**4. Information management**

In the past there had been a lot of problems exchanging information in horizontal and vertical ways between different planners and different landscape planning procedures (Krämer, 2008; Dembinsky, 2008; Arnold et al., 2005; Pietsch et al. 2010). In the context of environmental planning the whole planning process can be described as a life cycle of information (see Fig. 17).

To improve data exchange standardized, conceptual data models had been created e.g. for various areas of roads and transport (Hettwer, 2008) or regional, municipal land management and landscape planning in Germany (Benner et al. 2008; Benner & Krause, 2007). The purpose is to ensure a consistent object representation and a unified data exchange of graphic and geometric data (Ernstling & Portele, 1996; Hettwer, 2008; Pietsch et al., 2010; a.o.). The defined data models allow software developer to create specific application for landscape planning purposes and develop interface for data exchange.

For the representation guidelines and standard maps for different purposes had been developed to achieve a unified design in creating maps (Schultze & Buhmann, 2008). Taking the communication model of Norbert Wiener (Steinitz, 2010) in consideration defining and using data models lead to standardized communication without loss of information and meaning and improves data quality (Pietsch & Heins, 2009; Heins & Pietsch, 2010; Hettwer, 2008). Otherwise producing standardized datasets allows the implementation and development of Web GIS-applications for public participation or in monitoring / environmental information systems. Validation checks may be implemented to ensure data quality and to guarantee integrity. This allows to choose and develop scientific (process,

GIS in Landscape Planning 75

Pick suitable feature representations, based on standard or custom data models

Select suitable evaluation models based on availability, project needs

 Same technical structure as sketch models (simply take longer to run) Models run as background tasks (typically as web geoprocessing services) Models results streamed back to design client incrementally as computed Evaluation models recognize design context in addition to input design data

But actual the full process remains hypothetically while aspects are already available in existing software tools (Dangermond, 2009, 2010; Flaxman, 2010). The concepts had been embedded in Decision Support Systems (Brail et al., 2008) or GIS-based planning tools (Flaxman, 2010). GeoDesign is not a new concept. It's a refinement and restatement of ideas that had been discussed in the past multiple times (Flaxman, 2010; Ervin, 2011; Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2011). But thinking about context-sensitive impact evaluation leads to an evolving concept. While multi-criteria analysis are not new (Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2011; von Haaren, 2004; Jessel & Tobias, 2002) using them in real-time is a very complex issue and only a few GIS systems are able to do so (Flaxman, 2010). Sharing and deploying a variety of models and indicators using web services will radically reduce software installation and configuration time. The enhancement of web services to "geodesign evaluation services" (Flaxman, 2010) using open and interoperable formats will enlarge the development of tools and software systems. Standardized data models like CityGML (Flaxman, 2010) or XPlanung (Pietsch et al., 2010; Benner & Krause, 2007; Benner et al., 2008) in Germany are necessary as semantic representations of design domains but have to be expanded to evaluate the compliance of a plan for sustainable planning (Flaxman, 2010). The necessary elements that a hybrid GeoDesign System (GDS) requires are described by ERVIN (2011). He mentions sixteen essential components knowing that additional to the technical evolution some shifts in working styles are necessary. However the inevitable complications remain the GeoDesign concept remains enormous potential to improve design and planning processes if new ways of interaction towards a process-driven planning and project implementation will be achieved (Tomlin, 2011; Stockman & von

The rapid technical evolution in combination with internet technologies (e.g. Web 2.0) offers a chance for more collaboration and participation. New hardware like smart phones or

Appropriate analysis context can vary by model

Fig. 18. GeoDesign Process-Flow (Flaxman, 2010)

Haaren, 2010; Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2011).

**6. Outlook** 

 Sketch features (semantically rich and georeferenced by default) Sketch evaluation tools give feedback without blocking drawing Running selected models on design iterations is default and automatic

**Design Instantiation** 

**Full Impact Evaluation** 

Pick a site or area of study

**Integrated Design/Sketch Evaluation** 

Adjust visual portrayal (symbology) as desired

evaluation, change, impact, decision) models for the planning process (Flaxman, 2010). Therefore existing data models must be extended using actual technical (e.g. OGC) and functional (e.g. guidelines, standard maps) standards. This might cause to a homogeneous terminology for planners and designers and a consistent presentation of results in the decision-making process. First steps had been done and some examples exist, but there is a lot of research to do to become these things reality.

Fig. 17. Cycle of information in the context of landscape and road planning (Pietsch et al., 2010)

#### **5. Geodesign - A new approach?**

Since ESRI started the GeoDesign Summit in 2010 the term started his triumphal procession. But what is GeoDesign? According to MICHAEL FLAXMAN (2010) "GeoDesign is a design and planning method which tightly couples the creation of a design proposal with impact simulations informed by geographic context". The idea is that the planner or designer receives at every working step real-time guidance using contextual geographic information. The design can be evaluated relative to the local conditions and continuous feedback on multiple aspects will be provided through the whole planning process instead of post-hoc evaluation (Flaxman, 2010). GeoDesign may improve the design and planning process combining the potentials of CAD, GIS, Building Information Models (BIM) and visualization tools (Dangermond, 2009 and 2010; Flaxman, 2010; Ervin, 2011) and improve interaction and collaboration in the planning process (Tomlin, 2011; Francica, 2012). In contrast to the specific GIS or CAD workflow a hypothetical one for the GeoDesign workflow will look like Fig. 18.

#### **Design Instantiation**

74 Landscape Planning

evaluation, change, impact, decision) models for the planning process (Flaxman, 2010). Therefore existing data models must be extended using actual technical (e.g. OGC) and functional (e.g. guidelines, standard maps) standards. This might cause to a homogeneous terminology for planners and designers and a consistent presentation of results in the decision-making process. First steps had been done and some examples exist, but there is a

Fig. 17. Cycle of information in the context of landscape and road planning (Pietsch et al., 2010)

Since ESRI started the GeoDesign Summit in 2010 the term started his triumphal procession. But what is GeoDesign? According to MICHAEL FLAXMAN (2010) "GeoDesign is a design and planning method which tightly couples the creation of a design proposal with impact simulations informed by geographic context". The idea is that the planner or designer receives at every working step real-time guidance using contextual geographic information. The design can be evaluated relative to the local conditions and continuous feedback on multiple aspects will be provided through the whole planning process instead of post-hoc evaluation (Flaxman, 2010). GeoDesign may improve the design and planning process combining the potentials of CAD, GIS, Building Information Models (BIM) and visualization tools (Dangermond, 2009 and 2010; Flaxman, 2010; Ervin, 2011) and improve interaction and collaboration in the planning process (Tomlin, 2011; Francica, 2012). In contrast to the specific GIS or CAD workflow a hypothetical one for the GeoDesign workflow will look like

lot of research to do to become these things reality.

**5. Geodesign - A new approach?** 

Fig. 18.

Pick a site or area of study

 Pick suitable feature representations, based on standard or custom data models Adjust visual portrayal (symbology) as desired Select suitable evaluation models based on availability, project needs

#### **Integrated Design/Sketch Evaluation**

 Sketch features (semantically rich and georeferenced by default) Sketch evaluation tools give feedback without blocking drawing Running selected models on design iterations is default and automatic

#### **Full Impact Evaluation**

 Same technical structure as sketch models (simply take longer to run) Models run as background tasks (typically as web geoprocessing services) Models results streamed back to design client incrementally as computed Evaluation models recognize design context in addition to input design data Appropriate analysis context can vary by model

#### Fig. 18. GeoDesign Process-Flow (Flaxman, 2010)

But actual the full process remains hypothetically while aspects are already available in existing software tools (Dangermond, 2009, 2010; Flaxman, 2010). The concepts had been embedded in Decision Support Systems (Brail et al., 2008) or GIS-based planning tools (Flaxman, 2010). GeoDesign is not a new concept. It's a refinement and restatement of ideas that had been discussed in the past multiple times (Flaxman, 2010; Ervin, 2011; Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2011). But thinking about context-sensitive impact evaluation leads to an evolving concept. While multi-criteria analysis are not new (Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2011; von Haaren, 2004; Jessel & Tobias, 2002) using them in real-time is a very complex issue and only a few GIS systems are able to do so (Flaxman, 2010). Sharing and deploying a variety of models and indicators using web services will radically reduce software installation and configuration time. The enhancement of web services to "geodesign evaluation services" (Flaxman, 2010) using open and interoperable formats will enlarge the development of tools and software systems. Standardized data models like CityGML (Flaxman, 2010) or XPlanung (Pietsch et al., 2010; Benner & Krause, 2007; Benner et al., 2008) in Germany are necessary as semantic representations of design domains but have to be expanded to evaluate the compliance of a plan for sustainable planning (Flaxman, 2010). The necessary elements that a hybrid GeoDesign System (GDS) requires are described by ERVIN (2011). He mentions sixteen essential components knowing that additional to the technical evolution some shifts in working styles are necessary. However the inevitable complications remain the GeoDesign concept remains enormous potential to improve design and planning processes if new ways of interaction towards a process-driven planning and project implementation will be achieved (Tomlin, 2011; Stockman & von Haaren, 2010; Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2011).

#### **6. Outlook**

The rapid technical evolution in combination with internet technologies (e.g. Web 2.0) offers a chance for more collaboration and participation. New hardware like smart phones or

GIS in Landscape Planning 77

Blaschke, T. (1997): Landschaftsanalyse und –bewertung mit GIS, Forschungen zur

Blaschke, T. (1999): Habitatanalyse und Modellierung mit Desktop-GIS, in: Blaschke, T.: Umweltmonitoring und Umweltmodellierung, Wichmann Verlag, p. 259-274 Blaschke, T. (2003): Habitatmodellierung im Naturschutz: Unterschiedlich komplexe

Botequilha, L., Ahern, J. (2002): Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning, in: Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, p. 65-93 Brandt, M. (2007): Nutzen und Einsatzschwerpunkte von Freiflächeninformationssystemen, in: Die Wohnungswirtschaft, Sonderheft Freiflächenmanagement, 4/2007, S. 32-33

Buhmann, E., Pietsch, M. (2008a): Interactive Visualization of Flooding Impact of Selke

Buhmann, E., Pietsch, M. (2008b): Interaktion mit digitalen Landschaften, Szenarien und

Buhmann, E., Pietsch, M., Langenhaun, D., Santosh, C., Paar, P. (2010): Visualizing

Bunn, AG., Urban, DL, Keitt, TH. (2000): Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory, in: Journal Environmental Management, 59, S. 265-278 Busse, J., Dirnberger, F., Pröbstl, U. & Schmid, W. (2005): Die neue Umweltprüfung in der

Calabrese, J. M., Fagan, W. (2004): A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics, in:

Commission for Environmental Assessment (Eds.) (2006): Biodiversity in EIA & SEA – Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment, Utrecht Dangermond, J. (2009): GIS: Design and Evolving Technology, ArcNews, ESRI, Fall 2009 Dangermond, J. (2010): GeoDesign and GIS – Designing our Futures, in:

Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag GmbH, Offenbach and Berlin, p. 502-514 Dembinsky, K. (2008): Die Kommunikation in gemeinsamen PLanungsprozessen der

zum Workshop 8.-10. Oktober 2003, Ufz-Berichte 9/2004, S. 135-140 BMV (Bundesministerium für Verkehr) (1998): Musterkarten für die einheitliche Gestaltung

Brail, R. (Ed.): Planning support systems for cities and regions, Cambridge, 312 p.

Architecture, Herbert Wichmann Verlag, S. 152-162

Heidelberg/München/Landsberg/Berlin, 316 S.

Front Ecol Environ, 2 (19), S. 529-536

Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 281-286

Godesberg

Modellen. in: Garten+Landschaft Heft 03/2008, S. 36-39

Modelle und deren Zusammenführung. In: Dormann/Blaschke/Lausch/Schröder und Söndgerath: Habitatmodelle: Methodik, Anwendung, Nutzen – Tagungsband

landschaftspflegerischer Begleitpläne im Straßenbau, Verlags-Kartographie, Alsfeld

River, Harz. in: Buhmann/ Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape

Boathouses of Dwejra Bay in Gozo, Malta for Access Through WebGIS Applications, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.): Digital Landscape Architecture 2010, Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Offenbach, p. 406-414 Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Hrsg.) (2004): Empfehlungen zur Umsetzung des §3 BNatSchG

"Biotopverbund", Reihe Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Heft 2, Bonn-Bad

Bauleitplanung, 1. Auflage, Verlagsgruppe Hüthig Jehle Rehm GmbH,

Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.): Digital Landscape Architecture 2010,

Straßen- und Landschaftsplanung aus Sicht eines Straßenplaners, in: Buhmann/ Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008, Wichmann

Deutschen Landeskunde, Heft 243, Trier, 320 S.

tablet pc's with integrated GNSS facilitate the development of location based services or location sensitive services. They can be used for collecting data by the public (e.g. species data) or to publish information in the context of public participation processes. Using augmented reality technologies alternative futures can be presented in the real spatial context to improve decision-making processes. While GIS moved from workstations to desktop pc Web technologies and mobile devices are arising. GIS on demand using cloud technologies will be the next step.

Taking technical evolution in consideration standardization and a qualified information management will get more and more relevant. Moving the planning cycle from a step-bystep framework to a more process-oriented one standardized data models are needed. A unified terminology as a base for developing scientific models is necessary as well. Research in new design methods and the integration of science in the decision-making process is needed as well as the discussion about required changes in teaching students.

#### **7. References**


tablet pc's with integrated GNSS facilitate the development of location based services or location sensitive services. They can be used for collecting data by the public (e.g. species data) or to publish information in the context of public participation processes. Using augmented reality technologies alternative futures can be presented in the real spatial context to improve decision-making processes. While GIS moved from workstations to desktop pc Web technologies and mobile devices are arising. GIS on demand using cloud

Taking technical evolution in consideration standardization and a qualified information management will get more and more relevant. Moving the planning cycle from a step-bystep framework to a more process-oriented one standardized data models are needed. A unified terminology as a base for developing scientific models is necessary as well. Research in new design methods and the integration of science in the decision-making process is

Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J.P., De Blust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H., Matthysen,

Al-Kodmany, K. (1999): Combining Artistry and Technology in Participatory Community

Amler, K., Bahl, A., Henle, K., Kaule, G., Poschlod, P. & Settele, J. (Hrsg.) (1999): Populationsbiologie in der Naturschutzpraxis, Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, 336 S. Appleton, K., Lovett, A. (2003): GIS-based visualization of rural landscapes: defining

Arnold, V., Lipp, T., Pietsch, M., Schaal, P. (2005): Effektivierung der kommunalen

Benner, J., Krause, K.-U. (2007): Das GDI-DE Modellprojekt XPlanung – Erste Erfahrungen

Benner, J., Köppen, A., Kleinschmidt, B., Krause, K.-U., Neubert, J., Wickel, M. (2008):

BfN (The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) (2002): Landscape planning for

Bishop, I., Lange, E. (2005): Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning. Technology and Applications. Taylor & Francis, London/New York, 296 S., 2005 Bishop, I., Smith, E., Williams, K., Ford, R. (2010): Scenario Based Evaluation of Landscape

Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Offenbach, p. 296-312

E. (2003): The application of least-cost modelling as a functional landscape model.

'sufficient' realism for environmental decision-making, in: Landscape and Urban

Landschaftsplanung durch den Einsatz Geographischer Informationssysteme, in:

mit der Umsetzung des XPlanGML-Standards, in: Schrenk, M., Popovich, V.,

XPlanung – Neue Standards in der Bauleit- und Landschaftsplanung, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008,

Futures – Tools for Development, Communication and Assessment, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.): Digital Landscape Architecture 2010,

needed as well as the discussion about required changes in teaching students.

in: Landscape Urban Planning, 64 (4), S. 233-247

Planning, in: Berkeley Planning Journal, 13, p. 28-36

Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, Heft 11/2005, S. 349

Benedikt, J. (Eds.): Real Corp 007 Proceedings, S. 379-388

Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 240-248

sustainable municipal development, Leipzig, 24 S.

technologies will be the next step.

Planning, 65, p. 216-224

**7. References** 


GIS in Landscape Planning 79

Hettwer, J. (2008): Objektkatalog für das Straßen- und Verkehrswesen – OKSTRA, in:

Höhn, K. (2008): Monitoring in der Bauleitplanung, VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken,

Hunger, H. (2002): Anwendungsorientiertes Habitatmodell für die Helm-Azurjungfer aus amtlichen GIS-Grundlagendaten, in: Natur und Landschaft, 77, p. 261-265 Jessel, B., Tobias, K. (2002): Ökologisch orientierte Planung, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart,

Jessel, B., Böttcher, M. & Wilke, T. (2009): Biodiversität in der Umweltprüfung, in:

Jooß, R. (2003):Ermittlung von Habitatpotenzialen für Zielartenkollektive der Fauna –

Jooß, R. (2005): Planungsorientierter Einsatz von Habitatmodellen im Landschaftsmaßstab-

Kaule, G. (1991): Arten- und Biotopschutz, 2. Auflage, Eugen Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, S.519 Keitt, T.H., Urban, D.L., Milne, B.T. (1997): Detecting critical scales in fragmented

Kleyer, M., Kratz, R., Lutze, B., Schröder, B. (1999/2000): Habitatmodelle für Tierarten:

Köppel, J., Peters, W., Wende, W. (2004): Eingriffsregelung –

Krämer, B. (2008): Die Kommunikation in gemeinsamen Planungsprozessen der Straßen-

Krause, K.-U. (2011): Stand der Einführung von XPlanung in Norddeutschland, in: Schrenk/Popovich/Zeile (Eds.): Proceedings Real Corp 2011, p. 1399-1403 Kretzler, E. (2002): Computer Visualization of Environmental Impacts, in:

Naturschutzakademie Insel Vilm 23.-27. August 2004, Hrsg. BfN

landscapes, in: Conserv. Ecol., 1 (1), p. 15-16

Umweltprüfungen (SUP/UVP), Berichte 1/09, Berlin, S. 1-16

Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.): Umwelt im Wandel – Herausforderungen für die

Expertensysteme und empirische Ansätze im Landschaftsmaßstab. In: Dormann/Blaschke/Lausch/Schröder und Söndgerath: Habitatmodelle: Methodik, Anwendung, Nutzen – Tagungsband zum Workshop 8.-10. Oktober 2003, Ufz-

Schutzverantwortung für Zielarten der Fauna. In Korn, H./Feit, U. (Bearb.) Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt V – wissenschaftliche Expertentagung an der

Entwicklung, Methoden und Perspektiven für die Anwendung, in: Z. Ökologie und

Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, FFH-Verträglichkeitsprüfung, Eugen Ulmer

und Landschaftsplanung aus Sicht eines Landschaftsplaners, in: Buhmann/ Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008, Wichmann

Buhmann/Nothhelfer/Pietsch (Eds.): Trend in GIS and Virtualization in Environmental Planning and Design, Wichmann Verlag, Heidleberg, p. 58-67 Kretzler, E. (2003): Improving Landscape Architecture Design Using Real Time Engins, – in:

Buhmann/Ervin (Eds.), Trends in Landscape Modeling, Herbert Wichmann Verlag,

Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 234-239

146 S.

470 S.

Berichte 9/2004, S. 151-166

Naturschutz 8: p. 177-194

Verlag, Stuttgart, 367 S.

Heidelberg, p. 95-101

Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 287-301

Buhmann/ Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008,


Erstling, R. & Portele, C. (1996): Standardisierung graphischer Daten im Straßen- und

Ervin, S., Hasbrouck, H. (2001): Landscape Modeling: Digital Techniques for Landscape

Ervin, S. (2011): A System for Geodesign in: Buhmann/Ervin/Tomlin/Pietsch (Eds.):

European Commission Environment DG (2002): Assessment of plans and projects

Flaxman, M. (2010): Fundamentals of Geodesign, in Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.):

Georgi, B. (2003): Die Umweltfolgenprüfung als Instrument zur Umsetzung der

Georgi, B., Peters, W. (2003): National Expert Workshop: Further development of the draft

Gontier, M. (2007): Scale issue in the assessment of ecological impacts using a GIS-based

Gontier, M., Mörtberg, U., Balfors, B. (2010): Comparing GIS-based habitat models for

Groot de, R.S. (1992): Function of nature. Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning,

Guisan, A., Zimmermann, N.E. (2000): Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology, in:

Harms, B., Knaapen, J. P. and Rademakers, J. G. (1993): Landscape planning for nature

Hendler, R. (2009): Biodiversität in der Umweltprüfung – Rechtliche Sicht, in:

Hennig, S. Bögel, R. (2004): Multivariate Statistik als Grundlage zur Habitatmodellierung –

Berchtesgaden, in: Z. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 36, p. 363-370 Heins, M., Pietsch, M. (2010): Fachtechnische Standards für die vorhabenbezogene Landschaftsplanung, Edition Hochschule Anhalt, Selbstverlag, S. 125

Umweltprüfungen (SUP/UVP), Berichte 1/09, Berlin, S. 17-24

guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues into environmental impact assessment legislation and/or process and strategic environmental assessment,

habitat model – A case study for the Stockholm region, in: Environmental Imapct

application in EIA and SEA, in: Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, p. 8-

restoration: comparing regional scenarios, in: Landscape Ecology of a Stressed

Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.): Umwelt im Wandel – Herausforderungen für die

Am Beispiel der Habitatnutzung der Gams (Rudicapra rudicapra) im Nationalpark

Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Offenbach, p. 28-41 Francica, J. (2012): GeoDesign Is About Collaboration and Process, DirectionsMagazine, http://www.directionsmag.com/articles/geodesign-is-about-collaboration-and-

significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites, Luxembourg

Galk-DST (Hrsg.): Grünflächen-Management, Beckmann Verlag

Assessment Review, 27, p. 440-459

Ecol. Moel., 135, p. 147-186

Environment, p. 197–218.

Biodiversitätskonvention, UVP-report 17 (3+4), S. 148-150

Management and Decision Making, Wolters-Noordhoff

Straßenbau, Bonn-Bad Godesberg.

Visualization, McGraw-Hill, 289 S.

process/225065

Berlin 2003

18

Verkehrswesen. Teil 1 – Studie. – Forschung Straßenbau und Straßenverkehrstechnik 724, Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Abteilung

Teaching Landscape Architecture – Prelimenary Proceedings, Bernburg, S. 145-154

Digital Landscape Architecture 2010, Digital Landscape Architecture 2010,


GIS in Landscape Planning 81

Pietsch, M., Heins, M. (2008): Qualifizierung und Optimierung der Landschaftsplanung

Pietsch, M., Krämer, M. (2009): Analyse der Verbundsituation von Habitaten und –

Pietsch, M., Heins, M., Buhmann, E., Schultze, C. (2010): Object-based, process-oriented and

Pietsch, M., Spitzer, S. (2011): Landschaftsbildvisualisierung im

Ray, N., Lehmann, A., Joly, P., (2002): Modelling spatial distribution of amphibian

Reck, H., Hänel, K., Huckauf, A. (2010): Nationwide Priorities for Re-Linking Ecosystems:

Richter, A. (2009): Öffentlichkeitbeteiligung durch den Einsatz von Web-GIS-Lösungen –

http://www.netzwerk-gis.de/files/richter\_oeffentlichkeitsbeteiligung\_2.pdf Riedel, W., Lange., H. (Hrsg.) (2001): Landschaftsplanung, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag,

Riedl, U., Taeger, S. (2009): GIS-basierte Habitatmodelle für das Biosphärenreservat

Rudner, M., Schadek., U., Damken, C. (2003): Habitatmodelle und ihre mögliche Integration

Saura, S., Pascual-Hortal, L. (2007): A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity

Overcoming Road-Related Barriers – Summary, Leipzig, 23 p.

Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 321-336

Offenbach p. 62-68

Conserv. 11 (12), S. 2143-2165

Anhalt am 18.02.2009 in Bernburg,

Heidelberg – Berlin, 364 S.

Berichte 9/2004, p. 167- 171

(4), p. 145-152

S. 1-16

2009, Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, S. 564-573

Flussperlmuschel. in: Strobl/Blaschke/Griesebner: Angewandte Geoinformatik 2007 – Beiträge zum 19. AGIT-Symposium Salzburg, Wichmann Verlag, S. 571-576

durch Standardisierung und Informationsmanagement am Beispiel des OKSTRA®, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008,

strukturen unter Verwendung graphentheoretischer Ansätze am Beispiel dreier Zielarten, in Strobl/Blaschke/Griesebner (Hrsg.): Angewandte Geoinformatik

conceptual Landscape models for standardizing landscape planning procedures in the context of road planning projects, in: Buhmann, Pietsch, Kretzler (Eds.): Digital Landscpae Architecture 2010, Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag, Berlin and

Hochwasserrisikomanagement unter Verwendung von open source Software, in: DWA (Hrsg.): GIS und GDI in der Wasserwirtschaft – Die Hochwasserrisikomanagementrichtlinie im Fokus von GIS und GDI, Selbstverlag,

populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. in: Biodivers.

Praxisbeispiel "Beteiligung-Online" der Landes- und Regionalplanung Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns, Vortrag im Rahmen des 1. Geofachtags Sachsen-

Spreewald – Ergebnisse eines Forschungsvorhabens, in: Natur und Landschaft, 84

in die Planungspraxis-ein Diskussionsbeitrag. In: Dormann/Blaschke/Lausch/Schröder und Söndgerath: Habitatmodelle: Methodik, Anwendung, Nutzen – Tagungsband zum Workshop 8.-10. Oktober 2003, Ufz-

in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. in: Landscape and Urban Planning, 83/2007, S. 91-103


Lambrecht, H., Peters, W., Köppel, J., Beckmann, M., Weingarten, E., Wende, W. (Bearb.)

Lange, E. (1994): Integration of Computerized Visual Simulation and Visual Assessment in Environmental Planning, in: Landscape and Urban Planning, 30 p. 99-112 Lange, E. (2002): Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning, in:

Environmental Planning and Design, Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 8-18 Lipp, T. (2007): Der Landschaftsplan Güstrow online, in: Naturschutz und

Nikolakaki, P. (2004): A GIS site-selection process for habitat creation: estimating connectivity of habitat patches. in: Landscape Urban Planning, 68, S. 77-94 Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Vos, C. (2002): Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology, in: Landscape Ecology, 16, p. 767-779 Ozimek, A., Ozimek, P. (2008): Computer-Aided Method of Visual Absorption Capacity

Paar,P. (2006): Landscape visualizations: Applications and requirements of 3D visualization

Paar, P., Malte, C. (2007): Earth, Landscape, Biotope, Plant. Interactive Visualization with

Pascual-Hortal, L., Saura, S. (2006): Comparison and development of new graph-based

Pascual-Hortal, L., Saura, S. (2007): Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical

Penko Seidel, N., Cof, A., Breskvar Zaucer, L., Marusic, I., (2010): The Problem of Large

Beiträge zur AGIT 1999, Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, S. 392-398 Pietsch, M. (2007): Softwarelösungen im Freiflächenmanagement, in: Die Wohnungswirtschaft, Sonderheft Freiflächenmanagement, 4/2007, S. 30-31 Pietsch, M., Schmidt, D., Richter, K. (2007): Ansatz zur Integration von

corridors for conservation. In: Landscape Ecology, 21 (7), S. 959-967

SUP im Vorhabensbereich, BfN-Skripten 216, Bonn-Bad-Godesberg

McHarg, I.L. (1969): Design with Nature, The Natural History Press, New York, USA

Architecture 2008, Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 105-114

Lang, S., Blaschke, T. (2007): Landschaftsanalyse mit GIS, UTB Verlag, 404 S.

Landschaftsplanung, 39 (1), p. 25-29

Systems, 30, p. 815-839

Proceedings, Vienna, 207-214

Urban Planning, 83/2007, S. 176-186

(2007): Bestimmung des Verhältnisses von Eingriffsregelung, FFH-VP, UVP und

Buhmann/Nothhelfer/Pietsch (Eds.): Trends in GIS and Virtualization in

Estimation, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape

software for environmental planning, in: Computers, Environment and Urban

Biosphere3D, in: Schrenk/Popovich/Benedikt (Eds.): REAL CORP 007

landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and

habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity. in: Landscape and

Protected Areas in the Process of Planning: A Case Study in the Municipality Ig, Slovenia, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.): Digital Landscape Architecture 2010, Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Offenbach, p. 154-162 Pietsch, M., Buhmann, E. (1999): Auf dem Weg zur GIS-gestützten Landschaftsplanung –

Die Hürden in der Praxis am Beispiel des Landschaftsplans der Verwaltungsgemeinschaft Sandersleben, in: Strobl/Blaschke/Griesebner (Hrsg.):

Habitateignungsmodellen in die FFH-Managementplanung am Beispiel der

Flussperlmuschel. in: Strobl/Blaschke/Griesebner: Angewandte Geoinformatik 2007 – Beiträge zum 19. AGIT-Symposium Salzburg, Wichmann Verlag, S. 571-576


http://www.netzwerk-gis.de/files/richter\_oeffentlichkeitsbeteiligung\_2.pdf


GIS in Landscape Planning 83

Taeger, S. (2010): GIS and Hydrological Models as Tools for Habitat Modelling in Alluvial

Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Offenbach, p. 370-378 The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Eds.)

Theobald, D.M. (2006): Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape

Tischendorf, L., Fahrig, L. (2000): On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity.

Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.) (2008): Leitfaden zur Strategischen Umweltprüfung

Urban, D., Keitt, T. (2001): Landscape connectivity: A graph –theoretic perspective. in:

Urban, D.L., Minor, E.S., Treml, E.A., Schick, R.S. (2009): Graph models of habitat mosaics,

von Haaren, C. (Hrsg.) (2004): Landschaftsplanung, Eugen Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, 528 S. Warren-Kretzschmar, B., Tiedtke, S. (2005): What Role Does Visualization Play in

Visualization and Participation, Herbert Wichmann Verlag, p. 156-167 Weiers, S., Bock, M., Wissen, M., Rossner, G. (2004): Mapping and indicator aproaches for

Wiegleb, G. (2009): Methodik der Erfassung und Bewertung von Biodiversitätsschäden aus

Wissen, U. (2009): Virtuelle Landschaften zur partizipativen Planung – Optimierung von 3D

Wolfrum, S. (2006): Theorie und Methodik der Quantifizierung von Biotopverbundfunktion

Zetterberg, A., Mörtberg, U., Balfors, B. (2010): Making graph theory operational for

methods, in: Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, p. 43-65

Verlag, Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York, S. 29-148

Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zürich, 242 p.

73-83

Planning, 95, S. 181-191

Tittmann, P. (2003): Graphentheorie: eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, München Tomlin, C.D. (2011): Speaking of Geodesign in: Buhmann/Ervin/Tomlin/Pietsch (Eds.):

(Langfassung) – Forschungsvorhaben 206 13 100, Berlin, 52 S.

(1998): Landscape Planning, Bonn

in: Oikos 90 (1), S. 7-19

Ecology 82 (5), 1205-1218

Ecol. Lett., 12 (3), p. 143-157

Cambridge University Press, New York, S. 416-443

Plains, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.): Digital Landscape Architecture 2010,

networks. in: Crooks, K.R., Sanjayan, M. (Eds.): Connectivity Conservation,

Teaching Landscape Architecture – Prelimenary Proceedings, Bernburg, S. 136-144

Communication with Citizens? – A Field Study from the Interactive Landscape Plan, in Buhmann/Paar/Bishop/Lange (Eds.), Trends in Real-Time Landscape

the assessment of habitats at different scales using remote sensing and GIS

ökologischer Sicht, in: Knopp, L., Wiegleb, G. (Hrsg.): Der Biodiversitätsschaden des Umweltschadensgesetzes, Schriftenreihe Natur und Recht, Band 11; Springer

Landschaftsbildvisualisierungen zur Informationsvermittlung, IRL-Bericht 5, vdf

– Landschaftsgraphen als Alternative zu Landschaftsstrukturmaßen bei der Erfassung eines funktionalen Zusammenhangs in der Landschaft. in: Kleinschmit, B., Walz, U. (Hrsg): Landschaftsstrukturmaße in der Umweltplanung, Schriftenreihe der Fakultät für Architektur Umwelt Gesellschaft, Band 19, Berlin, S.

landscape ecological assessments, planning and design, in: Landscape and Urban


Säck-da Silva, S. (2007): Visualisierung und Interaktivität: wie GIS die

Schwarz-v. Raumer (2011): GeoDesign – Approximations of a catchphrase in:

Sheppard, S., Shaw, A., Falnders, D., Burch, S. (2008): Can Visualisation Save the Worlds? –

Spangenberg, J.H. (2007): Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind, in: Ecological

Steinitz, C. (2010): Landscape Architecture into the 21st Century – Methods for Digital

2010, Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Offenbach, p. 2-26 Schaller, J., Mattos, C. (2010): ArcGIS ModelBuilder Applications for Landscape

Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Offenbach, p. 42-52 Schmidt, D. (2007): Ein wissensbasiertes Habitateignungsmodell für die Flussperlmuschel

Schröder, B. (2000): Habitatmodelle für ein modernes Naturschutzmanagement in Gnauck,

Schroth, O. (2010): Tools for the understanding of spatio-temporal climate scenarios in local planning: Kimberley (BC) case study, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Schultze, C., Buhmann, E. (2008): Developing the OKSTRA Standard for the Needs of

Schwarz-v. Raumer (2011): GeoDesign – Approximations of a catchphrase in:

Stockman, A., von Haaren, C. (2010): Integrating Science and Creativity for Landscape

Diplomarbeit an der Hochschule Anhalt (unveröffentlicht)

Prelimenary Proceedings, Bernburg, S. 106-115

a global Framework, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing

Stadt- und Landschaftsplanung, Heft 164, Universität Kassel, S. 87-96 Schauerte-Lücke, N. (2008): Informations- und Datenmanagement in gemeinsamen

Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 302-309

Prelimenary Proceedings, Bernburg, p. 106-115

Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 2-21

Economics, p. 146-158

Aachen

320

Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung unterstützt, in: Haustein/Demel (Hrsg.): GIS in der

Planungsprozessen der Straßen- und Landschaftsplanung, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008,

Buhmann/Ervin/Tomlin/Pietsch (Eds.): Teaching Landscape Architecture –

Lessons for Landscape Architects from Visualizing Local Climate Change, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008,

Techniques, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.): Digital Landscape Architecture

Development Planning in the Region of Munich, Bavaria, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.): Digital Landscape Architecture 2010,

(*Margaritifera margaritifera L.*) im Rahmen der FFH-Managementplanung,

A.: Theorie und Modellierung von Ökosystemen – Workshop Kölpingsee 2000,

Landscape Planning in Context of Implementation for Mitigation and Landscape Envelope Planning of Road Projects, in: Buhmann/Pietsch/Heins (Eds.): Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2008, Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 310-

Buhmann/Ervin/Tomlin/Pietsch (Eds.): Teaching Landscape Architecture –

Planning and Design of Urban Areas, in: Weiland/Richter (Hrsg.): Urban Ecology –


**4** 

Gloria Aponte

*Colombia* 

*Pontifical Bolivarian University* 

**An Approach to Landscape Planning in Borders** 

The so-called *urban-rural borders* represent a territorial phenomenon that presents itself as different kinds of landscape, according to the social dynamics of each settlement. Some of those are representative of their historical sprout or boom time, and others of their location. Urban-rural borders represent nowadays a very outstanding development in major cities

This chapter randomly revises first, as a broad context, the very carefully treated and built borders of walled ancient towns, as representative of the self-centred urban attitude, where landscape is seen as an external reality distant from everyday interests. And second, the growth without borders or, better, without control, originating from the beginning of industry, that manifests itself as an invasive and underhand force that devours natural

Following, as the core of the reflection, the fact that in the second half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st when it becomes a centre of attention as the border could mean a crucial place to stop destruction of resources essential for life, is addressed. In the developing world the situation is not just severe because of its rapid rendering, expansion and consequent deterioration of landscape, but it is aggravated by social unbalance and

Landscape studies in urban-rural fringe have not been abundant. Nevertheless, some representatives from very different corners of the planet can be quoted: Qviström and Saltzman (2003, 2006, 2007) from Sweden; Wang, Gu and Li (2207) from China; The Landscape Partnership Ltd. (2007) from the United Kingdom, and Pellegrino (2003) from Brazil. In Colombia some academics have talked about borders, mainly recently, but not precisely about "landscape in borders". For example: Toro, Velasco and Niño (2005),

As a local application, an academic approach towards the solution to this threatening problem is shown, in a very special and intricate situation: the urban-rural border on steep slope. This is exemplified in the urban fringe of Medellín, settled in the Aburrá river valley. The topographical difficulty in this region is overlapped by a quite difficult social situation derived from rural forced displacement that makes the population, and consequently the settlement, grow not only from inside to outside but also by groups coming from distant

places attracted by the urban imagery, but stopped at the periphery.

**1. Introduction** 

particularly in developing countries.

complex socio-political situations.

Velasco, Díaz, López (2010).

landscape by slowly ruminating and digesting it.

Zölitz-Möller, R. (1999): Umweltinformationssystem, Modelle und GIS für Planung und Verwaltung? – Kritische Thesen zum aktuellen Stand der Dinge, in: Blaschke, T. (Hrsg.): Umweltmonitoring und Umweltmodellierung, Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 183-190
