Using Geodesign as a boundary management process for planning nature-based solutions in river landscapes

Planning with nature-based solutions (NBS) presents a participatory approach that harnesses actions supported by nature to address societal challenges. Whilst Geodesign may facilitate participatory planning, manage boundaries between participants, and assess impacts of NBS, empirical insights remain scarce. This paper aims to develop and test a Geodesign process for planning with NBS, and to evaluate its contributions to boundary management. In a one-day Geodesign process, eleven stakeholders delineated priority areas, changed land uses, and observed resulting impacts on ecosystem services. Contributions to boundary management were evaluated regarding translation, communication and mediation functions, as well as perceived attributions of credibility, salience, and legitimacy. Results include spatial NBS scenarios and insights into contributions to boundary management: translating scenario stories into maps differed depending on the stakeholders involved; communication can be easily facilitated; yet mediation using an indicator tool led to frustration. Geodesign can indeed facilitate NBS co-design but needs to be integrated into a larger collaborative process.

[1]  C. Kirkpatrick,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 1983 .

[2]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[3]  P. Burrough,et al.  Principles of geographical information systems , 1998 .

[4]  Ernest Baskin,et al.  SWOT Analysis , 2019, Strategic Decisions.

[5]  K. DeWalt,et al.  Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers , 2001 .

[6]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  D. Ryfe.  DOES DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY WORK , 2005 .

[8]  Paul Schot,et al.  A SWOT Analysis of Planning Support Systems , 2007 .

[9]  Stan Geertman,et al.  Improving the Adoption and Use of Planning Support Systems in Practice , 2008 .

[10]  W. Thissen,et al.  Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: towards a deeper understanding? , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[11]  Maia Green.  Making Development Agents: Participation as Boundary Object in International Development , 2010 .

[12]  S. L. Star,et al.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

[13]  Susan Leigh Star.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

[14]  A. Hausmann,et al.  Now DNA-barcoded: the butterflies and larger moths of Germany (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera, Macroheterocera) , 2011 .

[15]  Stephen Ervin.  A System for GeoDesign , 2011 .

[16]  W. Clark,et al.  Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design , 2012 .

[18]  Gustavo A. Arciniegas,et al.  Interactive Marine Spatial Planning: Siting Tidal Energy Arrays around the Mull of Kintyre , 2012, PloS one.

[19]  A. Lovett,et al.  Farm-level assessment of CO2 and N2O emissions in Lower Saxony and comparison of implementation potentials for mitigation measures in Germany and England , 2013, Regional Environmental Change.

[20]  Luigi Liquori,et al.  The Framework , 2005, Jews and Muslims in Lower Yemen.

[21]  Karsten Jørgensen,et al.  A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design , 2012 .

[22]  A. Smits,et al.  Combining safety and nature: a multi-stakeholder perspective on integrated floodplain management. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[23]  T Eikelboom,et al.  Interactive spatial tools for the design of regional adaptation strategies. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[24]  Ron Janssen,et al.  Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: Results of an experiment , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[25]  Maria Tengö,et al.  Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach , 2014, AMBIO.

[26]  Ulrich Walz,et al.  Indicators of hemeroby for the monitoring of landscapes in Germany , 2014 .

[27]  Helen Couclelis,et al.  Geodesigning ‘From the Inside Out’ , 2014 .

[28]  Ron Janssen,et al.  Using geodesign to develop a spatial adaption strategy for Friesland. , 2014 .

[29]  Thomas Elmqvist,et al.  Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities. , 2015 .

[30]  Michele Campagna,et al.  Geodesign as a process: from modelling to enactment , 2015 .

[31]  Ron Janssen,et al.  Decision support tools for collaborative marine spatial planning: identifying potential sites for tidal energy devices around the Mull of Kintyre, Scotland , 2015 .

[32]  J. Burns,et al.  The ecosystem service of sense of place: benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation , 2015, Environmental Conservation.

[33]  Ron Janssen,et al.  Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values , 2015 .

[34]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  Teaching Scenario-Based Planning for Sustainable Landscape Development: An Evaluation of Learning Effects in the Cagliari Studio Workshop , 2015 .

[35]  Ron Janssen,et al.  Collaborative use of geodesign tools to support decision-making on adaptation to climate change , 2015, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[36]  Henrikki Tenkanen,et al.  Comparing conventional and PPGIS approaches in measuring equality of access to urban aquatic environments , 2015 .

[37]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies , 2015 .

[38]  S. Geertman,et al.  Knowledge in communicative planning practice: a different perspective for planning support systems , 2015 .

[39]  Gustavo A. Arciniegas,et al.  Planning Support Systems and Task-Technology Fit: a Comparative Case Study , 2015 .

[40]  Frederick Steiner,et al.  Geodesign—Changing the world, changing design , 2016 .

[41]  U. Wissen Hayek,et al.  Organizing and facilitating Geodesign processes: Integrating tools into collaborative design processes for urban transformation , 2016 .

[42]  R. Stedman.  Subjectivity and social-ecological systems: a rigidity trap (and sense of place as a way out) , 2016, Sustainability Science.

[43]  P. Döll,et al.  Assessing the ecosystem service flood protection of a riparian forest by applying a cascade approach , 2016 .

[44]  Carolina Adler,et al.  Conceptualizing the transfer of knowledge across cases in transdisciplinary research , 2017, Sustainability Science.

[45]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas , 2017 .

[46]  Ron Janssen,et al.  A pictorial approach to geodesign: A case study for the Lower Zambezi valley. , 2017 .

[47]  P. Opdam.  How landscape stewardship emerges out of landscape planning , 2017 .

[48]  Blal Adem Esmail,et al.  Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: An approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work , 2017 .

[49]  Dagmar Haase,et al.  The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[50]  P. Opdam,et al.  Landscape services as boundary concept in landscape governance: Building social capital in collaboration and adapting the landscape , 2017 .

[51]  R. K. Neumann,et al.  A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? , 2018 .

[52]  Eduardo Dias,et al.  Interactive 3D geodesign tool for multidisciplinary wind turbine planning. , 2018, Journal of environmental management.

[53]  K. Grunewald,et al.  Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[54]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  A multi-stakeholder decision support system for local neighbourhood energy planning , 2018 .

[55]  D. Haase,et al.  Locating Spatial Opportunities for Nature-Based Solutions: A River Landscape Application , 2018, Water.

[56]  D. Mertens,et al.  What are mixed methods , 2018 .

[57]  Christian Albert,et al.  Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany , 2018, Ecosystem Services.

[58]  Jiquan Chen,et al.  Nature-based solutions for resilient landscapes and cities. , 2018, Environmental research.

[59]  Christian Albert,et al.  Knowing Me, Knowing You—Capturing Different Knowledge Systems for River Landscape Planning and Governance , 2018, Water.

[60]  Caroline Flammer.  Corporate Green Bonds , 2019, Journal of Financial Economics.

[61]  Barbara Schröter,et al.  Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: How can landscape planning and governance research contribute? , 2019, Landscape and Urban Planning.

[62]  Caroline Flammer.  Corporate Green Bonds , 2019, Academy of Management Proceedings.

[63]  Chetan Kumar,et al.  Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions , 2019, Environmental Science & Policy.

[64]  R. Lafortezza,et al.  Transitional path to the adoption of nature-based solutions , 2019, Land Use Policy.

[65]  C. Raymond,et al.  Can Geodesign Be Used to Facilitate Boundary Management for Planning and Implementation of Nature-based Solutions? , 2020 .