Geodesign, A Scottish Case Study

Introduction

Case Study Methodology

The Geodesign Workshop: Context and Objectives

The selected case study involved a small coastal community of circa 1300 people on the west coast of Scotland. The initiative was designed as part of a wider three year project to develop a Local Place Plan, funded by Community Enterprise in Scotland (CEiS). The workshop took place towards the end of the project, in 2024 and was, as far as is know, a first for Scotland.²

Local Places Plans

Local Places Plans (LPPs) were introduced to Scotland in the 2019 Planning Act. They are community-driven documents which map proposals for land use and other priority activities – mapping key areas, documenting priorities for protection, identifying community needs, and highlighting potential development sites to help realise these aspirations. 

Unlike previous initiatives, such as action and neighbourhood plans, the local authority is statutorily obliged to take LPPs into account when considering planning applications and other funding. They represent an attempt to empower communities. 

The workshop aimed to: 

• Foster collaboration among stakeholders and the community – promote negotiation; 
• Address the challenges facing the community and produce alignment within the community for actionable projects and policies affecting land use for insertion into the Local Place Plan; 
• Identify and prioritise key projects. 

Overview 

Much of the literature surrounding geodesign documents workshops attended BY academics FOR academics and professionals. (Pettit, Hawken et al. 2019, McNally and Cocco 2024, Adem Esmail, Anderson et al. 2025). They highlight the interdisciplinary significance of geodesign, part of which is an attempt to bridge silos amongst those responsible for the public realm. 

This case study is unusual in that it was initiated BY the community FOR the community and is believed to be the first geodesign workshop to have taken place in Scotland. It therefore contributes to a growing body of work involving geodesign by viewing the process through the lens of a community. 

By adopting Foster’s methodology, it ‘aid(s) advancing the field …’ of knowledge and understanding surrounding geodesign. (Foster 2016).

Benefits 

Challenges 

The community was suffering from consultation fatigue due to extensive consultation over the preceding ten years. Despite extensive consultation little had been delivered, and several assets in the public realm had been lost. As a result, there was much antipathy to being consulted by ‘yet more consultants’ and resentment that the funding was for revenue spending as opposed to capital, during a cost-of-living crisis. 

Furthermore, recent consultations had exposed two factions with differing ideas for addressing infrastructural and environmental challenges facing one of the villages. The community management group identified a requirement for a new medium to attract wider community engagement.

The geodesign facilitator identified the key challenges as follows: 

• Helping the community agree a common vision for the village centre and surroundings; 
• Addressing change amongst a large group of people with a ‘no change’ stance when it comes to development and other changes in the area; 
• The centre of the village needed to be upgraded with new traffic patterns, signage. The best spatial layout is a discussion due to private ownership of some land; 
• The LPP gave the community to voice their opinion on several new housing sites recently identified in Local Development Plan; 
• General environmental management strategy. 

Solution 

Community participation typically involves a consultant consulting a community, analysing their feedback (data) and synthesizing it into a set of proposals which are fed back to the community for comment. It frequently results in ‘the same old people’ voicing their view louder than others. The geodesign process provided an open forum/safe place within which the whole community was invited to anonymously raise issues they would like to see discussed and ultimately negotiated for inclusion into or otherwise the LPP. 

Collaborators/Participants 

The workshop was advertised as open to all, but key local stakeholders were independently invited and actively encouraged to attend. These included local authority planners, housing association agents, councillors³ and the local MSP.⁴ Landowners and farmers, a forestry specialist and several experts from climate related third sector agencies were invited. Leaders of local trusts and organisation were also specifically invited to attend. 

Unfortunately, no one from the local planning authority nor housing associations attended the event despite attempts to engage them. They gave the excuse of limited time and resources or simply failed to respond. It was relatively well attended by professionals with built environment skills within the community including several engineers, an architect, a botanist and a couple of landscape architects. 

The local MSP and one councillor attended the workshop in part, and the MSP delivered a supportive speech towards the end of the event. The third sector climate experts were particularly proactive, stimulating discussion on climate change. 

A local family with a disabled family member took great pains to attend, which was clearly not easy. The mother powerfully presented a view of what it was like to live in the community for a family with disabilities. The case she presented was impactful although visibly distressing for the family.

Process details

Pre-workshop 

As part of the preparatory activities, the facilitators identified key reports to digitalise following issues already identified in previous public consultation exercises and preliminary surveys.⁵ These gave a strong indication of the intervention to be expected. 

Given the workshop took place towards the end of a three year project, some pre-existing organised groups of volunteers had already developed ideas and aspirations under the following subject headings: environment, heritage, sport, arts, housing, transport and energy, business and clear water. 

Online workshops and survey 

Two induction workshops were conducted online, one to launch an online mapping survey or ‘geosurvey’ and the other just before its closure. The online mapping survey was conducted over a period of three week period to collect map based responses from the community. The survey was anonymous, self-explanatory and was advertised on social media and other tangible mediums such as posters and magazine inserts. 

The online survey proved very successful, attracting circa 400 responses, albeit people were permitted to make multiple suggestions. 247 were shortlisted for the initial workshop. Amongst these were ideas curated by the groups which were entered and clearly identified in the online survey. 

The survey required participants to submit ideas and aspirations under eight key system subdivisions to address the diverse and interconnected aspects of urban planning and development: Active Travel, Amenities, Open Space, Biodiversity, Heritage, Housing, Road Transport and Energy. Once sufficient responses were received, an initial review was conducted by the facilitators.

First workshop 

The first in-person workshop was conducted to discuss the responses and facilitate negotiations to identify and prioritise actions. Participants were allocated into four teams, which were quite large given the high level of attendance. Some members of the teams knew each other, others did not. Each of the teams went through the list of suggestions and developed a series of interventions and ideas which were entered via a monitor, one for each table. 

The teams made their selections independently and in discussion with their tables. The geodesign online platform enabled the four teams to build a synthetic strategy by diagrams that were synthesized from the online survey. Of particular note were the diagrams selected by three of the four (majority), which meant that the teams agreed on these interventions independently and these formed the basis of the negotiations. 

Following the first session, each group presented their ideas to the whole, and this was followed by a sociogram in which the groups were asked to respond to and vote on the ideas of others. After the sociogram, the teams moved on to combining their diagrams thereby developing two designs. 

By the end of the day, there was a list of proposals that people agreed to. However, due to the volume of responses, it was not possible to go through the whole suite of diagrams.

Second workshop 

Due to the volume of responses, it was decided that there should be a second workshop and that the list should be further rationalised for this event. The facilitators organised an independent external review to further streamline the responses. Unfortunately, because the event had not been pre-scheduled, it had to be organised in a different venue which was less accessible and therefore slightly less well attended.

By the time it took place those with strongly voiced opinions had organised themselves sufficiently to make negotiation virtually impossible. The facilitators therefore took the decision to run the session as a question and answer session and negotiation did not take place and therefore could not be termed geodesign. The element of surprise and novelty that had fuelled the first workshop had been lost. 

Following the second workshop, the facilitators further categorised the systems into three distinct groups based on their functional and spatial characteristics – Land and Buildings, Nature and Preserved Areas and Heritage in an attempt to balance the needs of built infrastructure, ecological systems and cultural preservation, so as to simplify for inclusion in the LPP.

Role of Technology

The online survey and workshop were organised and conducted via the geodesign platform known as Geodesignhub, which was developed by Hrishi Ballal in consultation with Carl Steinitz. The data was processed using Excel spreadsheets. 

The response to the mapping survey was unprecedentedly high and increased accessibility for busy working adults and families who are time poor and for others who do not wish to raise their heads above the parapet. The workshop was well attended too, in part due to curiosity aroused by its digital nature. 

The decision to ask young people to oversee monitors set at the end of each table, and ability to draw on grant funding to employ them, meant the young people were effectively paid to engage. 

Lessons Learned 

Both the anonymity of the survey and the novelty of the online mapping procedure succeeded in engaging a wider section of the community. However, it was clear that the facilitators were not prepared for the volume of responses, and insufficient time was allowed for processing the data before the first workshop. The result was an overwhelming amount of material to be discussed, and the workshop ran out of time. This meant that the participants felt pressurised with one commenting that it felt like ‘speed dating on speed.’

One participant suggested that 

‘If there had been more time the information could have been streamlined further under themes e.g. signing, housing etc. which would have helped focus understanding and discussion on the day.’ 

This was echoed by another, who thought the teams 

‘… should have probably been assigned particular areas to focus on such as housing, environment etc then gone to combined groups. My group only got through about a quarter of the suggestions anyway then went through the same ones when the two groups were merged.’ 

However, others disagreed 

‘… many people stated that the suggestions should have been prioritised and weeded out so there were fewer. I don’t necessarily agree with this as I believe that this was probably one of the intended outcomes anyway and that doing it this way allowed everyone to have their say rather than a small working group or people with their own agendas.’ 

Overall, the workshop produced mixed reactions with some feeling empowered, some unsure, and some angry. It was evident that people felt empowered to talk and an element of community negotiation took place. A couple of attendees commented extremely positively on the whole process, saying that it was ‘Incredible to be able to have those conversations with my neighbours.’ Another said they were proud to participate. 

Some members from the specialist groups were upset that the projects they’d been working on were given insufficient attention and expressed concern that the potential outcomes from the workshop did not adequately take the group’s views into consideration. In hindsight, it was a mistake not to prioritise the group work. 

The negotiation process was semi-successful at counter-balancing the views of the most vociferous members of the community. However, those participating probably needed more experience in negotiating. One participant suggested that 

‘A strong group leader (facilitator)is needed in each group as I noted a lot of the topics ended up in a discussion between a couple of people sitting next to each other and especially sitting next to the computer. Also ensuring that a show of hands was made for every suggestion before either writing it off or agreeing to it.’

There was also criticism that the process had not been satisfactorily explained, but this was partly because those people had not attended the online briefing sessions. One person commented that 

‘I wasn’t there right at the beginning and didn’t hear the instructions to the groups so probably shouldn’t comment on this, but my group (team) appeared a bit uncertain as to what they were supposed to be doing with each of the topics. They regarded some topics as being outside of the scope of the meeting as they would require a huge amount of research, planning, costing and feasibility studies so didn’t want to give a yes or no answer.’ 

Some participants felt they were not sufficiently informed to have a view. ‘… some of the discussion became too detailed for the level of information being presented.’ Another commented 

‘It was quite clear on Saturday, that many people did not fully understand (all) proposals sufficiently to make an informed opinion and often exhibited pre-conceived prejudices.’ 

Others were uncomfortable about commenting on proposals involving other people’s land 

‘Not so sure that moving fixed facilities such as the garage should even be discussed without the owners being approached first, at least to let them know that this was one of the propositions which would be discussed.’ 

Whilst others understood that the issues of constraints could come at a later stage

‘The issue of constraints: ownership, physical restrictions, economic viability etc. etc. are applied at the next stage of the process by experienced professionals as the ideas raised by the community are sifted and validated before being incorporated into the LPP.’ 

Finally, one participant suggested that the room was acoustically challenging, and the groups should be in separate rooms 

‘If splitting into groups in future then they need to be separated if possible as many group members couldn’t hear what was going on with the background noise of the other groups.’

The involvement of young people in the workshop vicariously involved them in the process, thereby widening the audience and engaging a younger demographic in the process.

Conclusion 

In terms of Foster’s criteria, it is evident that this geodesign process could not be called a design process because the ideas were not sufficiently advanced to require designing. Whilst some negotiation did take place, the workshops proved less successful in addressing the goals identified by the facilitator. The first workshop was able to reach agreement on issues that weren’t too contentious, but some of the bigger topics were undeveloped and too complex, clearly requiring more work; furthermore, some community members did not appreciate the only potential source of interdisciplinary expertise coming from professionals that were their neighbours! 

Whilst framing themselves as facilitators, the project designers were perceived as academics and essentially no different to consultants. And whilst the community group responsible for instigating the geodesign process understood that it was experimental, some sections of the community were not prepared to make allowances, and perhaps it was, well, too experimental? 

Despite the negatives, ultimately, the prime goal was realised in that the process secured some agreement on the suite of initiatives to be included in the LPP. It also succeeded in engaging a wider sector of the community and therefore more democratic. In the words of a landscape architect who attended the event

‘This process of data-informed, holistic, decision making between the community is … a very important step in the ongoing conversations as part of the wider engagement. The fact that these comments come from the community itself needs to be continually reinforced and played back to them.’

There is no doubt that geodesign is a fascinating process with huge potential for the future at a local level. It needs be tailored to meet the needs of the community and would work well in other contexts too. One of the major advantages of geodesign is its relative affordability. Most communities do not have funds to support large scale consultation exercises. Due to its digital, GIS based format, the costs of geodesign are relatively minimal and therefore affordable. The anonymity of the online survey was also adventitious and constructive as evidenced by the volume of responses.

Going forward, my recommendations for future initiatives include: 

• Carry out the process at an early stage of any project; 
• Try to ensure the cooperation of policy makers ie planners; 
• Close the geosurvey on time, to leave sufficient time to rationalise the entries;
• Involve young people, consider renumerating them to be team leaders. Not only do people find it harder to misbehave when young people are present but, more importantly, they are the ultimate beneficiaries of successful geodesign; 
• Provide activities for young children alongside the event so that young families can attend. 

Finally, there should be more recognition that negotiation is a skill that requires practice and, going forward, some training for communities may be necessary. The GeodesignHub consultants have already started visiting schools, trying to embed good citizenship into the school curriculum. 

Endnotes

1. Steiner is Dean and Paley Professor of the University of Pennsylvania Stuart Weitzman School of Design and the leading authority on Scottish landscape architect Ian McHarg. Allan W Shearer reviewed Steinitz’s book in 2012 Shearer, A. W. (2012). “MOTIVES AND MEANS.” Landscape Architecture 102(10): 186-194  
2. I became aware of geodesign whilst researching my PhD (2019-24). At the time Carl Steinitz was resident in the UK, acting as visiting emeritus professor at the Architectural Association in London. I contacted Steinitz with a view to interviewing him and after learning more about the geodesign process, I decided to promote it to my local community within my capacity as a director of a local development Trust.
3. Councillors in Scotland are elected officials acting as an interface between local authorities and communities. They are meant to represent their wards, develop and review council policy, scrutinise decisions and offer community leadership. 
4. MSP stands for Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish equivalent of MPs. The seat of government in Scotland for devolved matters is the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. MSPs are elected, they make laws, scrutinise government and represent their constituents. 
5. This included an environmental baseline report consisting of a desktop survey of issues ranging from heritage, landscape character, geology, transport, energy, climate change; and results of a consultation involving young people and the Place Standard tool. 

References

Adem Esmail, B., et al. (2025). “Geodesign to advance boundary work in urban planning: A study in Stockholm focused on nature-based solutions.” Ambio 54(2): 285-304.

Geodesign supports collaborative urban planning by managing ‘boundaries’ between diverse knowledge holders. However, there is a paucity of empirical evidence of its contribution to ‘boundary work’. This paper aims to evaluate how a geodesign process facilitates knowledge co-production through boundary work and to assess the scientific credibility, political saliency, and procedural legitimacy of its outputs in urban planning. We propose a replicable geodesign framework to assess boundary work, and test it in a case study on urban transformations with nature-based solutions in the Skarpnäck district of Stockholm, Sweden. Findings indicate that all geodesign steps facilitated communication by promoting collective reasoning. Participants acknowledged contributions to knowledge co-production and decision-making by mediating between different perspectives. However, data quality and modeling simplicity were identified as critical factors affecting the outputs’ perceived credibility. Future applications should include co-designing the geodesign process, improving capacity and skills, and facilitating more integrated planning. 

Carlsson, M. (2018). “Environmental Design, Systems Thinking and Human Agency: McHarg’s Ecological Method and Steinitz and Roger’s Interdisciplinary Education Experiment.” Landscape Journal 36:2: 37-52. 

Foster, K. (2016). “Geodesign parsed: Placing it within the rubric of recognized design theories.” Landscape and Urban Planning 156: 92-100.

It is neither the “design” portion nor the “geo” part that empower geodesign’s mode of practice and education—it is their combination that facilitates this model of land design and planning. One of the stated features and benefits of geodesign is that it brings together science and design. Inherent in that combining though appears to be the source of confusion. What distinguishes geodesign from design processes that deploy more innovative approaches to GIS? Is it geodesign if GIS workflows are used for decision support? There is a current lack of consistency in assigning the term “geodesign” to projects and practices. The author posits that geodesign engages GIS at several points in a design process including using GIS and relevant scientific data to better evaluate and understand the potential consequences of design alternatives. This article parses out the design portion to clarify what contributions design brings to the process. The intent is to situate the design aspect of geodesign within a lexicon of recognized design theories. The outcome of this analysis reveals core components that comprise a geodesign process. Those form the basis for a proposed Case Study Method in geodesign. A clearer understanding of geodesign as a new model of design practice emerges through this research by placing geodesign within the realm of other design theories and establishing critical dimensions in the form of a Case Study Method. The guidance provided by a Case Study Method approach to organizing and disseminating geodesign projects will help advance future discourse and practices.

McNally, B. and C. Cocco (2024). “Engaging communities in environmentally sustainable planning: recommendations for implementing geodesign in local authorities.” 

Pettit, C. J., et al. (2019). “Breaking down the silos through geodesign – Envisioning Sydney’s urban future.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46(8): 1387-1404.

One of the challenges in creating plans for sustainable urban futures is the ability to work across government agencies and to break down traditional barriers to truly collaborative planning. Typically, metropolitan planning has been carried out by different agencies that are separate in their mandate and planning strategies. This siloed approach to city planning means there are problems in the coordination and sequencing of critical projects. To address this problem, we investigate the use of the Steinitz geodesign framework and the GeodesignHub.com software for supporting collaborative and integrated negotiation-based geodesign. We hypothesised that by using the geodesign framework we can involve key government agencies and begin to break down the barriers between these agencies to create a single integrated strategic plan for the city. In this research we focus on South East Sydney, discussing the process in designing and implementing the geodesign framework with real world actors spanning several government agencies, municipalities, industry and academia for this study area. This being the first application of geodesign in the Australian context, we draw on feedback from participants on the strengths and weaknesses of the framework.

Shearer, A. W. (2012). “MOTIVES AND MEANS.” Landscape Architecture 102(10): 186-194. 

McLean, C.L. (2024) Landscape Design, Planning and Infrastruture: Scottish Landscape Architecture through the work of Mark Turnbull (1943-2016), PhD (unpublished)