Abstract
Contemporary landscape planning challenges require an increasingly diverse ensemble of voices, including regional stakeholders, physical scientists, social scientists, and technical experts, to provide insight into a landscape’s past trends, current uses, and desired future. To impactfully integrate these disparate components, stakeholder-driven research must include clear lines of communication, share data transparently, and slowly develop trust. Alternative future scenario representations aim to generate conversations through discourse, evoke scenario-based stakeholder input, and ensure stakeholder-based revisions to research models. The current literature lacks a metric for gauging effectiveness and a framework for optimal evaluation for future scenario representations. We have developed and applied a metric for a ranked set of compelling scenario representations using stakeholder input from an active research project. Researchers surveyed stakeholders through a case study in Idaho’s Magic Valley to gauge the effectiveness of each representational approach. To improve future stakeholder-driven geodesign projects and gaps in the research literature, this project provides a ranking of graphic strategies based on the stakeholder survey. Additionally, we provide examples and evaluate graphic representation strategies that can stimulate meaningful conversations, create common understandings, and translate research processes and findings to a variety of audiences. The results of this study intend to provide landscape architects, landscape planners, and geodesign specialists with a framework for evaluating compelling future scenario representations for a stakeholder group.
Highlights
IntroductionPublisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
These results indicate that a Geovisualization Usability (GU) metric is somewhat capable of assessing compelling graphics, supporting a method to evaluate an initial set of graphics which can allow for the subsequent selection of effective graphic conventions
Metric can provide researchers with an evaluation method to test effectiveness of This their graphics through stakeholder engageevaluation method to test the effectiveness of their graphics through stakeholder ment, potentially leading to better, or more meaningful, stakeholder engagement [36] for engagement, potentially leading to better, or more meaningful, engagement initial assessment; the results indicate that iteration throughstakeholder stakeholder input for
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The development of tools that effectively document stakeholder input is integral for project development, as it plays a central role in stakeholder engagement in research [1–3]. These tools often consist of graphics and visual representations used to depict researcherbased interpretations of stakeholder input throughout the course of a research project [3–6]. Despite the recognized importance of representations in stakeholder engagement, practioners lack a metric to evaluate the effectiveness of one representation approach to another
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
