Projects workflow: How will IGC studies be carried out?
The IGC was conceived as a means to compare the approaches and experiences of globally dispersed teams studying the geodesign projects they would normally do, but using a common framework of guiding assumptions, project sizes, scenarios, analytical systems, and presentation formats. Using these guidelines enables direct comparisons among projects, revealing insights into the different priorities and constraints of teams working in contrasting climate, demographic and governmental settings.
The initial IGC projects, IGC2019, varied widely but did not always stay within the project guidelines. We have made some adjustments to make it easier for projects to follow the guidelines. Returning IGC participants will see the same project size constraints, the same scenario guidelines, and slightly adjusted design systems and colors. Reporting formats also remain the same, although our guidelines are now more explicit in some areas.
For detailed descriptions of the elements of the common framework, refer to the accompanying webpage: Requirements for Projects.
Geodesign systems and colors
The first change is an adjustment to the required system colors. For this next round of IGC we require all teams to use the Eight plus Two color scheme shown below (Figure 1). This allows participants more flexibility in including special and locally significant landscape systems. The Requirements for Projects page contains more detailed information.
Figure 1. Eight required plus two optional systems for a maximum of ten
Adopt assumptions about global change to 2050 and identify project Requirements.
Identify the System Innovations that designers can use to address change.
An expert group identified twelve assumptions about global change expected to impact the world in the period to 2050.
We identified nine systems that are fundamental to geodesign. Expert groups were asked to identify system innovations that will occur by 2035, and others by 2050, that identify useful design and planning response strategies.
The Assumptions and Innovations are available to read or download on the Global Assumptions and System Innovations webpage.
Global Assumptions of Change
Water Infrastructure Innovations
The biggest change we want IGC participants to adopt is in the reporting of impacts. To truly address global sustainability, IGC projects must report their outcomes and impacts in a common framework, although we realize there is no easy way to achieve that. However, as a step toward this goal, we are requesting that all IGC projects indicate how well their design scenario outcomes would address the global sustainability goals of the United Nations Development Program, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). (UNDP website)
Figure 2. Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals, seven directly affected by biophysical design and planning (green tabs), five indirectly affected (orange tabs).
The land use/land cover decisions made during geodesign operations shape how global biophysical resources can address the SDGs, regardless of project type or scale. In the case of those marked with green in Figure 2, the connection is direct; to address hunger there must be enough land and water for agriculture. For those marked orange, the connection is indirect but still vital; to address health there must be clean air, parks for recreation, land for growing food, etc.
Figure 3 indicates the performance of a notional design relative to the UNDP SDGs. The assessments of performance against any SDG can be achieved by the expert judgments of the project team, or by model-based assessments. Either approach is appropriate and enables project teams to compare alternate scenarios, and teams to compare their projects' performance with that of other IGC teams. Again, more details to be found on the Requirements for Projects page.
Assessing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
It is very important to be able to compare the outcomes of international geodesign collaboration (IGC) projects so that we can learn from one another, but it is challenging to find a commonly understood set of evaluation measures. For this reason, the IGC has adopted the United Nations-sanctioned sustainable development goals (SDG) as the standard format for assessing the impacts of the 2050 scenario-based designs—Early-adopter, Late-adopter and Non-adopter. Click on SDG logo to go to UN SDG web resources.
It is not necessary for IGC to constrain the methods that teams use to make the assessments, but all summary impact reporting should conform to the format shown in figure 3 where the contribution of resource system designs to each of the relevant SDGs is assed in five levels ranging from most beneficial to most detrimental.
Figure 3. The seventeen Sustainable Development Goals, arrayed against geodesign systems.
These assessments require a single summary judgment. We acknowledge that impacts may have a range of values across the affected areas, they may be influenced by the spatial pattern of changes, and they may be influenced by conditions outside the square study area. Regardless of these complications, summary judgments will need to be made, to enable comparisons of our case studies. Those comparisons, even though summary, may inform and feed back into the design process.
How should teams proceed?
Invite a group of colleagues, or your students, who are knowledgeable about the study area and the systems to assess the impacts, either as a group or as specialists, referencing their special knowledge of local employment opportunities, cultural value, and potential contribution to SDG values. Details on SDG assessment targets and indicators can be found at the SDG website linked above. Each Goal is fully explained, e.g., see https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg2 for SDG2, End hunger,
Assess the potential impact of system designs by comparing assessments of impact weight multiplied by the area of impact to evaluate the project's contribution to SDG targets. For example, compare three designs’ weighted values of agricultural development multiplied by the area over which each design acts, SDG2 and SDG15, or the weighted values of industrial development, SDG8 and SDG9, over its allocated areas.
Ask your colleagues or student experts who have made the initial evaluation models to assess all three designs referencing the expert evaluations of external factors and use the SDG matrix to indicate where impacts are beneficial, neutral or detrimental.
Include the SGD icons for the eight most influential systems in project posters and presentations. Please order the SDG icons from most influential (highest scoring) to least, from left to right.
Comparison of the three 2050 designs using the SDG matrix is one of the requirements for the 2020 posters and the presentation at the IGC meeting in Redlands California in February 2020. See Figure 4. Instructions for including the comparisons in poster displays can be found on the IGC 2020 Presentation Formats page.
Figure 4. Top eight SDG icons ordered from most influential (highest scoring in Early Adopter SUM column) to least, from left to right
Advice from a recent implementation of Sustainable Development Goal evaluations:
Two studies have already accomplished this task and we offer the following advice. In both studies, the assessment was done by the judgment of the people who were most knowledgeable about a particular system, usually those who had prepared the original evaluation maps. The empty SDG assessment template in Excel format was downloaded from the IGC website and printed on paper as a worksheet. Three laptop computers were placed side-by-side, with each showing one of the designs. The assessment person or group was asked to work in the sequence of the SDG goals, each time comparing all three designs before making the judgments of impact. This turned out to be much more efficient and equitable than evaluating the designs sequentially.
Figure 5. Team members making comparisons of SDGs for Early-, Late-, and Non-adopters
To aid our comparisons the project team summed each row of each scenario, enabling scenario-scenario comparison. It must be recognized that the total score is based on oversimplified assumptions about the targets, sizes and patterns in the design, and equivalent SDG weighting,…… but in both studies they revealed the positive or negative contributions to SDGs in early adopter vs. late adopter vs. non-adopter…..see attached worked example below.
Figure 6. Worked example from University of Ljubljana workshop
We do not specify HOW teams should carry out their studies.
There are many paths and support options to accomplish the IGC workflow using GIS tools such as ArcGIS, QGIS or geodesign tools such as Geodesignhub or Esri GeoPlanner and others. There are numerous ecosystem services assessment tools that are applicable to those GIS tools. IGC can facilitate some software capabilities that can be applied in diverse settings and workflows (including the schools’ existing capabilities). Please see the Support Technology page of this website for more information. The choices are up to the individual teams.
We do expect that the typical workflow will be similar to that below, based on Steinitz (2012).
Starting today (assumed 2020), and with regard to expected innovations (see IGC global assumptions and projected systems innovations), each change team should evaluate the study areas, then make a 2035 design and assess its impacts (likely in a few iterations), then update the evaluation maps, and then make a 2050 design and assess its impacts. These designs for the three scenarios and their three stages should be compared for impacts, etc. (See IGC Requirements for Projects).
Figure 4. Geodesign workflow
Schedule for team and individual tasks
The overall IGC schedule (below) and the required January 15, 2020 deadline are provided for guidance but we are aware of considerable variation in worldwide academic schedules.