- Email: [email protected]
The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
LAND-3006; No. of Pages 4
Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Research Paper
The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool Weimin Li (Associate Professor) ∗ , Lee-Anne Milburn (Professor) California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 24 August 2016 Accepted 2 September 2016 Available online xxx Keywords: Geodesign GIS Landscape architecture
a b s t r a c t As the latest evolution of Geographic Information System (GIS) in environmental design, geodesign has attracted multidisciplinary effort from academia, design professions and geospatial industries to define and contribute to its future. For its further development, whether as transdisciplinary collaboration or methodological advancement in specific disciplines, it is critical to elaborate more explicitly the historical context and interactive evolvement of geodesign in relevant disciplines or professions. As response, this article focuses on addressing how key theories, methods, and practical tools evolve over time in landscape architecture and contribute to the emergence of contemporary geodesign along with the advancement of geospatial sciences and technologies. To construct a clear and essential historical transect of the evolving relationship between geodesign and landscape architecture, the discussion is organized into four major eras, i.e., the analogue era, the poor data era, the small data era, and the big data era, from 1850s to present. The article ends with the authors’ prospect on opportunities and challenges toward geodesign in landscape architecture in the big data era. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Over time, humans have developed sophisticated spatial thinking to understand, define, and analyze the location, distance, direction, shape, scale, pattern, and trend of features, individuals, phenomena, and processes in the living environment as well as their geographic and temporal relationships to the Earth’s surface (Kastens & Ishikawa, 2006; National Research Council, Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially, & Downs, 2006). Spatial thinking helps us find where things are, learn what are nearby, understand how things are changing in relation to where we are so that we can adapt, survive, and develop in the physical environment. Geodesign, by its nature, is part of these human practices of spatial thinking for solving problems related to survival and development. To live up to the potential set by the 21st century and maximize its impact, geodesign should fully embrace contemporary spatial thinking, i.e., understanding the relation between underlying processes and the pattern of natural and social phenomena, geographic information science (GIScience), and geospatial technologies. Besides spatial thinking, geodesign involves a wide range of disciplines that investigate the features, processes, phenomena, and behaviors on the Earth’s surface, such as geography, ecology, and hydrology, and professions that propose and make changes to
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (W. Li), [email protected] (L.-A. Milburn).
the natural and built environment, such as architecture, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, and civil engineering. The effectiveness of geodesign thus requires contributions from and collaborations among a wide range of disciplines and professions (Steinitz, 2012). Such contributions can only be made when the relevance, value, potential, and limitation of geodesign are fully understood and addressed in different disciplines. Broadly speaking, any design activities may be called geodesign as long as they are informed by geographic knowledge, experience, information, and data. In different theoretical and practical contexts, however, the meaning of geodesign may largely vary. For instance, geographers examine geodesign as “critical GIS” (Wilson, 2014), which concerns various impacts of GIS technologies on human society (Harvey, Kwan, & Pavlovskaya, 2005). In environmental design, geodesign is the generation and impact assessment of design proposals with geospatial information and technologies. Therefore, for the development of geodesign as either a transdisciplinary collaboration or a methodological advancement for specific disciplines, it is critical to understand how knowledge and practice evolve over time and contribute to the emergence of contemporary geodesign in different disciplines. With a track record of theories and practice closely tied to geodesign, landscape architecture provides a solid knowledge base and numerous practical applications for the past, present, and future of geodesign. In this article, we aim to render the implicit aspects of the body of knowledge and practice of landscape architecture to be more explicit to further inspire new thinking, ideas, and practice of geodesign. It is important to note that our discussion is centered on
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009 0169-2046/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Li, W., & Milburn, L.-A. The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool. Landscape Urban Plan. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009
G Model LAND-3006; No. of Pages 4 2
ARTICLE IN PRESS W. Li, L.-A. Milburn / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
the theories, methods, and practical tools related to geodesign in landscape architecture. It is not in the scope of this essay to address geodesign in other contexts, and neither is a full discussion on the theories, methods, and tools of landscape architecture. In the following, a historical transect of geodesign in landscape architecture is organized into four eras based on the dominance of different types of data in each of them. 2. A historical transect of geodesign in landscape architecture 2.1. The analogue era (mid-19th century to mid-20th century) The period of 1850–1950 was characterized by the unique use of analogue media and techniques in data storage and information representation. This era gave birth to both the art and science traditions of landscape architecture. Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. (1822–1903), and his contemporaries, designed esthetically pleasing and functionally favorable landscape through shaping, modifying, and arranging landscape elements, e.g., earth, plants, and water (Beveridge & Rocheleau, 1995; Parsons, 2009). Designers largely relied on hand sketching, drawing, and painting to deliver ideas and represent the landscape. They use tools such as pencils, pens, graphite sticks, and brushes with ink and watercolor to develop plans and descriptive graphics of a landscape on paper (Fabos, Milde, & Weinmayr, 1968; Mertens, 2010; Olmsted, 1928). The tradition of scientific investigation and rational decisionmaking that largely characterize today’s geodesign can be traced back to Patrick Geddes (1854–1932), the Scottish biologist, geographer, and town planner. In the early 20th century, Geddes criticized design and planning that neglected natural and social context of a region and he advocated for regional surveys to better understand a place’s advantages, difficulties, and defects (Geddes, 1917). Unlike landscape design that seeks to manipulate the land to reflect esthetic, functional, and cultural values (Corner, 2002), regional surveys are organized, comprehensive scientific studies of a geographic area (Fagg & Hutchings, 1930). They consist of interrelated branches indicated by climate, topography, water, vegetation, population, and other biophysical and social factors as organized by scientific fields such as geology, meteorology, hydrography, botany, and sociology (Anderson, 2002; Fagg & Hutchings, 1930). Practically, surveyors with technical knowledge of these fields (e.g., geology and town planning) make field observations and measurements on certain subjects, e.g., topography and “surface utilization”, which are then manually translated by draughtsmen onto maps, transects, block diagrams, and plans following cartography rules and techniques (Fagg & Hutchings, 1930). Unlike landscape designers who focus on analogical and imaginative visualization, regional surveyors emphasize analytical and objective representation of landscape. With a collection of analogue data, planners can then develop scientific understanding of essential factors, their causes, and relations, recognize interrelated patterns of biophysical and social phenomena, and eventually put best fitted usage to land and bring most environmental and social benefits to the region (Fagg & Hutchings, 1930). While the two traditions differ, they are inherently indivisible. Influenced by naturalism, early designers had strong spiritual love of nature and respected natural laws in their practice (Parsons, 2009). They took advantage of field studies, intuitive analysis, and practical experience to study landscapes (Beveridge & Rocheleau, 1995). The scientific data and knowledge offered by regional surveys further strengthened their capability to systematically and objectively understand a landscape. One remarkable case of geodesign integrating art and science was from Warren Manning (1960–1938), who, with the map overlay method that he invented with light table, synthesized information from 363 analogue maps
to develop a national landscape plan (Lyle, 1985; Steiner, Young, & Zube, 1988; Steinitz, 2012). Also during this period, the continuous advancement of earth sciences and electromagnetism set a solid foundation for the emergence of computer GIS, on which today’s geodesign relies. First, large scope geological surveys were initiated to provide “reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth” by governmental organizations such as United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2014). Another big advancement was to use remote sensing technologies such as aerial photography and photogrammetry in surveying, mapping and detecting the Earth’s surface in both 2D and 3D (Weng, 2012). The third milestone ended the monopoly of analogue data: the generation of digital information and realization of electronic computation was advanced by electromagnetism and electronic engineering during and after the World Wars (Bunch & Hellemans, 2004). In the 1950s, driven by decades of introduction of scientific knowledge, usage of survey data, and initiation of analytical approaches in studying landscapes to support design decisionmaking, landscape architecture entered a new era in which science got more evenly matched with art. 2.2. The poor data era (mid-20th century to 1970s) Between 1950 and the mid-1970s, landscape architecture became an independent design profession and academic discipline. With critical thinking formally introduced, the classic “survey-analysis-design” process became standard practice and design ideas were developed through creative synthesis modeled upon research and analysis (Sasaki, 2002; Swaffield, 2002). Not without challenge against its rather rational, linear, and problemsolving nature (Halprin, 2002; Swaffield, 2002), the process built a strong conceptual foundation for geodesign. But, while awareness of environmental challenges expanded and methods to address them improved, the ability to acquire and use more accurate and more precise data lagged. As such, this time can be called the “data poor” era. Three developments contributed to the foundation for contemporary geodesign in this period. The first was the rising of academic, institutional, grassroots efforts toward environmental protection as reflected in benchmark literature by authors such as Leopold (1949) and Carson (1962). Additionally, a large number of environmental laws and regulations passed in the United States, such as the Clean Air Act (1963), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), and the Clean Water Act (1972). Legally, these laws and regulations required the integration of scientific information and the generation of quantifiable proof that proposed changes to the environment would bring ecological, environmental, and social benefits to society (Hanna, 1999). The second development was the idea of ecological determinism, which emphasized that the, “understanding of natural process is of central importance to all environmental problems and must be introduced into all considerations of land utilization” (McHarg, 1998a). McHarg’s map-overlay land suitability analysis (McHarg, 1969) put the premise of environmental determinism into practice and upgraded rational landscape analyses from direct interpretation of physiographic inventory to systematic investigation of complex ecological processes. The overlay method strengthened the integration of scientific knowledge and information in design processes and provided the initial thinking that contributed to the development of GIS as a spatial decision-support system. The third development was the emergence of digital data and computer-based GIS resulting from continuous advancement in GIScience and the increasing need for decision support systems in governments, universities, and private corporations. In 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was
Please cite this article in press as: Li, W., & Milburn, L.-A. The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool. Landscape Urban Plan. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009
G Model LAND-3006; No. of Pages 4
ARTICLE IN PRESS W. Li, L.-A. Milburn / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
established in the United States. Following immediately were the invention of the Canada Geographic Information Systems (CGIS) in 1963 and the foundation of Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphic and Spatial Analysis in 1964 (Chrisman, 2006). Additionally, private corporations, such as ESRI and EDRAS, began to develop commercial GIS packages in late 1960s and early 1970s. Although digital data and computer-based GIS existed in this period, they were rather limited in general usage due to a lack of digital data, low availability of mainframe computers, and the steep learning curve to master the use of computer hardware and software (Goodchild, Anselin, Appelbaum, & Harthorn, 2000). Analogue data and tools remained their dominance in landscape analysis and representation, as applied at different stages of the design process. For example, cartographical drawing and tracing techniques were used at the inventory stage; transparent Mylar sheets were superimposed to conduct land suitability analysis (McHarg, 1969); and free-hand diagraming was used to explore relationships among components (Motloch, 2000; Sasaki, 2002). 2.3. The small data era (mid-1970s–2000) Rapid advancement of electronic engineering and computer science emerged in the mid-1970s. At the same time, environmental data became increasingly available at the site level. GIS developed rapidly and become widely used by governments, academic institutions, and many public and private agencies. In environmental design, GIS was considered as a skill more for advanced research by academics (White & Mayo, 2004), and GIS applications were more popular in regional design, planning, and policy-making given the relative abundance of GIS data at regional scales (Hanna, 1999; Lyle, 1985). The design disciplines also increasingly embraced the use of digital data, computer aided design. For smaller site design, idea-driven digital graphic tools were more popularly adopted as they worked in a more similar way as the art tradition of landscape representation. .The era of “small data” had arrived. Several developments mutually supported each other and led to increased use of science-based rational approaches. First, a variety of inventory and analysis techniques fostered geodesign-like practices. Gestalt inventory, short-term inventory, visual quality inventory, special resource inventory, GIS, and remote sensing imagery addressed a range of processes, scales, themes, and analytical tools (Forest Service, 1973; Lewis, 1996; Lyle, 1985). For instance, Gestalt inventory treats a landscape as a whole without breaking it into layers of information and is often used in site design, while a GIS provides comprehensive landscape inventory and accommodates complicated land use analysis and modeling at the regional scale (Lyle, 1985) Second, digital modeling and analysis methods were also advanced. With 2D models such as vector and raster, and 3D models addressing digital terrain and surface, Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN), and parametric solids, designers were able to digitally represent a landscape and conduct site analysis (Ervin & Hasbrouck, 2001). Moreover, spatial operations such as buffering, weighted overlays, gravity models, and geospatial statistics models allowed designers to evaluate land suitability, landscape attractiveness, and vulnerability, identify land use conflicts, forecast population and urban growth, and assess the environmental and social impacts of proposed changes (Steinitz & Rogers, 1970; Steinitz, 2012; Steinitz, Brown, & Goodale, 1976). Besides datadriven analytical tools such as GIS and remote sensing software, e.g., ArcInfo and ERDAS, idea-driven computer graphic tools, e.g., AutoCAD, Photoshop, Illustrator, and 3D Studio Max, that facilitate the translation of design ideas into digital representation, were commercialized in the 1980s. In landscape architecture, these digital tools gradually became more popular than their analogue counterparts in representing landscapes.
3
As science-based methods, such as ecological planning, became more prevalent, there was increasing concern and criticism about the loss of aesthetic, social, and cultural dimensions in design (Herrington, 2010). To address these issues, more complex approaches such as Ian L. McHarg’s (1998b) “human ecological planning”, Frederick Steiner’s (2008) “ecological approach to landscape planning”, and John T. Lyle’s (1985) “human ecosystematic design” were developed to integrate biophysical, social, and creative processes in landscape design and planning. In the meantime, the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge, including sustainable concepts and technologies, evolved and eventually led to sustainable design approaches (Lewis, 1996; Lyle, 1996; Margolis & Robinson, 2007; The Sustainable Sites Initiative, 2009). 2.4. The big data era (2000 to present) At the turn of the 21st century, revolutions in information technologies and geospatial sciences data and information grew in volume, velocity, and variety to the extent that they can no longer be handled by individual minds with traditional methods (Laney, 2012). Such geospatial information boom has a strong impact on environmental design disciplines, as it is now able to facilitate geodesign practice at nearly all design scales. This is the era of “big data.” Geospatial data has reached unprecedented resolution levels with sub-meter level remote sensing scanners and cameras, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies. Advanced image processing methods allow the generation of highly detailed and accurate landscape inventory to support a wide variety of planning and design practice (Li, Radke, Liu, & Gong, 2012). LIDAR technologies provide highly accurate data to measure the physical terrain and erected landscape objects to enable multidimensional landscape analysis on very small sites. In addition, social networks and smart handheld devices equipped with GPS facilitate the collection of location-based socio-behavioral data over time to help solve space-time based social problems (Kwan, 1998, 1999, 2000). The big data era has resulted in a new relationship between geospatial technologies and design with strong pushes from both academia and geospatial corporations (Wilson, 2014). This geodesign trend has led to the creation of new definitions, principles, theories, applications, organizations, and academic programs. While geodesign has been broadly defined to describe all design activities in the geographic space (Miller, 2012), it has been often more strictly defined to focus on design alternative evaluation and impact assessment (Dangermond, 2009; Ervin, 2012; Flexman, 2010; McElvaney, 2012). Most recently, Canfield and Steinitz (2014) argued ‘geodesign applies systems thinking to the creation of proposals for change and impact simulations in their geographic contexts, usually supported by digital technology.’ Steinitz revised his landscape framework (Steinitz, 1990, 2012) to provide a theoretical foundation and structure for geodesign within which questions are answered through three major iterations: “understanding the study area,” “specifying methods,” and “performing study.” Miller (2012) identified geodesign as providing four tools for designers: (1) science-based design; (2) value-based design; (3) interdisciplinary collaboration; and, (4) system design to manage complexity. McElvaney (2012) supplemented the list with: (1) improving the quality and efficiency of design; (2) maximizing social benefits while minimizing social costs; and, (3) addressing issues over both space and time. While geodesign continues to be used to accomplish more complex goals as a result of its analytical capacity, tools for the collection of increasingly detailed data continue to evolve, including online interfaces and handheld GIS tools. Idea-driven graphic technologies have also been rapidly advanced.
Please cite this article in press as: Li, W., & Milburn, L.-A. The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool. Landscape Urban Plan. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009
G Model LAND-3006; No. of Pages 4
ARTICLE IN PRESS W. Li, L.-A. Milburn / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
4
Interactive drawing devices allow designers to generate instant digital graphic products through freehand drawing on touch pad or screen, which can be vetted for suitability against a big GIS database (Dangermond, 2009; Miller, 2012). 3. Prospect—opportunities and challenges To continue to improve spatial thinking, those involved in geodesign and landscape architecture need to utilize big data and the latest geospatial technologies without sacrificing creativity and human capacity building through design processes. As discussed above, geodesign has a strong foundation in the sciences and will continue that legacy, although not without significant challenges in enabling better application of spatial and systems thinking, more generalized adoption of advanced technologies. The pressure to provide justifications for design decisions (Milburn & Brown, 2003) will continue to advance the use of complex analytical tools for design evaluation and performance modeling. However, challenges remain in the integration of human creativity into the digital interface. We remain limited by the inability of the computer to provide both detailed information and broad context within the same visual field. The tendency of the designer to move to an incremental, piecemeal, sequential approach to solving problems (at the loss of an integrative, holistic approach) when using a digital interface is yet to be addressed. Finally, the tendency to look for a singular solution, rather than iterative explore multiple potential alternatives without judgment or preconceptions leads to pedantic, safe designs that rarely move beyond the status quo. These challenges to all components of the geodesign system – the hardware, software, and human interface – must be addressed for geodesign to realize its potential to significantly improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of design. References Anderson, L. (2002). Benton MacKaye: conservationist, planner, and creator of the appalachian trail. JHU Press. Beveridge, C., & Rocheleau, P. (1995). Frederick Law Olmsted: designing the American landscape. Rizzoli International Publications. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Canfield, T., & Steinitz, C. (2014). Revised definition of geodesign. Redlands, CA: 4th geodesign summit. http://video.esri.com/watch/3140/geodesign-with-littletime-and-small-data Chrisman, N. R. (2006). Charting the unknown: how computer mapping at Harvard became GIS. ESRI Press. Corner, J. (2002). Representation and landscape (1992). In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Theory in landscape architecture: a reader (pp. 144–166). University of Pennsylvania Press. Dangermond, J. (2009). GIS: Designing our future. ArcNews, 31(2), 6–7. Ervin, S., & Hasbrouck, H. (2001). Landscape modeling: digital techniques for landscape visualization. McGraw-Hill. Ervin, S. (2012). Geodesign futures: Possibilities, probabilities, certainties, and wildcards. In Presented at the geodesign summit. Fabos, J. G., Milde, G. T., & Weinmayr, M. (1968). Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr: founder of landscape architecture in America. University of Massachusetts Press. Fagg, C. C., & Hutchings, G. E. (1930). An introduction to regional surveying. Cambridge University Press. Flexman, M. (2010). Geodesign: Fundamental principals and routes forward. In Presented at the geodesign summit. Geddes, P. (1917). Town planning in Kapurthala. A report to H.H. the maharaja of Kapurthala. In J. Tyrwhitt (Ed.), Patrick Geddes in India (p. 24). London: Lund Humphries. Goodchild, M. F., Anselin, L., Appelbaum, R. P., & Harthorn, B. H. (2000). Toward spatially integrated social science. International Regional Science Review, 23(2), 139–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016001760002300201 Halprin, L. (2002). The RSVP cycles (1969). In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Theory in landscape architecture: a reader (pp. 35–37). University of Pennsylvania Press. Hanna, K. (1999). GIS for landscape architects. Redlands, California: ESRI Press. Harvey, F., Kwan, M.-P., & Pavlovskaya, M. (2005). Introduction: critical GIS. Cartographica, 40(4), 1–4. Herrington, S. (2010). The nature of Ian McHarg’s science. Landscape Journal, 29(1), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.29.1.1 Kastens, K. A., & Ishikawa, T. (2006). Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 413, 53–76.
Kwan, M. P. (1998). Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis, 30(3), 191–216. Kwan, M. P. (1999). Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures. The Professional Geographer, 51(2), 210–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00158 Kwan, M. P. (2000). Interactive geovisualization of activity-travel patterns using three-dimensional geographical information systems: A methodological exploration with a large data set. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 8(1–6), 185–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0968090X(00)00017-6 Laney, D. (2012). The importance of big data: a definition. Gartner Inc. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac: with other essays on conservation from round river. Ballantine Books. Lewis, P. H. (1996). Tomorrow by design: a regional design process for sustainability. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Li, W., Radke, J., Liu, D., & Gong, P. (2012). Measuring detailed urban vegetation with multisource high-resolution remote sensing imagery for environmental design and planning. Environment and Planning–Part B, 39(3), 566. Lyle, J. (1985). Design for human ecosystems: landscape, land use, and natural resources. Island Press. Lyle, J. T. (1996). Regenerative design for sustainable development. John Wiley & Sons. Margolis, L., & Robinson, A. (2007). Living systems: innovative materials and technologies for landscape architecture. Walter de Gruyter. McElvaney, S. (2012). Geodesign: case studies in regional and urban planning. Redlands, California: ESRI Press. McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with nature. New York: American Museum of Natural History. McHarg, I. L. (1998a). Man and environment (1963). In I. L. McHarg, & F. Steiner (Eds.), To heal the Earth: selected writings of Ian L. McHarg. Washington D.C: Island Press. McHarg, I. L. (1998b). Human ecological planning at Pennsylvania (1981). In I. L. McHarg, & F. Steiner (Eds.), To heal the Earth: selected writings of Ian L. McHarg. Washington D.C: Island Press. Mertens, E. (2010). Visualizing landscape architecture: functions, concepts, strategies. Walter de Gruyter. Milburn, L., & Brown, R. D. (2003). The relationship between research and design in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1), 47–66. Miller, B. (2012). Introducing geodesign: the concept. ESRI Inc. Motloch, J. L. (2000). Introduction to landscape design. John Wiley & Sons. National Research Council (US), Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially, & Downs, R. M. (2006). Learning to think spatially. National Academic Press. Olmsted, F. L. S. (1928). Forty years of landscape architecture: Central Park. In F. L. J. Olmsted, & T. Kimball (Eds.), New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s sons. The Kinckerbocker Press. Parsons, S. (2009). The art of landscape architecture. University of Massachusetts Press. Sasaki, H. (2002). Design process (1950). In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Theory in landscape architecture: a reader (pp. 35–37). University of Pennsylvania Press. Steiner, F. R., Young, G., & Zube, E. (1988). Ecological planning: Retrospect and prospect. Landscape Journal, 7(1), 31–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.7.1.31 Steiner, F. R. (2008). The living landscape: an ecological approach to landscape planning. Island Press. Steinitz, C., & Rogers, P. (1970). A systems analysis model of urbanization and change: an experiment in interdisciplinary education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Steinitz, C., Brown, H. J., & Goodale, P. (1976). Managing suburban growth: a modeling approach: summary. Landscape Architecture Research Office, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University. Steinitz, C. (1990). A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landscape Journal, 9(2), 136–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.9.2.136 Steinitz, C. (2012). A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. Redlands, California: ESRI Press. Swaffield, S. (2002). Theory in landscape architecture: a reader. University of Pennsylvania Press. The Sustainable Sites Initiative. (2009). The sustainable sites initiative: guidelines and performance benchmarks 2009. [Retrieved from]. http://old.sustainablesites. org/report/Guidelines%20and%20Performance%20Benchmarks 2009. pdf USGS. (2014). About USGS. [Retrieved from]. http://www.usgs.gov/aboutusgs/ US Forest Service, 1973: National Forest Landscape Management. Volume 1. Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Feburary 1973. Weng, Q. (2012). An introduction to contemporary remote sensing. McGraw Hill Professional. White, S. S., & Mayo, J. M. (2004). Learning expectations in environmental planning predictions and interpretations. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04267712 Wilson, M. (2014). On the criticality of mapping practices: Geodesign as critical GIS? Landscape and Urban Planning, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan. 2013.017 [Retrieved from] Weimin Li Ph.D., ASLA, currently is associate professor of landscape architecture at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Dr. Li specializes in advanced geospatial technologies e.g., geospatial data integration, geospatial analysis, geoprocessing modeling, high resolution remote sensing imagery processing and 3D landscape construction, and their application in environment and behavior research and a wide range of landscape design and planning practice.
Please cite this article in press as: Li, W., & Milburn, L.-A. The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool. Landscape Urban Plan. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009
ARTICLE IN PRESS
LAND-3006; No. of Pages 4
Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Research Paper
The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool Weimin Li (Associate Professor) ∗ , Lee-Anne Milburn (Professor) California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 24 August 2016 Accepted 2 September 2016 Available online xxx Keywords: Geodesign GIS Landscape architecture
a b s t r a c t As the latest evolution of Geographic Information System (GIS) in environmental design, geodesign has attracted multidisciplinary effort from academia, design professions and geospatial industries to define and contribute to its future. For its further development, whether as transdisciplinary collaboration or methodological advancement in specific disciplines, it is critical to elaborate more explicitly the historical context and interactive evolvement of geodesign in relevant disciplines or professions. As response, this article focuses on addressing how key theories, methods, and practical tools evolve over time in landscape architecture and contribute to the emergence of contemporary geodesign along with the advancement of geospatial sciences and technologies. To construct a clear and essential historical transect of the evolving relationship between geodesign and landscape architecture, the discussion is organized into four major eras, i.e., the analogue era, the poor data era, the small data era, and the big data era, from 1850s to present. The article ends with the authors’ prospect on opportunities and challenges toward geodesign in landscape architecture in the big data era. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Over time, humans have developed sophisticated spatial thinking to understand, define, and analyze the location, distance, direction, shape, scale, pattern, and trend of features, individuals, phenomena, and processes in the living environment as well as their geographic and temporal relationships to the Earth’s surface (Kastens & Ishikawa, 2006; National Research Council, Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially, & Downs, 2006). Spatial thinking helps us find where things are, learn what are nearby, understand how things are changing in relation to where we are so that we can adapt, survive, and develop in the physical environment. Geodesign, by its nature, is part of these human practices of spatial thinking for solving problems related to survival and development. To live up to the potential set by the 21st century and maximize its impact, geodesign should fully embrace contemporary spatial thinking, i.e., understanding the relation between underlying processes and the pattern of natural and social phenomena, geographic information science (GIScience), and geospatial technologies. Besides spatial thinking, geodesign involves a wide range of disciplines that investigate the features, processes, phenomena, and behaviors on the Earth’s surface, such as geography, ecology, and hydrology, and professions that propose and make changes to
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (W. Li), [email protected] (L.-A. Milburn).
the natural and built environment, such as architecture, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, and civil engineering. The effectiveness of geodesign thus requires contributions from and collaborations among a wide range of disciplines and professions (Steinitz, 2012). Such contributions can only be made when the relevance, value, potential, and limitation of geodesign are fully understood and addressed in different disciplines. Broadly speaking, any design activities may be called geodesign as long as they are informed by geographic knowledge, experience, information, and data. In different theoretical and practical contexts, however, the meaning of geodesign may largely vary. For instance, geographers examine geodesign as “critical GIS” (Wilson, 2014), which concerns various impacts of GIS technologies on human society (Harvey, Kwan, & Pavlovskaya, 2005). In environmental design, geodesign is the generation and impact assessment of design proposals with geospatial information and technologies. Therefore, for the development of geodesign as either a transdisciplinary collaboration or a methodological advancement for specific disciplines, it is critical to understand how knowledge and practice evolve over time and contribute to the emergence of contemporary geodesign in different disciplines. With a track record of theories and practice closely tied to geodesign, landscape architecture provides a solid knowledge base and numerous practical applications for the past, present, and future of geodesign. In this article, we aim to render the implicit aspects of the body of knowledge and practice of landscape architecture to be more explicit to further inspire new thinking, ideas, and practice of geodesign. It is important to note that our discussion is centered on
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009 0169-2046/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Li, W., & Milburn, L.-A. The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool. Landscape Urban Plan. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009
G Model LAND-3006; No. of Pages 4 2
ARTICLE IN PRESS W. Li, L.-A. Milburn / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
the theories, methods, and practical tools related to geodesign in landscape architecture. It is not in the scope of this essay to address geodesign in other contexts, and neither is a full discussion on the theories, methods, and tools of landscape architecture. In the following, a historical transect of geodesign in landscape architecture is organized into four eras based on the dominance of different types of data in each of them. 2. A historical transect of geodesign in landscape architecture 2.1. The analogue era (mid-19th century to mid-20th century) The period of 1850–1950 was characterized by the unique use of analogue media and techniques in data storage and information representation. This era gave birth to both the art and science traditions of landscape architecture. Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. (1822–1903), and his contemporaries, designed esthetically pleasing and functionally favorable landscape through shaping, modifying, and arranging landscape elements, e.g., earth, plants, and water (Beveridge & Rocheleau, 1995; Parsons, 2009). Designers largely relied on hand sketching, drawing, and painting to deliver ideas and represent the landscape. They use tools such as pencils, pens, graphite sticks, and brushes with ink and watercolor to develop plans and descriptive graphics of a landscape on paper (Fabos, Milde, & Weinmayr, 1968; Mertens, 2010; Olmsted, 1928). The tradition of scientific investigation and rational decisionmaking that largely characterize today’s geodesign can be traced back to Patrick Geddes (1854–1932), the Scottish biologist, geographer, and town planner. In the early 20th century, Geddes criticized design and planning that neglected natural and social context of a region and he advocated for regional surveys to better understand a place’s advantages, difficulties, and defects (Geddes, 1917). Unlike landscape design that seeks to manipulate the land to reflect esthetic, functional, and cultural values (Corner, 2002), regional surveys are organized, comprehensive scientific studies of a geographic area (Fagg & Hutchings, 1930). They consist of interrelated branches indicated by climate, topography, water, vegetation, population, and other biophysical and social factors as organized by scientific fields such as geology, meteorology, hydrography, botany, and sociology (Anderson, 2002; Fagg & Hutchings, 1930). Practically, surveyors with technical knowledge of these fields (e.g., geology and town planning) make field observations and measurements on certain subjects, e.g., topography and “surface utilization”, which are then manually translated by draughtsmen onto maps, transects, block diagrams, and plans following cartography rules and techniques (Fagg & Hutchings, 1930). Unlike landscape designers who focus on analogical and imaginative visualization, regional surveyors emphasize analytical and objective representation of landscape. With a collection of analogue data, planners can then develop scientific understanding of essential factors, their causes, and relations, recognize interrelated patterns of biophysical and social phenomena, and eventually put best fitted usage to land and bring most environmental and social benefits to the region (Fagg & Hutchings, 1930). While the two traditions differ, they are inherently indivisible. Influenced by naturalism, early designers had strong spiritual love of nature and respected natural laws in their practice (Parsons, 2009). They took advantage of field studies, intuitive analysis, and practical experience to study landscapes (Beveridge & Rocheleau, 1995). The scientific data and knowledge offered by regional surveys further strengthened their capability to systematically and objectively understand a landscape. One remarkable case of geodesign integrating art and science was from Warren Manning (1960–1938), who, with the map overlay method that he invented with light table, synthesized information from 363 analogue maps
to develop a national landscape plan (Lyle, 1985; Steiner, Young, & Zube, 1988; Steinitz, 2012). Also during this period, the continuous advancement of earth sciences and electromagnetism set a solid foundation for the emergence of computer GIS, on which today’s geodesign relies. First, large scope geological surveys were initiated to provide “reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth” by governmental organizations such as United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2014). Another big advancement was to use remote sensing technologies such as aerial photography and photogrammetry in surveying, mapping and detecting the Earth’s surface in both 2D and 3D (Weng, 2012). The third milestone ended the monopoly of analogue data: the generation of digital information and realization of electronic computation was advanced by electromagnetism and electronic engineering during and after the World Wars (Bunch & Hellemans, 2004). In the 1950s, driven by decades of introduction of scientific knowledge, usage of survey data, and initiation of analytical approaches in studying landscapes to support design decisionmaking, landscape architecture entered a new era in which science got more evenly matched with art. 2.2. The poor data era (mid-20th century to 1970s) Between 1950 and the mid-1970s, landscape architecture became an independent design profession and academic discipline. With critical thinking formally introduced, the classic “survey-analysis-design” process became standard practice and design ideas were developed through creative synthesis modeled upon research and analysis (Sasaki, 2002; Swaffield, 2002). Not without challenge against its rather rational, linear, and problemsolving nature (Halprin, 2002; Swaffield, 2002), the process built a strong conceptual foundation for geodesign. But, while awareness of environmental challenges expanded and methods to address them improved, the ability to acquire and use more accurate and more precise data lagged. As such, this time can be called the “data poor” era. Three developments contributed to the foundation for contemporary geodesign in this period. The first was the rising of academic, institutional, grassroots efforts toward environmental protection as reflected in benchmark literature by authors such as Leopold (1949) and Carson (1962). Additionally, a large number of environmental laws and regulations passed in the United States, such as the Clean Air Act (1963), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), and the Clean Water Act (1972). Legally, these laws and regulations required the integration of scientific information and the generation of quantifiable proof that proposed changes to the environment would bring ecological, environmental, and social benefits to society (Hanna, 1999). The second development was the idea of ecological determinism, which emphasized that the, “understanding of natural process is of central importance to all environmental problems and must be introduced into all considerations of land utilization” (McHarg, 1998a). McHarg’s map-overlay land suitability analysis (McHarg, 1969) put the premise of environmental determinism into practice and upgraded rational landscape analyses from direct interpretation of physiographic inventory to systematic investigation of complex ecological processes. The overlay method strengthened the integration of scientific knowledge and information in design processes and provided the initial thinking that contributed to the development of GIS as a spatial decision-support system. The third development was the emergence of digital data and computer-based GIS resulting from continuous advancement in GIScience and the increasing need for decision support systems in governments, universities, and private corporations. In 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was
Please cite this article in press as: Li, W., & Milburn, L.-A. The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool. Landscape Urban Plan. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009
G Model LAND-3006; No. of Pages 4
ARTICLE IN PRESS W. Li, L.-A. Milburn / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
established in the United States. Following immediately were the invention of the Canada Geographic Information Systems (CGIS) in 1963 and the foundation of Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphic and Spatial Analysis in 1964 (Chrisman, 2006). Additionally, private corporations, such as ESRI and EDRAS, began to develop commercial GIS packages in late 1960s and early 1970s. Although digital data and computer-based GIS existed in this period, they were rather limited in general usage due to a lack of digital data, low availability of mainframe computers, and the steep learning curve to master the use of computer hardware and software (Goodchild, Anselin, Appelbaum, & Harthorn, 2000). Analogue data and tools remained their dominance in landscape analysis and representation, as applied at different stages of the design process. For example, cartographical drawing and tracing techniques were used at the inventory stage; transparent Mylar sheets were superimposed to conduct land suitability analysis (McHarg, 1969); and free-hand diagraming was used to explore relationships among components (Motloch, 2000; Sasaki, 2002). 2.3. The small data era (mid-1970s–2000) Rapid advancement of electronic engineering and computer science emerged in the mid-1970s. At the same time, environmental data became increasingly available at the site level. GIS developed rapidly and become widely used by governments, academic institutions, and many public and private agencies. In environmental design, GIS was considered as a skill more for advanced research by academics (White & Mayo, 2004), and GIS applications were more popular in regional design, planning, and policy-making given the relative abundance of GIS data at regional scales (Hanna, 1999; Lyle, 1985). The design disciplines also increasingly embraced the use of digital data, computer aided design. For smaller site design, idea-driven digital graphic tools were more popularly adopted as they worked in a more similar way as the art tradition of landscape representation. .The era of “small data” had arrived. Several developments mutually supported each other and led to increased use of science-based rational approaches. First, a variety of inventory and analysis techniques fostered geodesign-like practices. Gestalt inventory, short-term inventory, visual quality inventory, special resource inventory, GIS, and remote sensing imagery addressed a range of processes, scales, themes, and analytical tools (Forest Service, 1973; Lewis, 1996; Lyle, 1985). For instance, Gestalt inventory treats a landscape as a whole without breaking it into layers of information and is often used in site design, while a GIS provides comprehensive landscape inventory and accommodates complicated land use analysis and modeling at the regional scale (Lyle, 1985) Second, digital modeling and analysis methods were also advanced. With 2D models such as vector and raster, and 3D models addressing digital terrain and surface, Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN), and parametric solids, designers were able to digitally represent a landscape and conduct site analysis (Ervin & Hasbrouck, 2001). Moreover, spatial operations such as buffering, weighted overlays, gravity models, and geospatial statistics models allowed designers to evaluate land suitability, landscape attractiveness, and vulnerability, identify land use conflicts, forecast population and urban growth, and assess the environmental and social impacts of proposed changes (Steinitz & Rogers, 1970; Steinitz, 2012; Steinitz, Brown, & Goodale, 1976). Besides datadriven analytical tools such as GIS and remote sensing software, e.g., ArcInfo and ERDAS, idea-driven computer graphic tools, e.g., AutoCAD, Photoshop, Illustrator, and 3D Studio Max, that facilitate the translation of design ideas into digital representation, were commercialized in the 1980s. In landscape architecture, these digital tools gradually became more popular than their analogue counterparts in representing landscapes.
3
As science-based methods, such as ecological planning, became more prevalent, there was increasing concern and criticism about the loss of aesthetic, social, and cultural dimensions in design (Herrington, 2010). To address these issues, more complex approaches such as Ian L. McHarg’s (1998b) “human ecological planning”, Frederick Steiner’s (2008) “ecological approach to landscape planning”, and John T. Lyle’s (1985) “human ecosystematic design” were developed to integrate biophysical, social, and creative processes in landscape design and planning. In the meantime, the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge, including sustainable concepts and technologies, evolved and eventually led to sustainable design approaches (Lewis, 1996; Lyle, 1996; Margolis & Robinson, 2007; The Sustainable Sites Initiative, 2009). 2.4. The big data era (2000 to present) At the turn of the 21st century, revolutions in information technologies and geospatial sciences data and information grew in volume, velocity, and variety to the extent that they can no longer be handled by individual minds with traditional methods (Laney, 2012). Such geospatial information boom has a strong impact on environmental design disciplines, as it is now able to facilitate geodesign practice at nearly all design scales. This is the era of “big data.” Geospatial data has reached unprecedented resolution levels with sub-meter level remote sensing scanners and cameras, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies. Advanced image processing methods allow the generation of highly detailed and accurate landscape inventory to support a wide variety of planning and design practice (Li, Radke, Liu, & Gong, 2012). LIDAR technologies provide highly accurate data to measure the physical terrain and erected landscape objects to enable multidimensional landscape analysis on very small sites. In addition, social networks and smart handheld devices equipped with GPS facilitate the collection of location-based socio-behavioral data over time to help solve space-time based social problems (Kwan, 1998, 1999, 2000). The big data era has resulted in a new relationship between geospatial technologies and design with strong pushes from both academia and geospatial corporations (Wilson, 2014). This geodesign trend has led to the creation of new definitions, principles, theories, applications, organizations, and academic programs. While geodesign has been broadly defined to describe all design activities in the geographic space (Miller, 2012), it has been often more strictly defined to focus on design alternative evaluation and impact assessment (Dangermond, 2009; Ervin, 2012; Flexman, 2010; McElvaney, 2012). Most recently, Canfield and Steinitz (2014) argued ‘geodesign applies systems thinking to the creation of proposals for change and impact simulations in their geographic contexts, usually supported by digital technology.’ Steinitz revised his landscape framework (Steinitz, 1990, 2012) to provide a theoretical foundation and structure for geodesign within which questions are answered through three major iterations: “understanding the study area,” “specifying methods,” and “performing study.” Miller (2012) identified geodesign as providing four tools for designers: (1) science-based design; (2) value-based design; (3) interdisciplinary collaboration; and, (4) system design to manage complexity. McElvaney (2012) supplemented the list with: (1) improving the quality and efficiency of design; (2) maximizing social benefits while minimizing social costs; and, (3) addressing issues over both space and time. While geodesign continues to be used to accomplish more complex goals as a result of its analytical capacity, tools for the collection of increasingly detailed data continue to evolve, including online interfaces and handheld GIS tools. Idea-driven graphic technologies have also been rapidly advanced.
Please cite this article in press as: Li, W., & Milburn, L.-A. The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool. Landscape Urban Plan. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009
G Model LAND-3006; No. of Pages 4
ARTICLE IN PRESS W. Li, L.-A. Milburn / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
4
Interactive drawing devices allow designers to generate instant digital graphic products through freehand drawing on touch pad or screen, which can be vetted for suitability against a big GIS database (Dangermond, 2009; Miller, 2012). 3. Prospect—opportunities and challenges To continue to improve spatial thinking, those involved in geodesign and landscape architecture need to utilize big data and the latest geospatial technologies without sacrificing creativity and human capacity building through design processes. As discussed above, geodesign has a strong foundation in the sciences and will continue that legacy, although not without significant challenges in enabling better application of spatial and systems thinking, more generalized adoption of advanced technologies. The pressure to provide justifications for design decisions (Milburn & Brown, 2003) will continue to advance the use of complex analytical tools for design evaluation and performance modeling. However, challenges remain in the integration of human creativity into the digital interface. We remain limited by the inability of the computer to provide both detailed information and broad context within the same visual field. The tendency of the designer to move to an incremental, piecemeal, sequential approach to solving problems (at the loss of an integrative, holistic approach) when using a digital interface is yet to be addressed. Finally, the tendency to look for a singular solution, rather than iterative explore multiple potential alternatives without judgment or preconceptions leads to pedantic, safe designs that rarely move beyond the status quo. These challenges to all components of the geodesign system – the hardware, software, and human interface – must be addressed for geodesign to realize its potential to significantly improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of design. References Anderson, L. (2002). Benton MacKaye: conservationist, planner, and creator of the appalachian trail. JHU Press. Beveridge, C., & Rocheleau, P. (1995). Frederick Law Olmsted: designing the American landscape. Rizzoli International Publications. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Canfield, T., & Steinitz, C. (2014). Revised definition of geodesign. Redlands, CA: 4th geodesign summit. http://video.esri.com/watch/3140/geodesign-with-littletime-and-small-data Chrisman, N. R. (2006). Charting the unknown: how computer mapping at Harvard became GIS. ESRI Press. Corner, J. (2002). Representation and landscape (1992). In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Theory in landscape architecture: a reader (pp. 144–166). University of Pennsylvania Press. Dangermond, J. (2009). GIS: Designing our future. ArcNews, 31(2), 6–7. Ervin, S., & Hasbrouck, H. (2001). Landscape modeling: digital techniques for landscape visualization. McGraw-Hill. Ervin, S. (2012). Geodesign futures: Possibilities, probabilities, certainties, and wildcards. In Presented at the geodesign summit. Fabos, J. G., Milde, G. T., & Weinmayr, M. (1968). Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr: founder of landscape architecture in America. University of Massachusetts Press. Fagg, C. C., & Hutchings, G. E. (1930). An introduction to regional surveying. Cambridge University Press. Flexman, M. (2010). Geodesign: Fundamental principals and routes forward. In Presented at the geodesign summit. Geddes, P. (1917). Town planning in Kapurthala. A report to H.H. the maharaja of Kapurthala. In J. Tyrwhitt (Ed.), Patrick Geddes in India (p. 24). London: Lund Humphries. Goodchild, M. F., Anselin, L., Appelbaum, R. P., & Harthorn, B. H. (2000). Toward spatially integrated social science. International Regional Science Review, 23(2), 139–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016001760002300201 Halprin, L. (2002). The RSVP cycles (1969). In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Theory in landscape architecture: a reader (pp. 35–37). University of Pennsylvania Press. Hanna, K. (1999). GIS for landscape architects. Redlands, California: ESRI Press. Harvey, F., Kwan, M.-P., & Pavlovskaya, M. (2005). Introduction: critical GIS. Cartographica, 40(4), 1–4. Herrington, S. (2010). The nature of Ian McHarg’s science. Landscape Journal, 29(1), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.29.1.1 Kastens, K. A., & Ishikawa, T. (2006). Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 413, 53–76.
Kwan, M. P. (1998). Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis, 30(3), 191–216. Kwan, M. P. (1999). Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures. The Professional Geographer, 51(2), 210–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00158 Kwan, M. P. (2000). Interactive geovisualization of activity-travel patterns using three-dimensional geographical information systems: A methodological exploration with a large data set. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 8(1–6), 185–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0968090X(00)00017-6 Laney, D. (2012). The importance of big data: a definition. Gartner Inc. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac: with other essays on conservation from round river. Ballantine Books. Lewis, P. H. (1996). Tomorrow by design: a regional design process for sustainability. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Li, W., Radke, J., Liu, D., & Gong, P. (2012). Measuring detailed urban vegetation with multisource high-resolution remote sensing imagery for environmental design and planning. Environment and Planning–Part B, 39(3), 566. Lyle, J. (1985). Design for human ecosystems: landscape, land use, and natural resources. Island Press. Lyle, J. T. (1996). Regenerative design for sustainable development. John Wiley & Sons. Margolis, L., & Robinson, A. (2007). Living systems: innovative materials and technologies for landscape architecture. Walter de Gruyter. McElvaney, S. (2012). Geodesign: case studies in regional and urban planning. Redlands, California: ESRI Press. McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with nature. New York: American Museum of Natural History. McHarg, I. L. (1998a). Man and environment (1963). In I. L. McHarg, & F. Steiner (Eds.), To heal the Earth: selected writings of Ian L. McHarg. Washington D.C: Island Press. McHarg, I. L. (1998b). Human ecological planning at Pennsylvania (1981). In I. L. McHarg, & F. Steiner (Eds.), To heal the Earth: selected writings of Ian L. McHarg. Washington D.C: Island Press. Mertens, E. (2010). Visualizing landscape architecture: functions, concepts, strategies. Walter de Gruyter. Milburn, L., & Brown, R. D. (2003). The relationship between research and design in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1), 47–66. Miller, B. (2012). Introducing geodesign: the concept. ESRI Inc. Motloch, J. L. (2000). Introduction to landscape design. John Wiley & Sons. National Research Council (US), Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially, & Downs, R. M. (2006). Learning to think spatially. National Academic Press. Olmsted, F. L. S. (1928). Forty years of landscape architecture: Central Park. In F. L. J. Olmsted, & T. Kimball (Eds.), New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s sons. The Kinckerbocker Press. Parsons, S. (2009). The art of landscape architecture. University of Massachusetts Press. Sasaki, H. (2002). Design process (1950). In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Theory in landscape architecture: a reader (pp. 35–37). University of Pennsylvania Press. Steiner, F. R., Young, G., & Zube, E. (1988). Ecological planning: Retrospect and prospect. Landscape Journal, 7(1), 31–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.7.1.31 Steiner, F. R. (2008). The living landscape: an ecological approach to landscape planning. Island Press. Steinitz, C., & Rogers, P. (1970). A systems analysis model of urbanization and change: an experiment in interdisciplinary education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Steinitz, C., Brown, H. J., & Goodale, P. (1976). Managing suburban growth: a modeling approach: summary. Landscape Architecture Research Office, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University. Steinitz, C. (1990). A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landscape Journal, 9(2), 136–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.9.2.136 Steinitz, C. (2012). A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. Redlands, California: ESRI Press. Swaffield, S. (2002). Theory in landscape architecture: a reader. University of Pennsylvania Press. The Sustainable Sites Initiative. (2009). The sustainable sites initiative: guidelines and performance benchmarks 2009. [Retrieved from]. http://old.sustainablesites. org/report/Guidelines%20and%20Performance%20Benchmarks 2009. pdf USGS. (2014). About USGS. [Retrieved from]. http://www.usgs.gov/aboutusgs/ US Forest Service, 1973: National Forest Landscape Management. Volume 1. Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Feburary 1973. Weng, Q. (2012). An introduction to contemporary remote sensing. McGraw Hill Professional. White, S. S., & Mayo, J. M. (2004). Learning expectations in environmental planning predictions and interpretations. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04267712 Wilson, M. (2014). On the criticality of mapping practices: Geodesign as critical GIS? Landscape and Urban Planning, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan. 2013.017 [Retrieved from] Weimin Li Ph.D., ASLA, currently is associate professor of landscape architecture at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Dr. Li specializes in advanced geospatial technologies e.g., geospatial data integration, geospatial analysis, geoprocessing modeling, high resolution remote sensing imagery processing and 3D landscape construction, and their application in environment and behavior research and a wide range of landscape design and planning practice.
Please cite this article in press as: Li, W., & Milburn, L.-A. The evolution of geodesign as a design and planning tool. Landscape Urban Plan. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.009