Modelling Nature-based Solutions Integrating Computational and Participatory Scenario Modelling for Environmental Management and Planning
Book contents
- Modelling Nature-based Solutions
- Modelling Nature-based Solutions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Landscape Modelling and Stakeholder Engagement: Participatory Approaches and Landscape Visualisation
- 2 Agent-based Models of Coupled Social and Natural Systems
- 3 Modelling Nature-based Solutions from Soil Ecosystem Services
- 4 Modelling Water Resources for Nature-based Solutions
- 5 Models at the Service of Marine Nature-based Solutions
- 6 Coastal and Freshwater Flood Models: A Review in the Context of NBS
- 7 Nature-based Solutions to Urban Microclimate Regulation
- 8 Data Mining, Machine Learning and Spatial Data Infrastructures for Scenario Modelling
- 9 Can Geodesign Be Used to Facilitate Boundary Management for Planning and Implementation of Nature-based Solutions?
- 10 Integrating Models into Practice – Recommendations
- Appendix: List of Models/Software
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
9 - Can Geodesign Be Used to Facilitate Boundary Management for Planning and Implementation of Nature-based Solutions?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 March 2020
Edited by
Book contents
- Modelling Nature-based Solutions
- Modelling Nature-based Solutions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Landscape Modelling and Stakeholder Engagement: Participatory Approaches and Landscape Visualisation
- 2 Agent-based Models of Coupled Social and Natural Systems
- 3 Modelling Nature-based Solutions from Soil Ecosystem Services
- 4 Modelling Water Resources for Nature-based Solutions
- 5 Models at the Service of Marine Nature-based Solutions
- 6 Coastal and Freshwater Flood Models: A Review in the Context of NBS
- 7 Nature-based Solutions to Urban Microclimate Regulation
- 8 Data Mining, Machine Learning and Spatial Data Infrastructures for Scenario Modelling
- 9 Can Geodesign Be Used to Facilitate Boundary Management for Planning and Implementation of Nature-based Solutions?
- 10 Integrating Models into Practice – Recommendations
- Appendix: List of Models/Software
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Ecosystem-based approaches are vital to addressing environmental issues and are crucial to buffering human communities against the adverse effects of climate change (Jones et al., 2012). The impacts of ecosystem-based projects have been considered within a range of societal challenge areas, such as wetland management (Max Finlayson et al., 2011), as well as across cross-cutting challenges of biodiversity conservation, public health and well-being (Kloos & Renaud, 2016). In most instances, researchers have drawn upon the ecosystem services framework for assessing the biophysical or economic value of ecosystem-based approaches (Liquete et al., 2015; Green et al., 2016), and for examining the potential for synergies and trade-offs between bundles of ecosystem services (Mouchet et al., 2017).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modelling Nature-based SolutionsIntegrating Computational and Participatory Scenario Modelling for Environmental Management and Planning, pp. 305 - 340Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Albert, C., Schröter, B., Haase, D., Brillinger, M., Henze, J., Herrmann, S., et al. 2019. Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: how can landscape planning and governance research contribute? Landscape and Urban Planning, 182, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arciniegas, G. A. & Janssen, R. 2009. Using a touch table to support participatory land use planning. In: Anderssen, R. S., Braddock, R. D. & Newham, L. T. H. (eds.) 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation: Interfacing Modelling and Simulation with Mathematical and Computational Sciences, pp. 2206–2212. Nedlands, Western Australia: University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Arciniegas, G., Janssen, R. & Omtzigt, N. 2011. Map-based multicriteria analysis to support interactive land use allocation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 25, 1931–1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballal, H. & Steinitz, C. 2015. A workshop in digital geodesign synthesis. In: Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture, pp. 400–407. Berlin: Herbert Wichmann.Google Scholar
Brouns, K., Eikelboom, T., Jansen, P. C., Janssen, R., Kwakernaak, C., van den Akker, J. J. H., et al. 2015. Spatial analysis of soil subsidence in peat meadow areas in Friesland in relation to land and water management, climate change, and adaptation. Environmental Management, 55, 360–372.Google Scholar
Campagna, M. 2015. Geodesign as a process: from modelling to enactment. In: Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture, pp. 276–283. Berlin: Herbert Wichmann.Google Scholar
Campagna, M., Clara, A., Moura, M., Borges, J. & Cocco, C. 2016. Future scenarios for the Pampulha region: a geodesign workshop. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 2016, 292–301.Google Scholar
Carton, L. J. & Thissen, W. A. H. 2009. Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: towards a deeper understanding? Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1991–2001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 8086–8091.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currier, K. & Couclelis, H. 2014. Geodesigning ‘from the inside out’. In: Lee, D. J., Dias, E. & Scholten, H. J. (eds.) Geodesign by Integrating Design and Geospatial Sciences, pp. 287–298. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eikelboom, T. & Janssen, R. 2013. Interactive spatial tools for the design of regional adaptation strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 127, S6–S14.Google Scholar
Eikelboom, T. & Janssen, R. 2015. Comparison of geodesign tools to communicate stakeholder values. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24, 1065–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eikelboom, T. & Janssen, R. 2017. Collaborative use of geodesign tools to support decision-making on adaptation to climate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 22, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eikelboom, T., Janssen, R. & Stewart, T. J. 2015. A spatial optimization algorithm for geodesign. Landscape and Urban Planning, 144, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin, S. 2011. A system for geodesign. In: Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture, pp. 145–154. Berlin: Herbert Wichmann.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2015. 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’. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Union. 2013. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services. An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Flaxman, M. 2010. Geodesign: fundamentals and routes forward. Presented at Geodesign Summit, Redlands, CA.Google Scholar
Green, T. L., Kronenberg, J., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. 2016. Insurance value of green infrastructure in and around cities. Ecosystems, 19, 1051–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, R., Eikelboom, T., Brouns, K. & Jansen, P. 2013. Verslag workshops Friese Veenweidevisie. Utrecht.Google Scholar
Janssen, R., Eikelboom, T., Verhoeven, J. & Brouns, K. 2015. Using geodesign to develop a spatial adaptation strategy for Friesland. In: Lee, D., Dias, E. & Scholten, H. J. (eds.) Geodesign by Integrating Design and Geospatial Sciences, pp. 103–116. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Jones, H. P., Hole, D. G. & Zavaleta, E. S. 2012. Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2, 504–509.Google Scholar
Kloos, J. & Renaud, F. G. 2016. Overview of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Drought Risk Reduction Targeting Small-scale Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, pp. 199–226. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Lee, D. J., Dias, E. & Scholten, H. J. 2014. Introduction to geodesign developments in Europe. In: Lee, D. J., Dias, E. & Scholten, H. J. (eds.) Geodesign by Integrating Design and Geospatial Sciences, pp. 3–9. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liquete, C., Kleeschulte, S., Dige, G., Maes, J., Grizzetti, B., Olah, B., et al. 2015. Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: a pan-European case study. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 268–280.Google Scholar
Littaye, A., Lardon, S. & Alloncle, N. 2016. Stakeholders’ collective drawing reveals significant differences in the vision of marine spatial planning of the western tropical Pacific. Ocean & Coastal Management, 130, 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marimbaldo, F. J. M., Corea, F. V. G. & Callejo, M. Á. M. 2012. Using 3D geodesign for planning of new electricity networks in Spain. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7333 LNCS (PART 1), 462–476.Google Scholar
Max Finlayson, C., Davidson, N., Pritchard, D., Randy Milton, G. & MacKacy, H. 2011. The Ramsar convention and ecosystem-based approaches to the wise use and sustainable development of wetlands. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 14 (3–4), 176–198.Google Scholar
Mouchet, M. A., Paracchini, M. L., Schulp, C. J. E., Stürck, J., Verkerk, P. J., Verburg, P. H., et al. 2017. Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 73, 23–28.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J. I. 2015. Commentary: visualization verisimilitude and civic participation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, 170–172.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J. I. & Opdam, P. 2008. Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology, 23, 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nature. 2017. Natural language: the latest attempt to brand green practices is better than it sounds. Nature, 541, 133–134.Google Scholar
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., et al. 2016. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 579, 1215–1227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyerges, T., Ballal, H., Steinitz, C., Canfield, T., Roderick, M., Ritzman, J., et al. 2016. Geodesign dynamics for sustainable urban watershed development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 25, 13–24.Google Scholar
Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Daw, T. M., Bohensky, E. L., Butler, J. R. A., Hill, R., et al. 2015. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social–ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecology and Society, 20(4), 32.Google Scholar
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Diaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., et al. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelzer, P., Arciniegas, G., Geertman, S. & Lenferink, S. 2015a. Planning support systems and task–technology fit: a comparative case study. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 8, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelzer, P., Geertman, S. & van der Heijden, R. 2015b. Knowledge in communicative planning practice: a different perspective for planning support systems. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 42, 638–651.Google Scholar
Provincie Friesland. 2011. Achtergrondrapport Startnotitie Veenweidevisie [in Dutch]. Leeuwarden: Provincie Friesland.Google Scholar
Provincie Friesland. 2015. Veenweidevisie, Een duurzame toekomst voor het Friese Veenweidegebied [in Dutch]. Leeuwarden: Provincie Friesland.Google Scholar
Rambaldi, G., Muchemi, J., Crawhall, N. & Monaci, L. 2007. Through the eyes of hunter-gatherers: participatory 3D modelling among Ogiek indigenous peoples in Kenya. Information Development, 23(2–3), 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumer, H. S. & Stokman, A. 2013. GeoDesign – Herausforderungen an einen verständigen Umgang mit GIS [GeoDesign – a challenge to improve communicating of GIS applications]. In: Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture, pp. 311–321. Berlin: Herbert Wichmann.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M. & Evely, A. C. 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1766–1777.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., et al. 2017. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. M., Kenter, J. O., Plieninger, T., Turner, N. J. & Alexander, K. A. 2014. Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 107, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recatalá Boix, L. & Zinck, J. A. 2008. Land-use planning in the Chaco plain (Burruyac, Argentina): Part 2: generating a consensus plan to mitigate land-use conflicts and minimize land degradation. Environmental Management, 42, 200–209.Google Scholar
Reed, M. S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., Huber, T., et al. 2018. A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26(S1), S7–S17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz-v.Raumer, H. G. & Stokman, A. 2011. GeoDesign – approximations of a catchphrase. In: Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture, pp. 106–115.Berlin: Herbert Wichmann.Google Scholar
Slotterback, C. S., Runck, B., Pitt, D. G., Kne, L., Jordan, N. R., Mulla, D. J., et al. 2016. Collaborative geodesign to advance multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 156, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects : amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinitz, C. 2012. A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design. Redlands, CA: ESRI.Google Scholar
Steinitz, C. 2014. Which way of designing? In: Lee, D., Dias, E. & Scholten, H. J. (eds.) Geodesign by Integrating Design and Geospatial Sciences, pp. 11–40. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO, 43, 579–591.Google Scholar
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., et al. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25.Google Scholar
Turner, K. G., Odgaard, M. V., Bøcher, P. K., Dalgaard, T. & Svenning, J.-C. 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Nat, A., Vellinga, P., Leemans, R. & van Slobbe, E. 2016. Ranking coastal flood protection designs from engineered to nature-based. Ecological Engineering, 87, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vonk, G. & Geertman, S. 2008. Improving the adoption and use of planning support systems in practice. Journal of Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 1(3), 21.Google Scholar
Vonk, G., Geertman, S. & Schot, P. 2007. A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A, 39, 1699–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerink, J., Opdam, P., van Rooij, S. & Steingröver, E. 2017. Landscape services as boundary concept in landscape governance: building social capital in collaboration and adapting the landscape. Land Use Policy, 60, 408–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wissen Hayek, U., von Wirth, T., Neuenschwander, N. & Grêt-Regamey, A. 2016. Organizing and facilitating geodesign processes: integrating tools into collaborative design processes for urban transformation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 156, 59–70.Google Scholar
Xu, P. 2015. Applying systems thinking: geodesign structure provides general models integrating architecture with landscape planning and design to create a sustainable environment. In: Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture, pp. 195–204. Berlin: Herbert Wichmann.Google Scholar
Yang, P. P.-J., Quan, S. J., Castro-Lacouture, D., Rudolph, C. & Stuart, B. 2014. Performance metrics for designing an algae-powered eco urban district: a geodesign perspective. Energy Procedia, 61, 1487–1490.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by