Search

In the original publication, the given name and surname of the author Blal Adem Esmail was swapped in one of the references and hence incorrectly cited as Blal and Geneletti (2017) in the article. The correct reference is provided below. Adem Esmail, B., and D. Geneletti. 2017. Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: An approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 1–13. The original article has been corrected.

This article explores the potential of integrating sense of place into participatory landscape planning processes. In an illustrative case study, spatial information on sense of place assessed through a participatory mapping survey from local citizens is integrated into a geodesign workshop at the Lahn river, Germany, with local stakeholders and planning administration representatives. Results show that sense of place information (1) has been considered interesting and relevant for the planning process by the majority of workshop participants, (2) revealed areas in the landscape that participants did not expect to be meaningful, and (3) spurred discussion on the potential meanings of the places and areas. We recommend planners to consider options for eliciting and integrating sense of place in future participatory landscape planning to reveal citizens’ unknown people-place relationships for the use in actual deliberation and negations.

Planning with nature-based solutions (NBS) presents a participatory approach that harnesses actions supported by nature to address societal challenges. Whilst Geodesign may facilitate participatory planning, manage boundaries between participants, and assess impacts of NBS, empirical insights remain scarce. This paper aims to develop and test a Geodesign process for planning with NBS, and to evaluate its contributions to boundary management. In a one-day Geodesign process, eleven stakeholders delineated priority areas, changed land uses, and observed resulting impacts on ecosystem services. Contributions to boundary management were evaluated regarding translation, communication and mediation functions, as well as perceived attributions of credibility, salience, and legitimacy. Results include spatial NBS scenarios and insights into contributions to boundary management: translating scenario stories into maps differed depending on the stakeholders involved; communication can be easily facilitated; yet mediation using an indicator tool led to frustration. Geodesign can indeed facilitate NBS co-design but needs to be integrated into a larger collaborative process.