Evaluation models build on the insights you gained from your data analysis by asking, “is the study area working well?”. In other words, is the behavior the system is presenting desirable? Why? Evaluation models involve creating a composite of your process model assessment maps in a way that shows areas that are more (or less) suitable for proposed change. This is an overlay analysis, which results in a map of relative suitability or risk based on multiple combined factors. This evaluation leverages information from your process models to produce knowledge about how the study area may react to certain activities or uses in the future.
A key caveat in evaluation models, however, is the "people of the place factor". Peoples' perceptions of place are important, and must be factored into evaluation models. The geodesign team cannot assume that everyone involved has that same attitude. Some people will think everything is fine the way it is, while others will be adamant for change. This will depend largely on differences in values. Values, therefore, become another data layer used in evaluation of the study area. This is often done at public meetings with people gathered around maps of the area, discussing their values, worries, hopes, and desires for their community. Spatial surveys on a variety of topics can also be distributed to stakeholders to gain an understanding of values as they apply to geography. For example, stakeholders may be asked what areas they find the most attractive for change. Bird watchers and developers may identify the same area, but for different reasons: bird watchers may want to see greater conservation measures while developers may want to expand residential development into an existing wetland area. Conflict is bound to arise.
It is the task of the geodesign team to quantify these qualitative values, and communicate areas of conflict and agreement to the stakeholder groups. Often, using maps and other visual communication techniques, in addition to the Delphi Process for consensus-building, stakeholders often find that there is more they agree on that they disagree on. This is fertile ground for democratic geodesign.
This concludes the assessment process. To recap, these first three models involve examining existing conditions in the landscape and determining whether the current conditions are desirable or not. Typically, this assessment phase involves participation from a diverse set of subject matter experts and stakeholders, who contribute specialized knowledge to help define issues, metrics, and the proper methods for analysis (McElvaney, 2012).
Once the assessment if complete, the geodesign team can start the intervention process.
Image credit: Christian Gass, O2 Planning + Design.