out one that is common to all cases: connectivity-movement between cities.

show abstract

“…Our model integrates Jantsch's conception of transdisciplinarity with recent work on transdisciplinary landscape design (Nassauer & Opdam, ; Opdam et al ., ; Slotterback et al ., ), adaptive comanagement of landscapes and other spatially extensive ecosystems (Sayer et al ., ), and transformational change in ecosocial systems (Westley et al ., ). The model (Fig.…”

Section: A Process Model For Transdisciplinary Weed Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These projects can draw on successful applications of the purposive discipline of landscape design to motivate multistakeholder participation in such approaches (Opdam et al ., ; Slotterback et al . ), as well as emerging social innovations for co‐ordinated management, such as farmer‐led ‘working lands conservation partnerships’ (Duncanson et al ., ) and watershed protection utilities (US Water Alliance, ).…”

Section: Retrospective and Prospective Cases Of Transdisciplinary Weementioning

confidence: 99%

Transdisciplinary weed research: new leverage on challenging weed problems?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transdisciplinary weed research (TWR) is a promising path to more effective management of challenging weed problems. We define TWR as an integrated process of inquiry and action that addresses complex weed problems in the context of broader efforts to improve economic, environmental and social aspects of ecosystem sustainability. TWR seeks to integrate scholarly and practical knowledge across many stakeholder groups (e.g. scientists, private sector, farmers and extension officers) and levels (e.g. local, regional and landscape). Furthermore, TWR features democratic and iterative processes of decision-making and collective action that aims to align the interests, viewpoints and agendas of a wide range of stakeholders. The fundamental rationale for TWR is that many challenging weed problems (e.g. herbicide resistance or extensive plant invasions in natural areas) are better addressed systemically, as a part of broad-based efforts to advance ecosystem sustainability, rather than as isolated problems. Addressing challenging weed problems systemically can offer important new leverage on such problems, by creating new opportunities to manage their root causes and by improving complementarity between weed management and other activities. While promising, this approach is complicated by the multi-dimensional, multilevel, diversely defined and unpredictable nature of ecosystem sustainability. In practice, TWR can be undertaken as a cyclic process of (i) initial problem formulation, (ii) 'broadening' of the problem formulation and recruitment of stakeholder participants, (iii) deliberation, negotiation and design of an action agenda for systemic change, (iv) implementation action, (v) monitoring and assessment of outcomes and (vi) reformulation of the problem situation and renegotiation of further actions. Notably, 'purposive' disciplines (design, humanities and arts) have central, critical and recurrent roles in this process, as do integrative analyses of relevant multidi-mensional and multilevel factors, via multiple natural and social science disciplines. We exemplify this process in prospect and retrospect. Importantly TWR is not a replacement for current weed research; rather, the intent is to powerfully leverage current efforts.

show abstract

Collaborative Geodesign to advance multifunctional landscapes

Cited by 42 publications

References 37 publications

An evaluation of public power in hydro-power planning in Van (Turkey)

An evaluation of public power in hydro-power planning in Van (Turkey)

The Multivariated Effect of City Cooperation in Land Use Planning and Decision-Making Processes: A European Analysis

Transdisciplinary weed research: new leverage on challenging weed problems?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About