Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values

Abstract

Geodesign tools are increasingly used in collaborative planning. An important element in these tools is the communication of stakeholder values. As there are many ways to present these values it is important to know how these tools should be designed to communicate these values effectively. The objective of this study is to analyse how the design of the tool influences its effectiveness. To do this stakeholder values were included in four different geodesign tools, using different ways of ranking and aggregation. The communication performances of these tools were evaluated in an online survey to assess their ability to communicate information effectively. The survey assessed how complexity influence user performance. Performance was considered high if a user is able to complete an assignment correctly using the information presented. Knowledge on tool performance is important for selecting the right tool use and for tool design. The survey showed that tools should be as simple as possible. Adding ranking and aggregation steps makes the tools more difficult to understand and reduces performance. However, an increase in the amount of information to be processed by the user also has a negative effect on performance. Ranking and aggregation steps may be needed to limit this amount. This calls for careful tailoring of the tool to the task to be performed. For all tools it was found maybe the most important characteristic of the tools is that they allow for trial and error as this increases the opportunity for experimentation and learning by doing.

Cartograms for Use in Forecasting Weather-Driven Natural Hazards

“…Forecast decision-making will remain a complex process, and maps, whether cartograms or not, will only form one part in it, often other pieces of knowledge will contribute and compete. Effectiveness of maps in this process includes several aspects (Eikelboom and Janssen, 2015) from doing the right thing the right way, improving the quality of the data, enabling the stakeholder to execute what was intended and ensure that the information fits the capability and demands of the decision-maker (Budic, 1994;Goodhue and Thompson, 1995;Jonsson et al, 2011) However, this study has provided initial evidence that cartograms can provide added value over standard maps in the forecasting context.…”

Geodesign Processes and Ecological Systems Thinking in a Coupled Human-Environment Context: An Integrated Framework for Landscape Architecture

“…It accommodates progressive development through dynamic design processes and advanced geospatial technologies [7]. Geodesign also acknowledges complex socio-environmental systems [10], while improving the effective communication of various value structures from groups including stakeholders, designers, scientists and community members [11][12][13][14]. Variations of the geodesign process have been noted as an important tool for designing for the future, especially when used in conjunction with Planning Support Systems (PSS), simulation and optimization models [15][16][17].…”

Landscape Design toward Urban Resilience: Bridging Science and Physical Design Coupling Sociohydrological Modeling and Design Process

“…Steinitz suggests that Geodesign can be an effective instrument that creates design proposals and simulates design impacts with geospatial technologies [30]. The concept of Geodesign has recently been expanded in the literature with noted applications to a variety of cases [29,[31][32][33][34][35]. Dangermond [36] notes that geodesign encompasses multiple disciplines and professions through a common set of geospatial technologies and design processes.…”