Skip to main content

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Geodesigning Our Future

Part of the book series: The Urban Book Series ((UBS))

  • 21 Accesses

Abstract

Due to mounting social and environmental pressures, the demand for efficient and secure urban and rural land uses has noticeably increased (Ewert et al. in Sustainability 12:8098, 2020). Thus, planners and policymakers are called upon to work with diverse policy and management structures, as well as NGOs, private business actors, issue-oriented interest groups, locally based citizen groups and ordinary citizens. They must also confront shifting and sometimes conflicting territorial interests within the national, regional or local context (Milanovic in Global inequality: a new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press, 2016). Many times, decision-makers tend to focus on specific issues, e.g. climate forecasts, overlooking the mutually entangled socio-economic and political effects (Tollefson in Nature, 2022). It is becoming clear that there are no “one-size-fits-all solutions” for regions and cities because of the very specific local conditions (location, population density, financial and human resources, and stakeholder interests). Moreover, scientists and decision-makers need to support the communities’ autonomy, since the effectiveness of the planning strategy depends on community participation (Pisor et al. in Nat Clim Change 12(3):213–215, 2022). Therefore, regional and local communities must have the ability to understand the local impacts of candidate solutions and modify them as needed (Flint Ashery and Steinlauf-Millo in Urban informatics and future cities. Springer, 2021; Flint Ashery and Steinlauf-Millo in Micro-segregated cities. An international comparison of segregation in dense cities. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2022), while developing their own vision for their future. In terms of hierarchical planning systems and decision-making processes, these policy and management structures can be broadly classified into the “top-down” planning approach, whereas NGOs, private business actors, issue-oriented interest groups, locality-based citizens groups and ordinary citizens constitute the “bottom-up” approach, although these distinctions are often not absolute. In both instances, the stakeholders must negotiate since consensus is crucial to the long-term resiliency of the decision-making process. This book, therefore, brings together researchers across various fields to explore scenario-driven designs and resolve negotiations across different locations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alexander E (2016) There is no planning—only planning practices: notes for spatial planning theories. Plan Theory 15(1):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asad M, Le Dantec CA (2019) “This is shared work:” negotiating boundaries in a social service intermediary organization. Media Commun 7(3):69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campagna M (2020) Spatial planning and geodesign. In: Handbook of planning support science. Edward Elgar Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewert A, Brost M, Eisenmann C, Stieler S (2020) Small and light electric vehicles: an analysis of feasible transport impacts and opportunities for improved urban land use. Sustainability 12(19):8098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flint Ashery S (2023). The planning role in stretching the city: a tale of two london neighbourhoods. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint Ashery S, Steinitz C (2022) Issue-based complexity: digitally supported negotiation in geodesign linking planning and implementation. Sustainability 14(15):9073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flint Ashery S, Steinlauf-Millo R (2021) Geodesign between IGC and geodesignhub: theory and practice. In: Geertman SCM, Pettit C, Goodspeed R, Staffans A (eds) Urban informatics and future cities. The urban book series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76059-5

  • Flint Ashery S, Steinlauf-Millo R (2022) Planning vertical differentiation? Geodesign workshop in the case study area of Neve-Sha’anan neighbourhood in Tel Aviv. In: Maloutas T, Karadimitrio N (eds) Micro-segregated cities. An international comparison of segregation in dense cities. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertman S (2017) PSS: beyond the implementation gap. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 104:70–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins LD (2001) Urban development: the logic of making plans, vol 166. Island Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic B (2016) Global inequality: a new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit CJ, Shi Y, Han H, Ritternbruch M, Foth M, Lieske S, van de Nouwelant R, Leao S, Christensen B, Jamal M (2020) A new toolkit for land value analysis and scenario planning. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisor AC, Basurto X, Douglass KG, Mach KJ, Ready E, Tylianakis JM et al (2022) Effective climate change adaptation means supporting community autonomy. Nat Clim Change 12(3):213–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigalov-Klein M, Marmor R, Sagron R, Roiburt Y, Spigel, N, Flint Ashery S (2024) How can digital collaborative planning integrate knowledge sources towards holistic planning? The test case of Beit Tzafafa neighborhood in Jerusalem Tichnun, 20/2

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith M, Sykes O, Fischer T (2014) Derailed: understanding the implementation failures of Merseytram. Town Plan Rev 85(2):237–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. Esti Press, Redlands, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson J (2022) Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought. Nature

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A, Tewdwr-Jones M, Comber R (2019) Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: app development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning processes. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci 46(2):286–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shlomit Flint Ashery .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Flint Ashery, S. (2024). Introduction. In: Flint Ashery, S. (eds) Geodesigning Our Future. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52235-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics