Brian Orland
Rado Family Foundation/UGAF Professor of Geodesign
College of Environment and Design
University of Georgia
285 South Jackson Street
Athens, GA 30602
Abstract
Ordinary people make decisions about design and planning every day, frequently based on what they see, although they are not designers, engineers, ecologists or visualization experts. Are we confident that the information in their hands will result in safe and efficient outcomes? There are now numerous tools available to support the design of green infrastructure and stormwater management installations. They arrive at a time of increasing demand for stakeholder engagement in design and planning decisions, and for evidence-based design.
In response to these pressures, the customary use of science-based tools and approaches has transformed design and planning, making evidence-based design and transparent communications realistic propositions. Understanding the implications of planned change is central to motivating adoption of green infrastructure practices, but our tendency has been to focus on technical and financial outcomes whose implications may not be clear to all citizens and policy-makers. Visualization offers a way to clarify the implications of choosing to prioritize biodiversity, alternate design approaches, stormwater retention/detention options and management choices such as the extent of maintenance mowing. However, while each of these factors deserves independent consideration, they naturally occur in a myriad of combinations and with many non-visual confounding factors, such as cost. The visualization dashboard approach here offers each factor for manipulation while others remain constant. Our approach is not alone. During the course of the project, tools supporting green infrastructure decision-making have proliferated bringing the challenge of choosing among a wide array of different capabilities, reliability and usability. The website that is a component of this project helps to identify suitable but perhaps unfamiliar tools for users’ consideration.
1 Introduction
This research investigates two tightly-coupled roles for visualization in decision-making regarding stormwater management. First, the role of visualization as a component of choice models and other survey-based means of eliciting values for the non-commodity attributes of stormwater practices—such as the contributions of design aesthetics, reported biodiversity and maintenance regime. Second, the role of computer-delivered information, visual and verbal, used to motivate the adoption of stormwater management practices. To address these roles, the project has had three components. First was to produce image sets representing alternate development scenarios to support other project teams; second was to develop visual/verbal “dashboards” to communicate the implications of stormwater management; third was to investigate how evolving visually-oriented tools are being incorporated into decision-making processes.
Approach: In the first case, it is critical that citizens and managers understand how commodity and non-commodity values play out in the complex scenarios of watershed management. In communicating those, familiar verbal and numeric descriptions have important roles. The visualization of plans and community presentations have long been central to decisions regarding infrastructure projects. This project developed image sets calibrated to specific combinations of attributes to be used by parallel project activities to examine the extent to which integration of visual representations of green infrastructure attributes with environmental and economic outcomes affect general public preferences.
Second, while the environmental and economic benefits of new approaches to stormwater management have been widely disseminated, the adoption of any new practice will be influenced by the extent to which individuals and municipalities understand the expected changes. Once alternatives had been clearly represented, they are available to members of the public as well as decision-makers via a “dashboard’ application to explore the concurrent acceptability of the various factors shaping stormwater management solutions.
Third, during the course of the project, there has been massive growth in the number and range of tools supporting green infrastructure decision-making bringing the challenge of choosing among a wide array of different capabilities, reliability and usability. The website that is a component of this project helps to identify suitable but previously unknown tools for users’ consideration, categorized by the characteristics of the users as well as the roles that the tools play at different stages of decision-making.
2 Background
Visualization has a long history as a central means for communicating the intended outcomes of designs and plans. Environmental designers have consistently innovated in using visual representations to inspire people with visions of what the world around them might be. Images have been used to fulfil two critical missions; to convey “what to expect” broadly to people with widely varying expertise and viewpoints, and to engage the viewers sufficiently so that they are motivated to make those visions become realities. In recent years digitally-supported visualization has rapidly emerged as a useful integration of the traditional core skills of the landscape designer and planner with advanced data-driven geospatial computation. It has rapidly become a critical general-purpose decision-support tool for landscape planning and design. And this level of technical integration coincides with increasing demands for stakeholder engagement in design and planning decisions, and the necessity for designers and planners to demonstrate that they can forecast the performance of their work and subsequently demonstrate that it met those performance requirements.
Figure 1. Data-driven visualization of green infrastructure installation
The central argument to this paper is that while the landscape architecture and civil and environmental engineering communities have evolved ever better methods for technical analysis supported by increasingly clever visuals, e.g., Sheppard, 2005; Stock et al., 2009; Berry and Higgs, 2012; Pettit et al., 2012, less attention has gone to creating the means by which non-experts can participate other than as viewers (cf. Lange, 2008.) At the same time in allied fields such as urban and community planning we have excellent examples of engaged public participation, but without exploiting visualization tools to facilitate communication of landscape change. As an example of the latter, Voinov and Bousquet (2010) describe how they engage stakeholders in modelling future landscape scenarios. They highlight processes of shared visioning and discuss the challenges of dealing with surprise and disagreement, yet do not identify visualization as a means to achieving shared understanding. Palacios-Agundez and colleagues (2014) describe a process for visioning the future of a landscape in Spain where forestry is no longer profitable, relying on quantitative analyses yet expressing how lack of scientific insights limited stakeholder engagement. Forester and colleagues (2015) described a thoughtful Q-sort approach to understanding stakeholder perceptions of landscape adaptations and their impacts on water regimes in northern England and pointed to the need for methods that are better at conveying the meaning of landscape change and “concise structured outputs rather than wordy reports.” It is clearly necessary to integrate emerging engaged participatory processes and the sophisticated explanatory and exploratory visualization tools that have become available.
Close participation with stakeholders can lead to engagement with the design process, perceived ownership of the outcomes and the promise of future involvement in ensuring that plans are implemented (Philipson et al., 2012; Voinov and Bousquet, 2010.) The closely related domain of public participatory GIS provides numerous examples in which stakeholder values are captured and mobilized in the planning process (Al-Khodmany, 1999; Elwood, 2006.) Brown and Corry (2011) described a process for the deliberate application of science-based evidence to landscape design. Beunen and Opdam, in the same special issue of Landscape and Urban Planning (2011) highlighted the challenge of incorporating science in planning, specifically focusing on the distrust of experts and science in developing and implementing government policy. They pointed to the increasing complexity and ambiguity of science in describing the implications of the compelling phenomena of the age—climate change, renewable energy, aging populations. They call for design and planning to develop more insights into the means by which knowledge affects the societal processes of design and planning and suggest means to gather those insights. Rather than acknowledging and accepting the separation of scientific insights and community processes, this project has sought to provide a mechanism and process by which ground-level participatory insight can be integrated with strategic-level scientific modelling, and in doing so provide a trusted vehicle for communication between citizen and scientist.
3 Modifying the traditional design process for green infrastructure
In the 100th volume of Landscape and Urban Planning Lange (2011) and Bishop (2011) focused attention on two key facets of visualization as it impinges on design and planning communication—the increasing sophistication of digital visualization in representing the nature of the landscape and the potential for game-like interfaces to engage users of various knowledge levels and providing insight into the technical systems underlying environmental change.
There is a rich history and literature regarding the contribution of visualization to the communication of design and planning ideas—their value has been substantiated numerous times in practice and in research. Visualization approaches commonly used by landscape architects have also been adopted in allied fields (Ferster and Coops, 2014; Llobera, 1996.) Nevertheless, the development of visualization tools has tended to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary—there is a clear path between early digitally edited images of landscape change and the most recent (Orland, 1986; Manyoky et al., 2014) and between early GIS maps and the most recent (Steinitz, 2014.) While the effectiveness of such images and maps in conveying change has been well substantiated, it is less clear if they are the best way to convey environmental change and authors have repeatedly pointed to the anticipated benefits of better immersive and multi-sensory display formats (Lange, 2011; Pettit et al., 2012; Sheppard, 2005.)
Figure 2: Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969: 217)
Following Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation (Fig 2), the decision-making process for green infrastructure should be configured to support stakeholder partnership, delegated decisions and control of outcomes. Much has been written about public participation in technical planning, in many cases incorporating visualization as both a means for eliciting public values and as a way to convey those to others (Al-Khodomany, 1999; Forester et al., 2015; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2014; Phillipson et al., 2012.) However, in all cases choices have been made between using technically complete information that requires substantial training to interpret or simplified approaches that might be criticized as over-simplifying complex problems. This presents a dilemma that demands a solution—citizens must be empowered to engage the technical information and technical experts must operate in full awareness of the broader world views held by citizens.
There is guidance available on resolving this apparent dichotomy. Vervoort et al. (2014) worked with mixed groups of media designers and complex system scientists to develop ways to communicate about climate change. The results fell into three categories: storytelling; system exploration games; and group interactions, each of which had an important and complementary role in communication. Storytelling relies on metaphor and narrative to make complex system interactions meaningful as well as conveying participants’ roles in those systems. System exploration games convey complexity and interaction in engaging ways but fail to capture the individual perspectives and contributions of participants. Group interactions, which may include role-playing exercises, enable the expression and testing of individuals’ values against one another but may not scale up to include large numbers or wide ranges of individuals.
Vervoort and colleagues’ results offer guidance for the development of a participatory and communications window to green infrastructure design. None of the three components mentioned above is new to environmental decision-making although there are few examples of all three coming together in a single setting. Each may suffer from being perceived as play-like, informal and not sufficiently serious for the important tasks at hand. Orland et al. (2014), observed the challenge of engaging scientists and managers in serious games enjoying broad adoption among other office workers.
Storytelling: The geography literature is rich with examples of storytelling as a means of discovering community values, of negotiating differences in values, and of envisioning the future (Cameron, 2012; Lorimer and Parr, 2014.) Stories connect the experience of the individual in the landscape to the circumstances and environments around them and convey meaning rather than simply location and physical composition. Cameron reviews the role of storytelling in expressing values and power relationships and leading to policy. Of particular use to landscape architecture is increased attention to small local stories. The stories of land occupation and the activities of daily life are the settings within which decision-making about landscape change should occur. Mikhailovich, (2009) and Paquet, (2013) describe community discourse in the context of wicked problems. For Mikhailovich the explicit embodiment of community, government and industry values to build trust in an ecosystem approach may have provided ways to address future water security needs.
System exploration games: Discovering how environmental systems work is essential to meaningful participation in landscape and engineering design and planning, and thus green infrastructure design. Umphlett et al. (2009) and Brock and Deckert (2008) are among numerous authors who point to the value of games for exploring ecosystem dynamics. Daniel (2014) provides a number of examples used to teach engineering principles and Marlowe (2012) describes the pedagogical benefits of games as means to environmental design teaching. Although not described as a game, Metcalf et al. (2010) describe the development of an exploratory model of the Mississippi watershed based on STELLA (ISEE Systems, 2006) that has the characteristics of a game to educate stakeholders in ecosystem behaviour. The author and colleagues (Orland et al., 1997) exploited that connection for a museum game exploring the relationship between forest structure and wildlife populations. The connection to STELLA is additionally important in that numerous environmental system models are already available in that environment (e.g., Costanza, 1998; Costanza and Voinov, 2001.) System exploration games will be essential components of a “front end” to green infrastructure design.
Group interactions: Role-playing games have been in use for many years for investigation of policy interventions in landscape planning—for managing and learning from the group interactions that occur as participants seek consensus among competing views and values (Duke, 2011.) Although some key computer-based tools emerged, e.g., METROPOLIS (Duke, 1966) and METRO-APEX (McGinty, 1985) there is a surprising dearth of such aids currently, although the communication processes may have replaced by the internet and tools such as GoogleDocs. MacIntyre (2003) used a board game to demonstrate landscape design principles in Australia; Pak and Castillo-Brieva (2010) used similar games to engage local peoples in understanding the factors driving landscape transformation in Colombia; and Speelman and colleagues (2014) used a similar approach for land-use planning in an agricultural landscape in Mexico. In our own work (Orland and Murtha, 2014) we have made extensive and effective use of a felt-board game [1]to educate citizens about the planning processes in natural gas development.
4 Design of a complete system
Figure 3: The People of the Place in the Geodesign Framework (Steinitz, 2013)
Geodesign, landscape design at geographic scale, as described by Steinitz (2013) illustrates the critical role played by the “People of the Place” in reviewing and informing the design process although, as in many design settings, stakeholder input is shown outside the core of the diagram of the design process (Figure 3.) This external location for stakeholder participation is reflective of common practice (See Figure 2) but does not represent an ideal means to assure that stakeholder input is both informed and used appropriately, and the location “outside” the design framework diverts attention from the need to integrate participation into the technical system. While the case studies described by Steinitz (2013) emphatically do include thoughtful and comprehensive stakeholder engagement, each instance was tailored to its circumstances and may not constitute repeatable and generalizable processes. The process described by Steinitz uses digital GIS and BIM tools to enable designers to consider more issues, with more precision and ability to interact and change the designs under consideration. In a similar manner, digital tools should be mobilized to introduce stakeholder participants to green infrastructure design, teach them about its workings and enable them to frame their concerns in a manner to which technical design tools can respond.
What is the participatory design interface through which stakeholders from non-design backgrounds approach, comprehend and participate in green infrastructure design? It is proposed here that system exploration story telling, exploratory game and group interaction elements as identified by Vervoort et al. (2014) will be key elements of the geodesign participatory design interface. The world of serious games (Bishop, 2011; Chang, 2011) offers a framework that lends itself to integration of these three elements in stakeholder engagement and participation, all in a richly visual interactive and engaging environment. A game-like approach also lends itself to deployment via mobile devices, e.g., Dogbey et al., 2014; Ferster and Coops, 2014, enabling participation to take place in place, in situ, and in real life, in vivo, in the environments at issue. The author, in a lightning talk at Geodesign 2014 (Orland, 2014) suggested a three-part interface to geodesign comprising a narrative story, an exploratory serious game and a browsing library of past geodesign projects as a means to engage and educate participants about system fundamentals and then convey the range of possible design questions participants might ask of a technical geodesign support system.
However, while technological advances can lead to increasingly capable systems, they also tend to put more burdens on users. In the case under discussion, the opposite is desired. The characteristics and performance needs of an interface supporting broad participation in green infrastructure design through incorporation of storytelling, system exploration, and group interaction will require careful design. While it is likely that an immersive, interactive game-like environment could be integrated within the customary framework of GIS/BIM-based green infrastructure design, it is not clear how much complexity and power is necessary to achieve its communication goals. I use the family car as an analogy to examine what the interface might be, how and for whom it should perform, and how its effectiveness should be evaluated. The family car displays interface elements that have changed little over 100+ years, others that are less than a decade old.
5 An accessible interface to green infrastructure design: a family car analogy
The three system elements described above find a parallel in the design of the family car. The motivation behind the choice of vehicle reflects the story pursued by the owner—small and efficient for shopping, stylish to communicate prestige, spacious for family holidays. An essential first step to choosing a vehicle is to develop the narrative of what it needs to accomplish for the users, and how fast, safely and efficiently it needs to do that. Because most users are constrained by the potential expense as well as concerns as diverse as green-ness and conveying their personal image they will choose a vehicle that is sufficient to achieve their purposes. They will eventually evaluate its effectiveness on the basis of how well it performs the required functions. Flexibility and adaptability will be valued in as much as the car is able to fill functions and needs beyond the initial intention.
Operating the vehicle requires an initial understanding of the underlying systems and practical knowledge of how they interact. In general a forward-hinged door with an opening handle gains access. Inside it is clear that the main driving support tool is the forward-facing windshield/screen. Subsidiary tools are arranged below it and close enough for a quick monitoring glance. The biggest is the speedometer providing vital safety information that is not easily assessed by looking through the windshield. Its prominence indicates its importance—there is less consistency in placing the remaining displays. The steering wheel always rotates in the direction of the intended turn. The two or three critical pedal controls below the dashboard are always arranged in the same order, and the way they operate is consistent across all motor vehicles. More “expert” users can add tachometers, oil and water gauges, but mostly their monitoring functions operate via warning lights and automation. Increasingly users can select to monitor their distance travelled and fuel use, assistance with GPS way-finding, track local radio stations and park in awkward spaces. A successful vehicle system will be consistent with these conventions, including some redundancy where experts may desire more information than a simple warning of an impending threshold. The controls will enable safe, economical and consistent operation of the vehicle.
Decisions about where to take the family car are borne out of group interactions. To be effective they rely on the goodwill of the family participants, their knowledge of each other’s values and an ability to collaborate in decision-making (subject to intra-familial power dynamics.) To inform the decision, the family will require knowledge of the range of possibilities, of destination as well as means of getting there. They will rely on their memories of past journeys to inform the new decision, and they will provide each other on feedback about the likely implications of alternate choices. The controls of the car will enable the family to reach its destination without the vehicle’s controls or systems getting in the way of that goal. The residual effect of the travel experience will be satisfaction with the outcome with the knowledge that everyone’s values were considered, weighed and acted upon along the way.
6 Conclusion
The two main goals of the green infrastructure design interface are to represent the landscape and to support interactive participation. The first is supported by a large and clear windshield in the car, although the photo-realism of day-time driving may not be necessary for effective use—after all, the night-time scene is by comparison highly abstract, less colour-rich and more symbolic in the way space is represented. Dahlstrom et al., (2009) indicate that high fidelity and realism in flight simulators is not necessary to pilot training and that lower fidelity displays may be more effective in supporting the development of generic decision-making skills. The same thinking should be tested for green infrastructure displays. Temporal and spatial navigation are accomplished in almost identical form in all automobiles. Green infrastructure interactivity should be equally familiar and consistent. Use and depletion of resources in response to user inputs must be available immediately but might be accomplished by warning lights as limits are reached, rather than analogue or digital gauge feedback.
Family cars, as much as Nascar racing cars, have a reliable foundation in science and technology. The latter are some of the most heavily instrumented objects in the world (Waldo, 2009) and the driver of the family car would be overwhelmed by that data, even though it is reporting on the same underlying automobile architecture. Our current conception of green infrastructure tends to the Nascar model—perhaps with some justification since earth’s systems are fragile and deserving of careful monitoring—but even racing team engineers, drivers and managers select the information they need for their specific functions. They do not seek to monitor all systems and trade-off much monitoring to closed-loop automated systems. In the family car even more data management is trusted to automated controls. The effects in recent years have been huge reductions in energy use and environmental emissions in individual vehicles. Green infrastructure visualization should seek the same ends for its users. Key indicators—water availability and use; biodiversity; and maintenance strategies—are monitored for all actions and thresholds are set to monitor performance. Users select the systems they wish to monitor most closely but are still alerted to the implications of their actions in other systems—higher speeds will reduce travel time but increase fuel consumption. The choices available to the family car buyer have been tailored by years of observation and direct feedback—they express their preferences through the marketplace. While green infrastructure design currently lacks the longevity and scale of market of the family car we must systematically apply the same kind of thinking. While we may not like the proliferation of the family car, by understanding how people use and interact with these popular but complex systems we may find the means by which green infrastructure design will become equally central to making daily good and supportable environmental decisions.
Acknowledgements
EPA STAR Award: R835142. Penn State Center for Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Management. My colleagues, Stuart Echols and Richard Ready; research assistants Molly Oliver, Yau-Huo Shr, Abhinandan Bera, Tara Mazuczyk, Devon Beekler, Mackenzie Battista, Lynn Abdouni, Madison Craig; and several classes of patient students, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Landscape Architecture. And the invaluable time afforded by the Arnold Weddle Professorship in Landscape at the University of Sheffield.
References
Al-Khodmany, K. (1999) Combining artistry and technology in participatory community planning. Berkeley Planning Journal. 13, 28-36.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35(4), 216-224.
Berry, R. & Higgs, G. (2012) Gauging Levels of Public Acceptance of the use of Visualisation Tools in Promoting Public Participation; a Case Study of Wind Farm Planning in South Wales, UK. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55.2 (2012), 229-51.
Beunen, R. & Opdam, P. (2011) When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 324-326.
Bishop, I. (2011) Landscape planning is not a game: Should it be?, Landscape and Urban Planning. 100(4), 390-392.
Blythe, S., Grabill, J. T., & Riley, K. (2008). Action research and wicked environmental problems. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 22(3), 272-298.
Brock, W. A., & Dechert, W. D. (2008). The polluted ecosystem game. Indian Growth and Development Review. 1(1), 7-31.
Brown, R.D. & Corry, R.C. (2011) Evidence-based landscape architecture: The maturing of a profession. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 327–329
Cameron, E. (2012). New geographies of story and storytelling. Progress in Human Geography. 36(5), 573-592.
Chang, A.Y. (2011) Games as environmental texts. Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(2), 57-84.
Costanza, R., & Gottlieb, S. (1998). Modelling ecological and economic systems with STELLA: Part II. Ecological Modelling, 112(2), 81-84.
Costanza, R., & Voinov, A. (2001). Modeling ecological and economic systems with STELLA: Part III. Ecological Modelling, 143(1), 1-7.
Dahlstrom, N., Dekker, S., Van Winsen, R., & Nyce, J. (2009). Fidelity and Validity of Simulator Training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 10(4) 305–314.
Daniel, A. (2014) GAME ON! ASEE Prism. 23(8), 41.
Demian, P., & Fruchter, R. (2009). Effective visualisation of design versions: Visual storytelling for design reuse. Research in Engineering Design, 19(4), 193-204.
Dogbey, J., Quigley, C., Che, M. & Hallo, J. (2014) Using Smartphone Technology in Environmental Sustainability Education: The Case of the Maasai Mara Region in Kenya. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 6(1), 1-16.
Duke, R. D. (1966) M.E.T.R.O. A gaming simulation. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Community Development.
Elwood, S. (2006) Critical Issues in Participatory GIS: Deconstructions, Reconstructions, and New Research Directions. Transactions in GIS, 2006, 10(5), 693–708.
Ferster, C.J. & Coops, N.C. (2014) Assessing the quality of forest fuel loading data collected using public participation methods and smartphones. International Journal of Wildland Fire. (23) 585–590.
Forester, J., Cook, B., Bracken, L., Cinderby, S. & Donaldson, A. (2015) Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography 56(2015) 199-208.
ISEE Systems. (2006) Technical document for iThink and STELLA software. http://www.iseesystems.com
Kerski, J. J. (2015). Geo‐awareness, Geo‐enablement, geotechnologies, citizen science, and storytelling: Geography on the world stage. Geography Compass, 9(1) 14-26.
Lange, E. (2008) Our shared landscape: Design, planning and management of multifunctional landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 89(3), 143-145.
Lange, E. (2011) 99 volumes later: We can visualise. now what? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 403-406.
Llobera. M. (1996) Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity, 70(269), 613.
Lorimer, H., & Parr, H. (2014). Excursions – telling stories and journeys. Cultural Geographies, 21(4), 543-547.
MacIntyre, S. (2003) The Landscape Game: A learning tool demonstrating landscape design principles. Ecological Management and Restoration. 4(2), 103-109.
Manyoky, M., Wissen Hayek, U., Heutschi K., Pieren R., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2014) Developing a GIS-Based Visual-Acoustic 3D Simulation for Wind Farm Assessment. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 3(1), 29-48.
Marlowe, C. M. (2012). Making games for environmental design education: Revealing landscape architecture. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 4(2), 60-83.
Metcalf, S. S., Wheeler, E., BenDor, T. K., Lubinski, K. S., & Hannon, B. M. (2010) Sharing the floodplain: Mediated modeling for environmental management. Environmental Modelling and Software. 25(11), 1282-1290.
McGinty, R. T. (1985). METRO/APEX. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, School of Public Administration.
Mikhailovich, K. (2009). Wicked water: Engaging with communities in complex conversations about water recycling. EcoHealth, 6(3), 324-330.
Orland, B. (1986) Image Advantage: Computer Visual Simulations Landscape Architecture 76(1), 58-63.
Orland, B., Ogleby, C., Campbell, H., & Yates, P. (1997) Multi-media approaches to visualization of ecosystem dynamics. ASPRS/ACSM/RT’97 -Seattle, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Washington, DC. (4) 224-236.
Orland, B. (2014) Engaged Geodesign in the Forgotten Quarter of Pennsylvania. Geodesign, Redlands, CA. http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/geodesign14/
Orland, B. and Murtha, T. (2014) Show me: Engaging citizens in planning for shale gas development. NAEP. St. Petersburg, FL.
Pak, V. & Castillo-Brieva, D. (2010) Designing and implementing a role-playing game: A tool to explain factors, decision making and landscape transformation. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25(11), 1322-1333.
Paquet, G. (2013) Wicked policy problems and social learning. Optimum Online, 43(3)19.
Palacios-Agundez, I., Fernández de Manuel, B., Rodríguez-Loinaz, G., Peña, L., Ametzaga-Arregi, I., Alday, J. G. & Onaindia, M. (2014) Integrating stakeholders’ demands and scientific knowledge on ecosystem services in landscape planning. Landscape Ecology, 29(8), 1423-1433.
Pettit, C., Bishop, I., Sposito, V., Aurambout, J., & Sheth, F. (2012). Developing a multi-scale visualisation framework for use in climate change response. Landscape Ecology, 27(4), 487-508.
Phillipson, J., Lowe, P., Proctor, A., & Ruto, E. (2012). Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. Journal of Environmental Management, 95(1), 56.
Sheppard, S. (2005) Landscape visualisation and climate change: The potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environmental Science and Policy, 8(6), 637-654.
Speelman, E. N., García-Barrios, L. E., Groot, J. C. J., & Tittonell, P. (2014). Gaming for smallholder participation in the design of more sustainable agricultural landscapes. Agricultural Systems, 126, 62-75.
Steinitz, C. (2013) A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. Redlands, CA.
Steinitz, C. (2014) Beginnings of GIS: A Personal Historical Perspective. Planning Perspectives, January 2014, 239 – 254.
Stock, C., Bishop, I. D., O’Connor, A. N., Chen, T., Pettit, C. J., & Aurambout, J. (2008). SIEVE: Collaborative decision-making in an immersive online environment. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 35(2), 133.
Umphlett, N., Brosius, T., Laungani, R., Rousseau, J., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. (2009). Ecosystem jenga! Science Scope, 33(1), 57-60.
Verderber, S. (2014) Residential hospice environments: Evidence-based architectural and landscape design considerations. Journal of Palliative Care, 30(2), 69.
Vervoort, J. M., Keuskamp, D. H., Kok, K., Lammeren, R. v., Stolk, T., Veldkamp, T. A. & Rowlands, H. (2014). A sense of change: Media designers and artists communicating about complexity in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 19(3), 1.
Voinov, A. & Bousquet, F. (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25(11), 1268-1281.
Waldo, J. (2005) Embedded Computing and Formula One Racing. IEEE Pervasive Computing. 4(3), 18-21.