Matthias Pietsch

*Anhalt University of Applied Science Germany* 

#### **1. Introduction**

54 Landscape Planning

Rumelhart, D.E. Hinton, G.E. & Williams, R.J. (1986). Learning Internal Representations By

Şatr, O. (2006). Land Cover Classification Using Appropriate Fuzzy Image Classification

Southworth, J.; Nagendra, H. & Tucker, C. (2002). Fragmentation of A Landscape:

Stehman, S.V. & Czaplewski, R.L. (1998). Design and Analysis For Thematic Map Accuracy

Toutin, T. (2004). Geometric Processing of Remote Sensing Images: Models, Algorithms and

Unser, M. (1995). Texture Classification and Segmentation Using Wavelet Frames. *IEEE* 

Methods. *International Journal of Remote Sensing*, 25, pp. 1893–1924.

Quinlan, J.R. (1993). *Programs for Machine Learning*. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA. Vapnik, V.N. (1995). *The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory*. New York: Springer-Verlag. Zambon, M.; Lawrence R.; Bunn, A. & Powell S. (2006). Effect Of Alternative Splitting Rules

and Applied Sciences, Landscape Architecture Dept. Adana, Turkey. Shaban, M.A. & Dikshit, O. (2001). Improvement of Classification in Urban Areas By The

McClelland (Eds). pp. 318–362. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

*International Journal of Remote Sensing*. 22, pp. 565–593.

*Transactions on Image Processing*, 4, pp. 1549–1560.

*Engineering and Remote Sensing*, 72(1): 25–30.

*Landscape Research*, 27:3, pp. 253-269.

344.

Error Propagation. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Volume 1: Foundations, D. E. Rumelhart and J. L.

Techniques: Aladag Case Study, MSc Thesis, Cukurova University Institute of Basic

Use of Textural Features: The Case Study of Lucknow City, Uttar Pradesh*.* 

Incorporating Landscape Metrics Into Satellite Analyses of Land-Cover Change,

Assessment: Fundamental Principles. *Remote Sensing of Environment*, 64, pp. 331–

On Image Processing Using Classification Tree Analysis. *Photogrammetric* 

Landscape planning supports sustainable development by creating planning prerequisites that will enable future generations to live in an ecological intact environment (Bfn, 2002). It breeds to a full-coverage strategy with the aim of maintaining landscape and nature as well as facilitating municipal and industrial development (von Haaren, 2004; BfN 2002). Contrary to the design approach (McHarg, 1969) it has been developed to an institutionalized planning system based on analytical processes (Schwarz- v. Raumer & Stokman, 2011). Objectives will be derived from scientifically based analysis and normative democratically legitimized goals (Riedel & Lange, 2001; Jessel & Tobias, 2002; von Haaren, 2004 a.o.).

Existing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) offer the needed capabilities concerning the whole planning cycle (Harms et al., 1993; Blaschke, 1997; von Haaren, 2004; Pietsch & Buhmann, 1999; Lang & Blaschke, 2007; a.o.). Data capturing for inventory purpose, scientific-based analysis, defining objectives, scenarios and alternative futures and planning measures can be carried out by using GIS (Schwarz-v. Raumer, 2011; Ervin, 2010; Steinitz, 2010; Flaxman, 2010). For the implementation and sometimes necessary updates environmental information systems can be developed for specific purpose (Zölitz-Möller, 1999; Lang & Blaschke, 2007). Nowadays required models (e.g. process, evaluation, decision) can be defined and interchanged for different scopes (Schaller & Mattos, 2010). The technical evolution of hard- and software enable planners and designers to improve participation processes and decision-making using visualization and WebGIS-technologies (Warren-Kretzschmar & Tiedtke, 2005; Paar, 2006; Lange, 1994; Wissen, 2009; Bishop et al., 2010; Buhmann & Pietsch, 2008a and b; Pietsch & Spitzer, 2011; Richter, 2009; Lipp, 2007). Transforming the existing planning process to a process-oriented one with new ways of interaction technical enhancements are necessary as well as a new planning and design style (Ervin, 2011). Therefore teaching methods must be changed to a more process- and workflow oriented thinking (Steinitz, 2010; Ervin, 2011) using the advantages of the different software tools like GIS, CAD, visualization and Building Information Models (BIM) (Flaxman, 2010). GeoDesign as a "new" term had been discussed the last years. While some planners contribute that they are doing this for years (Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2011) requirements had been defined for a more collaborative and process-oriented planning (Francica, 2012; Ervin, 2011; Steinitz; 2010; Flaxman, 2010; Dangermond, 2009, 2010).

In this paper the different terms will be explained and the special German definition of landscape planning will be described. Based on this definition the use of GIS in the different

GIS in Landscape Planning 57

It is mentioned that there is not one answer which are the best models and what are the spatial-analytic needs for designers or planners (Ervin, 2011). It depends on scale and complexity. The more detailed the planning task is the simpler the models may be and the experience of the planner or designer may be sufficient. For a large scale, the complexity is increasing and appropriate methods must be decided. Two basic strategies exist. The first one is to design the future state and then ask: "By what scenario might it be achieved" (Steinitz, 2010). The second one is to design a scenario and then ask: "In what future might it

Steinitz (2010) defined seven basic ways of designing that can be adapted using GIS technologies (at least in part) but that are not dependent upon them. They are accepted and

often used in a specific way or in various combinations. They are:

Fig. 1. "Steinitz Framework" (Steinitz, 1990, 2010)

result?" (Steinitz, 2010).


working steps will be described and useful methods (e.g. habitat suitability analysis) will be explained. The needs for standardization and existing information management will be discussed and future improvements realizing the GeoDesign framework will be shown.
