Projects workflow: How will the studies be carried out?
We are not specifying HOW the various teams should carry out their studies. There are many paths and support options to get through the IGC workflow using GIS tools such as ArcGIS, QGIS or geodesign tools such as Geodesignhub or Esri GeoPlanner and others. The software capabilities that has been made available to all (including the schools’ existing capabilities) can be applied in diverse settings and workflows. The choices are up to the individual teams.
We do expect that the typical workflow will be similar that that below, based on Steinitz (2012). There need to be three scenario-driven change-design teams: A, B and C.
Starting today (assumed 2020), and with regard to expected innovations (which the collaboration teams are now developing), each change team should evaluate the study areas, then make a 2035 design and assess its impacts (likely in a few iterations), then update the evaluation maps, and then make a 2050 design and assess its impacts. These designs for the three scenarios and their three stages should be compared for impacts, etc. (See the EVENTS IGC 2019 poster formats).
Schedule for team and individual tasks
Other than the overall IGC schedule (below) and the required January 1, 2019 deadline, we are aware of considerable variation in worldwide academic schedules. Please see this visual representation of individual participant schedules.
Will there be a standard presentation format for all the designs?
Yes and no. There will be a standard format set for all the work which is to be presented at the IGC 2019 conference and for further IGC publications (see EVENTS: FORMATS). However, there will not be a standard format set for other work of the IGC teams intended for other audiences. The standard IGC formats are all based on a square format template and its combined application in powerpoints and posters for IGC 2019.
Presentation of evaluation maps and definition of evaluation criteria
Evaluation and impact maps are central elements of the Geodesign workflow. For project-project comparison, each project should use the following presentation layout.
Each school will define its own locally relevant evaluation criteria for each of ten systems, (ten common and one flexible), but all would make and map it in the same 5 levels and colors. We expect some local redefinition of the systems e. g. what is high density housing, or agriculture.
Presentation of impact maps
Each school must define locally relevant impacts criteria and models for each of its ten systems, (nine common and one flexible). All should make and map these impacts in the same levels and colors.
Are there additional visualization/representation requirements?
No and Yes. Beyond mapping there will not be any visualization requirements for the work of the teams. However, and as seen below for the IGC 2019 posters, we will encourage the adoption of a convention for diagrammatic visualization for all designs as follows: