This page is under construction. Images to be added soon.

An Example of Using the Framework

[Snyderville Icon] Alternative Futures for the Snyderville Basin, Utah

In 1990, after more than 25 years of applying GIS to many projects and in my teaching and research, I came to the realization that there was a common structure to this work, and I wrote a short paper entitled "A Framework for Theory."8 Amos Rapoport has provided a useful definition of theories, models, and frameworks. In short, he states, "a theory explains, a model predicts, and a framework organizes. A framework can be judged on its reasonableness and its utility, but claims no exclusivity vis-a-vis other frameworks."9 As a teacher, I have always believed that we must foster an integrative and adaptable approach to theory and it application. I reject the "top-down" concept of a universally applicable planning model or method. Rather, I believe that an appropriate strategy results first from understanding what the questions are, and then from the "building up" of an appropriate project methodology. My search for an over-arching framework within which to organize this process derives from my experience that there is an overwhelming (and perhaps necessary) structural similarity among the questions asked by and of landscape planners and other environmental design professionals.

Over the past three years, my framework has become the primary organizational basis of my teaching and research.

The framework identifies six types of questions. Each can be related to a theory-driven modeling type. The models which we typically use require the management of considerable amounts of information, and GIS can be applied--albeit differently--in each type of model.

The framework is "passed through" at least three times in any project: first, downward in defining the context and scope of the project; second, upward in specifying the project methodology; and third, downward in carrying the project forward to its conclusion.

The six questions with their associated modeling types are listed in the order in which they are usually considered when initially defining the context of a landscape planning study.

	I	How should the state of the landscape 
		be described; in content, boundaries, space, 
		and time?  This level of inquiry leads to 
		representation models.  [Note that to date, 
		representation has been the major emphasis 
		of GIS.]

	II	How does the landscape operate?  What are the 
		functional andstructural relationships 
		among its elements?  This level of inquiry 
		leads to process models.

	III	Is the current landscape functioning well?  
		The metrics ofjudgment--whether health, 
		beauty, cost, nutrient flow, or user 
		satisfaction--lead to evaluation models.

	IV 	How might the landscape be altered;  by 
		what actions, where, and when?  This is 
		directly related to I, above, in that both 
		are data; vocabulary and syntax.  This fourth 
		level of inquiry leads to change models.  At 
		least two important types of change should be 
		considered:  change by current projected 
		trends, and change by implementable actions, 
		such as plans, investments, and regulations.

	V	What predictable differences might the changes 
		cause?  This isdirectly related to II, above, 
		in that both are based on information; on 
		predictive theory.  This fifth level of 
		inquiry shapes impact models, in which the 
		process models (II) are used to simulate change.

	VI 	Should the landscape be changed?  This is 
		directly related to III, above, in that both 
		are based on knowledge; on cultural values.  
		How is a comparative evaluation among the 
		impacts of alternative changes to be made?  
		This sixth level of inquiryleads to decision 
		models.

	[Implementation could be considered another level, but 
	this framework considers it as a forward-in-time 
	feedback to level I, the creation of a changed 
	representation model.]

Note that the six levels have been presented in the order in which they are normally recognized. However, I believe that it is more important to consider them in reverse order, both as a more effective way of organizing a landscape planning study and specifying its method (which I consider the key strategic phase) and as a more effective educational approach. The methods for a landscape planning study should be organized and specified upwards through the levels of inquiry, with each level defining its necessary contributing products from the models next above in the framework.

	VI	To be able to decide to propose or to make a 
		change (or not) one needs to know how to 
		compare alternatives.

	V	To be able to compare alternatives, one 
		needs to predict their impacts from having 
		simulated changes.

	IV	To be able to simulate change, one needs to 
		specify (or design) the changes to be simulated.

	III	To be able to specify potential changes (if any), 
		one needs to evaluate the current conditions.

	II	To be able to evaluate the landscape, one needs 
		to understand how it works; and

	I	To understand how it works, one needs 
		representational schema to describe it.  
		[Again, this has been the major GIS role.]

Then, in order to be effective and efficient, a landscape planning project should progress downward at least once through each level of inquiry, applying the appropriate modeling types:

	I	representation,
	II	process,
	III	evaluation,
	IV	change,
	V	impact, and
	VI	decision.

At the extreme, two decisions present themselves: "no" and "yes." A "no" implies a backward feedback loop and the need to alter a prior level. All six levels can be the focus of feedback; (IV), "redesign" and sensitivity analysis, is a frequently applied feedback strategy.

A "contingent yes" decision (still a "no") may also trigger a shift in the scale or size or time of the study. (An example is a highway corridor location decision made on the basis of a more detailed alignment analysis). In a scale shift, the study will again proceed through the six levels of the framework, as previously described.

A project should normally continue until it achieves a positive, "yes," decision. (In my area of application, a "do not build" conclusion can be a positive decision). A "yes" decision implies implementation, and (one assumes), a forward-in-time change to new representation models.

While the framework looks orderly and sequential, it frequently is not so in its application. The line through any project is not a smooth path: it has false starts, dead ends, serendipitous discoveries--but the line does pass through the questions and models of the framework as I have described it, before a "yes" can be achieved.

When repeated and linked over scale and time, the framework may be the organizing basis of a very complex study. Regardless of its complexity, the same questions are posed again and again. However, the models, their methods, and their answers vary according to the context.

The following is a recently completed study entitled "Alternative Futures for the Synderville Basin, Summit County, Utah, U.S.A."10 This multi-faceted study, with many links across scale and time, was a collaboration among Harvard University Graduate School of Design (HGSD), Utah State University (USU), and The University of Toronto (UT).

	I	The Synderville Basin, 180 square kilometers 
		in area, is a 30-minute drive through the 
		Wasatch Mountains from Salt Lake City, Utah.  
		It is the first "open" and developable 
		landscape east of the highly built-up Great 
		Salt Lake Valley.

	II	Today, approximately 10,000 persons live in 
		the County, whose primary economic bases are 
		agriculture and recreation.

	III	Park City and Deer Valley are firmly 
		established as World Classski resorts.

	IV	Salt Lake City is projected to grow from a 
		population of 1 million to 1.5 million during 
		the next 20 to 30 years; the County population 
		is expected to grow by 40,000 persons during 
		that time.  There is already land speculation, 
		and almost all private landowners in the 
		Synderville Basin have studied and proposed 
		options for development.

	V	Knowledgeable persons, including the Summit 
		County Commissioners, sense that this rapid 
		growth will generate harmful impacts on the 
		county.

	VI	Despite an historically strong private property 
		ethic and broad-based public interest in 
		controlling growth and change is increasing.  
		The key decision criteria would be to minimize 
		public action, expenditures on infrastructure, 
		and interference with the private housing 
		market, while maintaining a high  environmental 
		quality and sense of "openness."

VI-I After a site visit and orientation, my framework was used to specify the three time phases, spatial scales, and the methods which were to be used. GIS data were prepared, including by ERDAS software. They were transferred between Harvard and Utah State and Toronto via INTERNET, the computer link among most of the world's universities.


	I	The study area representation then was 
		completed.  The GIS was specified to meet the 
		needs of the requisite models and to be as 
		"lean" as possible, both in categories and 
		scale.  It consisted of digital terrain, 
		satellite-derived landcover, ownership, and 
		another half-dozen plan-related map layers.  
		There was a substantial non-GIS "data base" 
		includinginterviews, reports, video and 
		photography.

	II 	The key study area processes were then 
		evaluated for their vulnerability to impacts 
		of change.

	III	The current local building code requires 
		evaluations for avalanche zones and flood 
		hazard areas.  Additional evaluations included 
		potential sources of water, primarywildlife 
		winter habitat and movement corridors, wetlands, 
		and visual "openness" which, in this landscape, 
		is an undeveloped foreground viewed against a 
		mountain skyline.  According to several surveys, 
		this is the type of view that people of the 
		Snyderville Basin value most.  These and other 
		vulnerable landscape processes are not 
		protected by the current building regulations.

	IV	Five alternatives for future change were 
		developed to reflect increasing public 
		involvement.  Each was driven by market forces 
		guided by public investment and regulation.  
		Each also included several areas for which more 
		detailed design studies were carried out.  The 
		existing conditions provided the base for 
		comparison.

		The first alternative assumes the Development 
		Build-out of the actual proposals of current 
		landowners and was found to accommodate an 
		estimated population of 80,000 persons, twice 
		forseeable demand.

		In the second alternative, the Development 
		Projection trend at 40,000 persons, one can 
		again expect extensive coverage but lower 
		density.

		The Cluster Alternative uses conservation-
		oriented regulations and development-density 
		bonuses to cluster development in and around 
		the meadow area which is the heart of the 
		Snyderville Basin.

		The Village Alternative is implemented by 
		transfers of development rights among 
		current landholdings creating a series of 
		villages around a larger conserved and 
		restored central meadow area.

		The New Town Alternative concentrates public 
		infrastructure investment to expedite 
		development of one large private landholding 
		to the east of highway U.S. 40.  The 
		resulting revenues would enable major public 
		land purchases.

		When the five alternatives were configured, the 
		POLYTRIMS program developed by John Danahy and 
		others at the Centre for Landscape Research at 
		the University of Toronto was used for 
		producing computer-generated perspective views 
		and animations of various viewing sequences 
		within the future landscapes.  At one point 
		during this simulation stage, the animation 
		programs were controlled at Harvard and 
		simultaneously run on computers in Toronto 
		with the results returned via INTERNET 
		for video image capture at Harvard.

		Here is an example, comparing existing 
		conditions and legalbuildout, as seen from 
		Interstate 80.

	V	The impacts of the change alternatives were 
		compared according to the GIS-based 
		environmental, social, and economic models.  
		There was a direct relationship:  the 
		alternatives performed better as public 
		action increased.

	VI	In summary, there were three reasons to 
		publicly manage growth and change in the 
		Snyderville Basin:  1) to lessen 
		infrastructure investment; 2) to lessen 
		specific environmental impacts; and 3) to 
		preserve the sense of visual openness that 
		this landscape still offers.  In the 1992 
		county election and influenced in part by 
		the public presentation of our study, 
		this decision was made, and a version of the 
		cluster alternative was subsequently 
		implemented by the County.

This fall, the American Planning Association gave an Award of Merit to Harvard University for the planning, preparation, publication, and implementation of "Alternative Futures for the Snyderville Basin, Summit County, Utah."

Carl Steinitz

Graduate School of Design

Harvard University

RELATED INFORMATION

Recent Paper on the Past, Present and Future Use of the Framework

Click on the icon to retrieve Carl Steintiz's Paper- Geographical Informations Systems: A Personal Historical Perspective, The Framework for a Recent Project, and Some Questions for the Future" devivered at the European Conference on Geographical Information Systems, Genoa, Italy, March 30, 1993

A Work in Progress: The EPA Camp Pendleton Study

Return to the Framework Overview