This second iteration can be difficult to understand in the abstract. When we apply the second iteration to McHarg's Staten Island study, the models begin to become clearer. It is important to note that McHarg did not follow Steinitz’s framework for geodesign, although he was in fact following a geodesign process of his own. What is valuable about his studies is that they clearly answer (and visually represent) the six questions asked in the second iteration.

Decision Models : The client directly asks for a suitability model. They wish to make a decision based on what land use types are well suited for specific areas on the island. We know that we will need to develop a model that explains this information.

Impact Models: McHarg is fairly clear (and consistent in his work) that a project's impact starts with the historical geological characteristics of the landscape, which is explicitly intertwined and valued by humans. For this study, he focuses on physical geographic features and presumes that there is a relationship with the human values used for evaluation and decision models.

Change Models: The study is essentially testing the landscape for suitability to five different land use types: conservation, passive recreation, active recreation, residential development, and commercial or industrial development. Each land use is a creative change to the landscape with its own unique set of attractive qualities. The inclusion of information about these land use types into the study constitutes the change model.

Evaluation Models: McHarg presents a table that outlines the ecological factors, ranking, and applied values. How the information is organized, and more importantly, the decisions that determine how factors are valued are clearly illustrated by the table, constituting an Evaluation Model. Using the information gathered in the previous steps, each land use is evaluated for its potential attractiveness and vulnerability.

Process Models: The study focuses on gathering ecological factors in the form of static geologic and environmental conditions. These factors were evaluated at a fixed point in space and time. We can presume that Staten Island studied these factors up to a vertical complexity, meaning that the maps produced by the study spatially describe the place in terms of the current value, where is it located, and what overlaying factors are presented (direct, thematic, and vertical complexity). The study does not record the effects of factors on adjacent areas (horizontal), nor does it record how the factors may affect each other (hierarchal). The study also does not model future changes (temporal).

Representation Models: Based on the previous questions, the geodesign process has determined the data needed to actually perform the study, which also determines the boundary of the study. The scale of the largest piece of necessary data will generally determine the boundary. In the case of Staten Island, the study scale and context was naturally established by the physical boundaries of the island. Representation Models also ask how will the study be illustrated and described to stakeholders. McHarg determined the best method visualization would be a series of maps. When overlaid upon each other, the maps demonstrate the varying levels of spatial suitability defined by the Evaluation Model. The resulting image illustrates the most suitable allocation of land uses for Staten Island, based on the factors included in the study.

Asking the Representation Model questions last highlights why the framework is an iterative process. In practice, the team needs to work through the framework to ask all the questions before they may determine the scale and type of data needed. At this point, the team should know what it needs to know, but has not actually gathered any of the data. For example, the actual task that McHarg and his team did of gathering of data, making charts, and producing maps is considered in our geodesign process third iteration of the framework.