Well here we are, our last week of geodesign, change your world. I'm very excited, as this week we're going to pull everything together. We've been building up to this through gaining an understanding about all the parts, and now we'll piece those together and show you how the geodesign process is structured. The process we're going to review today is Dr. Carl Steinitz' framework for geodesign. Dr. Steinitz has been conducting courses and studies along these lines for four decades. This is a well proven and also well regarded approach. Recently Dr. Steinitz authored a book on this. And I've personally done reasearch that compares his process to other recognized design theories. And Dr. Steinitz' framework for geodesign compares very favorably. As I mentioned in week three, witnessing this process in action at our university made me realize it's power for many different circumstances. I also hope you too recognize this as you've been following along with our case studies each week. The case studies illustrate the variety of land use and design challenges, different places and different scales where the combination of science, design, technology, and collaboration have had a positive impact. The trick with bringing all these things together is a need for a structured framework that enables fluidity without sacrificing organization. And that's what the framework for Geodesign provides for us. To begin, I'd like you to reflect back on week two when we discussed the design thinking. And that it, you have to think like a detective. Remember, just the facts ma'am. Well, that's perfectly illustrated in Dr. Steinitz's Framework for Geodesign. Because it's based on a series of key questions. And all the answers relate to each other and build upon the previous question. Therefore, each answer contributes to the next question. So, when taken as a whole, this process helps build up towards sound judgement because the answers begin alignment to the issues, and they start to help clarify opportunities. The Geodesign framework is rooted in six fundamental questions. Three of them are questions about a place's past and the present, and the other three questions relate to the future. Recall from week three, the designers are focused on developing specific solutions for a place. And therefore they're looking to provide a vision for the future. The fundamental questions of the past and present are. Number one, how should the state of the place be described? Number two, how does the place work or how does it operate? And number three, is the place currently working and operating well? The fundamental questions about the future are. Number one, how might the place be altered or changed? What difference might the change cause? And number three, how should that place be changed? The method for addressing these questions are called models. Dr. Steinitz outlined six models to form his framework. They're listed right here. Then he ask's us to cycle through these questions three times, with a slightly different perspective on the problem at each iteration. Doctor Steinitz' geodesign process helps us to frame culture, place, and problems into understandable models. Each model is essentially attempting to communicate an important idea about suitability. Whether it's the soil, people's needs, or future land uses, each bit of information is a clue to understanding what creative change will fit that place. The framework is a tool that enables us to think sustainably about places and culture. Let's briefly review each of the passes through the framework called iterations. After going through the first pass of the six models, the geo-design team should have, number one, a detailed understanding of the problem including the constraints. They should also have engaged the stakeholders in coming to that understanding. They should also have an agreement about the desired intent, or the project goals, and hopefully, by the end of this first pass through, they've outlined criteria that can be used as factors in how the decision makers will determine a choice at the end of the process. Doctor Steinitz calls this the why iteration. Why are you worried about the place or the issue? Why should this project even be done? Every design theory emphasizes the critical importance of this first stage. Gaining a thorough understanding of the problem is key to the future success of the process. It is here that the decision discussion from week two comes into play for the first time in the process. Doctor Steinitz is also clear that the data aspect, which we also addressed in week two is not yet a part of the process. That happens during the second pass through the framework. So, to assist you in understanding the process and framework, I'm going to highlight parts of this week's Manitou Springs, Colorado case study. Note that in the upper right hand corner there's a helpful graphic. I don't know if you can see it very well but it shows that there is a little blue triangle. And that shows you that it's in the first pass through of the framework, and it's at the top one which is the representation model. So this model, the representation model, the main goal of this step is in asking, what is the physical extent of the project? And this example here, it's acknowledged that areas beyond the town should also be included, such as the adjacent state and national forests. The second model, process, asks how does the place operate? The case here identified several processes acting on the town. This one, flash flooding, is recognized as one of the key processes operating in this community. At the evaluation step, we ask what is working and what's not. Here you can see that both positive attractors as well as vulnerabilities have been identified. The next is the change model, where we ask how the community regards the prospect of change. In this example, major changes that are foreseen have been listed. At the impact models, we're looking for the relevant consequences. Here both harmful and beneficial impacts have been outlined. And the last model for this first pass through of the framework is decision. What is the decision making process? That's what we ask here. The case study illustrates several aspects of this, including a long list of stakeholders. Shown here is a summation of the problem from the perspective of the decision makers. Now moving to the second pass through the framework, we take the questions in the reverse order. Building directly off the end of the first pass, leads to understanding how decision makers will judge whether the design is satisfactory. And it concludes at the top with representation models. Which are aimed at acquiring only the data that's needed. Dr. Steinitz refers to this as the how iteration of the framework. How will the project be organized and run? This pass through the framework is focused on setting up detailed guidance on how to approach the creation of design solutions. This how step establishes the methodology for actually going through and doing this particular geodesign application. Which is then implemented during the third pass through the framework. Again for illustration purposes, I'll highlight parts of this week's Manitou Springs, Colorado case study. In the second pass, decision models are focused on, and you look at how the decision maker will judge whether the design is good or whether it works. Shown here are the key things decision makers in Manitou Springs are going to want to know. For impact we ask, how will models be used to assess the benefits and costs of potential changes? This case study acknowledged that this is one of the most challenging aspects. Economic and hydrologic impacts are the most likely candidates here. Next we ask, which change model or models should be used for this situation and scale? In this case, the study has a large number of stakeholders, and also a small number of objectives. So the change model they've selected allows for exploring a variety of combinations. And at this next stage, we ask, which evaluation criteria and value should be selected that reinforce the facts, opinions, and desires of the place? Shown in this example are a number of issues related to suitability and vulnerability that need to be evaluated. The second time at process we are looking to find out which process miles will reveal key interactions, related to those proposed changes. Some of the key processes for this case study are linked to vegetation succession and hydrologic models. Lastly, at representation we ask what place representative data is going to be needed. Seeking only to acquire and organize what is truly needed, and that's been determined by the previous steps in the process. What's shown here is a list of the types of data needed to address this particular geodesign challenge. The last pass through of the framework goes through six models in the same order as the first pass. However, this time the team is armed with appropriate background knowledge and a place specific methodology. So this step is actually the carrying out of the geodesign study. It might be easiest to summarize this third iteration by working backwards from the end goal, which is the decision to do the desired changed initiative. So, for a place to decide to go forward with a change, they must first understand the potential impacts of that change. Which means knowing which change proposal could be implemented, which requires evaluating what works well and doesn't work well about that current situation. Which requires understanding how elements of that place interact, which are processes, and that requires knowing what is there, which is representation. We've previously noted that these will be complex challenges. So Dr. Steinitz suggested there may not be a final, accepted design solution the first time through the framework. Sometimes things need to be reexamined at a different scale, or new people or new information require circling back to an earlier point in the process. Recall that we said design is an iterative, non-sequential process. So even though this looks like a step by step process, the geodesign framework is there to provide organization, a structure, but fully realizing that jumping back to reassess for example is common. The cornerstone of geodesign is the linking of design. In this case, propose changes to the landscape to relevant science based information and value based information. In a way that provides a framework for exploring planning issues from a collaborative cross explanatory point of view. The purpose of the geodesign process is understand a place and its culture in order to ensure that proposed solutions are grounded in evidence and the values of its people. By answering this seemingly simple yet key questions of why, how, what, where and for whom, geodesign empowers an active role in shaping the sustainability of valued places. I've really enjoyed guiding you through these past five weeks and hope you're inspired by the power possible in planning and design when a process that bridges and synthesizes techniques and practices from many disciplines is set loose on complex problems. Geodesign is a unique, collaborative process rooted in key informative questions that draws on the strengths of design, science, and technology to create and implement distinctive models to aid communities in decision making. There's a great need for geodesign out there, best wishes as you explore this further.
