CREATING A SHARED VISION WORKBOOK FOR INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE VISIONING Tadej Bevk Tomaž Pipan Maja Debevec Božana Vrhovac Matthias Buchecker Mojca Golobič CREATING A SHARED VISION WORKBOOK FOR INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE VISIONING CONTENTS 4 INTRODUCTION 10 WORKSHOP PREPARATION 12 2.1 Spatial analysis 14 2.2 Analysis of policy documents 15 2.3 Interviews with stakeholders 16 2.4 Expert focus group 17 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 17 3.1 WARM-UP 18 3.1.1 Three horizons 20 3.1.2 Role playing 21 3.2 CREATING IDEAS 22 3.2.1 Visioning 24 3.2.2 Scenario creation 26 3.3 EVALUATING IDEAS 28 3.3.1 Participatory evaluation – holistic approach 30 3.3.2 Participatory evaluation – segmental approach 32 3.3.3 Expert assessment – impact model/GIS assisted 34 3.4 BUILDING CONSENSUS 36 3.4.1 Plenary discussion with all participants 38 3.4.2 Negotiating in pairs of groups 40 3.4.3 Voting as individuals 41 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP 42 4.1 Exhibiting results 44 4.2 Workshop report 46 4.3 Backcasting 48 4.4 Survey for participants 49 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 51 Literature 52 Colophon INTRODUCTION WHY DOES Humans have a dual nature: as individuals, they pursue personal goals, but as social beings, they seek belonging and PARTICIPATION recognition within a community. In addition, humans are learning MATTER IN beings who construct their reality based on experiences, the PLANNING? information they consult and the interests they pursue. According to Habermas (1981), a leading philosopher in communication and decision-making, societal change requires public participation through various forms of deliberation, such as discussions or workshops. This form of engagement necessitates an open process in which fundamental decisions and ideas are openly debated. The social learning that occurs in these processes also influences how stakeholders perceive spatial development and environmental issues. Decision-making is often guided purely by individual interests, which can hinder finding shared solutions, particularly for weaker or underrepresented groups. However, early involvement in the planning process encourages stakeholders to exchange perspectives, rather than entrench positions. Including public- interest representatives can facilitate mutual understanding and lead to collaborative solutions. Research has shown that well- designed participatory processes enhance mutual understanding and can result in agreements on shared solutions (Buchecker et al., 2023). CHALLENGES In spatial planning, collective solutions cannot be achieved by simply aggregating individual interests. Efforts to simultaneously IN CURRENT pursue planning rationality and democratic decision-making often SPATIAL result in complex procedures burdened by administrative tasks PLANNING and technical documentation. They are not only lengthy but also PRACTICE perceived by the public as inadequate to meet either objective. Public participation is frequently reduced to a formality due to late-stage involvement, difficulties in understanding planning documents and a weak influence on final decisions. This leads to 4 declining trust in institutions and public resistance to proposed changes. Consequently, spatial planning urgently requires new approaches that enable broader support for sustainable spatial development. Although the participatory approach is widely accepted in spatial planning, its implementation is often unsystematic and does not fully leverage the potential of the process. Participatory workshops aimed at co-creating consensual solutions often lead to generalised and already accepted goals while avoiding the explicit articulation of conflicting interests among participants. These conflicts eventually surface, prolong or even halt the planning process. Furthermore, participatory processes are seldom evaluated with the assumption that their participatory nature alone ensures quality outcomes. Evaluating both the process and the results helps identify possible weaknesses in the shared vision, providing insights for improving participation and generating knowledge for the following steps in the spatial planning process. WHY THIS This workbook encourages the systematic application of participatory methods in integrated landscape visioning using WORKBOOK the Geodesign framework. Geodesign is a conceptual and AND WHAT IS IT methodological framework that supports planners in organising ABOUT? and implementing the early and strategic phases of long-term planning in complex, multi-system, multi-stakeholder and conflict- prone contexts to reach a consensus (Steinitz, 2012). This approach leads to the co-creation of integrated landscape visions, improving the quality of planning practices and stakeholder relationships. The process combines sociological and spatial planning methods to bridge cooperation gaps through facilitated and informal spatial negotiations. Therefore, participants are enabled to form shared development goals and a comprehensive development vision by combining their proposals into scenarios and negotiating common strategic decisions. Such consultative, participatory and integrative processes have substantial educational benefits not only for participants but also for the broad public. They support participants in critically evaluating proposed development paths and related supportive actions. For the broad public, a clearly articulated landscape vision helps to build trust in planning institutions and lends legitimacy to the planning process. 5 NO UNDERSTAND STUDY A YES rform stud REy pe A maybe 1. STAKEHOLDER How should the area REPRESENTATION MODELS INPUT be described? FE REVIEW AND 2. DECISION How does the area PROCESS MODELS operate? E 3. DBA Is the area currently EVALUATION MODELS functioning well? 4. How might the area CHANGE MODELS be altered? CK 5. What differences might IMPACT MODELS the changes cause? How should the study 6. chan ge NO DECISION MODELS maybe sc YES area be changed?ale sp s ecify method DIAGRAM: The Geodesign framework workflow shows the iterative planning process structured around six key questions, guiding users from scoping through participatory workshops to implementation. (© Steinitz 2012, illustrated by Manca Krošelj) 6 WHY FOCUS ON In this workbook, the theme of energy transition planning serves as a demonstrative case for implementing integrated THE ENERGY landscape visioning. Energy transition is a complex and TRANSITION AT contemporary challenge that intersects with social, economic, THE REGIONAL political and spatial dimensions. Numerous European countries SCALE? strive to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy sources to meet climate targets and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. At the local level, renewable energy projects often face public opposition. For more effective project implementation, transparent site selection and early stakeholder involvement are needed, preferably at the regional level (Gailing and Röhring, 2016; Späth and Rohracher, 2010). Regional planning is suitable because it is specific enough to reflect the socio-economic and landscape context of the region and broad enough to incorporate diverse perspectives and tailor the process to regional circumstances. Therefore, the regional level is most appropriate for developing a strategic and integrated landscape vision. In many European countries, it also tends to be the weakest level in terms of governance and institutional infrastructure, but it can benefit most from effective planning tools. WHAT DOES This workbook addresses two primary and interconnected barriers to participatory and rational planning outcomes: the lack THE WORKBOOK of cross-sectoral collaboration among public authorities and OFFER, AND public resistance to renewable energy projects. WHO IS IT FOR? The workbook describes the steps and elements required to implement integrated landscape visioning. The process was developed and tested in four case studies with different contexts in Slovenia and Switzerland, all addressing the topic of energy transition at the regional planning level. The workbook follows the framework for Geodesign (Steinitz, 2012), which consists of six specific questions. Although it is presented as a linear sequence of steps, it is (and should be) performed in practice in a series of iterations and feedback loops. The instructions for facilitating a shared vision workshop are organised according to these steps. Chapter two presents the workshop preparation in which the first three questions of Geodesign are addressed: (1) How should the area be described? (2) How does the area operate? (3) Is the 7 area currently functioning well? Chapter three presents the workshop execution and answers the last three questions: (4) How might the area be altered? (5) What differences might the changes cause? (6) How should the study area be changed? Each question is described with the appropriate methods and tools. The planning team can choose one or more of these approaches or supplement them with other approaches. The workbook is intended for various users, primarily officials responsible for spatial planning at the local and regional levels, as well as those involved in sectoral planning (energy, transport, natural resources, nature conservation, etc.). It is also intended for civil society groups participating in planning processes, workshop facilitators and anyone interested in regional planning, energy transitions, policy evaluation or public participation in general. 8 1. How should the area be described? 2. How does the area operate? 3. Is the area currently functioning well? Spatial analysis WORKSHOP Analysis of policy documents PREPARATION Interviews with stakeholders Expert focus group ON 4. How might the area be altered? TI Visioning CREATING IDEAS Scenario creation CU 5. What differences might the changes cause? XE E Participatory evaluation – holistic approach _ EVALUATING IDEAS Participatory evaluation – segmental approach Expert assessment – impact model/GIS assisted OP 6. How should the study area be changed? SH Plenary discussion with all participants BUILDING CONSENSUS Negotiating in pairs of groups Voting as individuals WORK Exhibiting results WORKSHOP Workshop report FOLLOW-UP Backcasting Survey for participants DIAGRAM: Geodesign questions and the structure of the workbook. (©Tomaž Pipan, illustrated by Manca Krošelj) 9 2 WORKSHOP PREPARATION Workshop preparation deals with the first three Geodesign questions. 1. How should the area be described? This question aims to understand the area’s characteristics and context and includes defining the area and its boundaries based on the topic of the workshop. 2. How does the area operate? The answer to this question helps identify the area’s environmental, economic and social processes. It reveals the region’s dynamics and may highlight processes or stakeholder groups that need to be considered during the workshop. 3. Is the area currently functioning well? Based on the findings from the first two questions, this step involves evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the current state of the area. It may also uncover new issues that should be addressed in the workshop. Since stakeholders assess processes using different criteria, it is important to understand who is evaluating and by what standards. These questions are addressed during the preparatory phase by a team of experts based on spatial analysis, policy document review, interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders. The main features of these methods are described below. 10 PHOTO: Maps illustrating current spatial conditions (e.g. land use) establish a common starting point and focus for spatial discussion. (©Tadej Bevk) 11 WORKSHOP PREPARATION 2.1 Spatial analysis WHAT IS IT? Spatial analysis is a preparatory activity conducted by experts to describe and understand the physical, functional, organisational and other spatial characteristics of the area. It helps define the workshop’s focus area in relation to the problem being addressed. It identifies spatial patterns, critical zones and key dynamics, such as land use change, accessibility, ecological connectivity or development pressures. The goal is to provide a comprehensive and functional spatial basis for workshop discussions. HOW IS IT DONE? Spatial analysis combines field observations with office-based work and GIS software. Experts collect and analyse geospatial and statistical data to produce thematic maps and diagrams. Topics may include land use, infrastructure, water systems, ecological networks, planning regulations and spatial content of sectoral strategies (e.g. transport, energy and agriculture). Tools such as overlay maps, spatial statistics and visual synthesis are used to identify patterns and critical areas. Results are compiled into visual materials—mostly maps and infographics—that are also understandable to non-experts. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? GIS software, spatial data of appropriate thematic and spatial accuracy, statistical The results are used to define the spatial data, expert knowledge in spatial and regional focus/scope of the workshop and identify planning and, if needed, knowledge of specific critical issues and opportunities to ensure topics, such as groundwater or flood dynamics, that all participants begin the process with soils, biodiversity, etc. a shared knowledge base. The maps can be used as cues to facilitate the discussion. GIS TOOLS SPATIAL DATA STATISTICAL KNOWLEDGE DATA IN PLANNING 12 WORKSHOP PREPARATION PHOTO: With advanced spatial analysis, it is possible to demonstrate the dynamics of spatial processes, such as past changes in land use or spatial evaluation of attractiveness for different spatial activities. (©Tadej Bevk) 13 WORKSHOP PREPARATION 2.2 Analysis of policy documents WHAT IS IT? Policy analysis is a preparatory expert activity aimed at understanding the institutional and regulatory context of the area. It identifies existing planning frameworks, legal obligations, strategic goals and sectoral policies that influence spatial development. The purpose is to uncover objectives, constraints, opportunities and gaps that affect the governance of the area and decision-making. HOW IS IT DONE? Most of the work is done by desk research. Experts gather and review relevant national, regional and local documents, such as spatial plans, land use regulations, energy strategies, environmental protection laws, mobility and agricultural policies, climate adaptation and mitigation plans and existing policy evaluation. The analysis should be structured around research questions addressing the policy intervention logic, including implementation level, policy goals, inputs, expected results and target groups. Interviews with key policy actors can assist in interpreting goals and evaluating implementation (see also Section 2.3). In summary, it is important to assess how well current policies align—or conflict—with key workshop issues and how effectively they are implemented. WHAT IS NEEDED? Access to up-to-date policy and planning HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? documents, understanding of the institutional context and expertise in policy analysis. The findings help identify key stakeholders, inform and select participants, define workshop goals and tasks, clarify decision- making frameworks and serve as a basis for integrating workshop results into existing KNOWLEDGE OF THE policies and planning procedures. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT POLICY AND PLANNING DOCUMENTS EXPERIENCE 14 WORKSHOP PREPARATION 2.3 Interviews with stakeholders WHAT IS IT? Interviews are a commonly used tool to collect stakeholder opinions, especially from those directly involved in or affected by area development. These conversations help uncover local knowledge, priorities, concerns and perceptions that may not be apparent through spatial or policy document analysis. They also help identify actors to be included in the participatory process. HOW IS IT DONE? Key stakeholders are identified based on their role in the area, such as public officials, utility or infrastructure providers, local businesses representatives, civic initiatives, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) or landowners. Interviews are conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire with open-ended questions. These questions typically address local development, spatial management, stakeholder relations and expectations. Interviews may be conducted in person, online or by phone. Notes or recordings (with consent) are later analysed to identify recurring themes, conflicts or opportunities relevant to the workshop. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? A stakeholders list with contact information, an interview questionnaire (tailored to the planning The results provide thematic summaries of issue) and trained interviewers familiar with the local views on planning issues, stakeholder local context and workshop objectives. relationships and trust, policy implementation, identified conflicts and potential opportunities. These insights help structure and guide the workshop, inform participants INTERVIEW beforehand, support balanced representation GUIDE and inclusion and enable more effective use of workshop outputs. They can also STAKEHOLDER help expand the scope of issues addressed LIST during the workshop and ensure a more comprehensive discussion. TRAINED INTERVIEWERS 15 2 WORKSHOP PREPARATION 2.4 Expert focus group WHAT IS IT? An expert focus group brings together a small group of professionals and specialists to reflect on the planning problem, guide the workshop focus, define objectives or assess specific aspects of the process. Unlike public-oriented focus groups, this format serves as an expert review or advisory panel that supports the design of the participatory process. HOW IS IT DONE? Experts are selected based on their roles and professional knowledge of topics relevant to the workshop, such as energy, spatial planning, landscape, mobility, environment or governance. A facilitated session is held in person or online, structured around the following key questions: Is the problem correctly defined? Are the workshop goals clear and achievable? Have important issues, dynamics or stakeholders been overlooked? The session may consist of a single in-depth meeting or a series of shorter consultations. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? An agenda, prepared questions or discussion topics and a trained facilitator to lead the The results provide expert validation of the expert discussion. Supporting materials such proposed workshop process, highlight risks as concepts, diagrams or summaries of reports and opportunities, refine the workshop scope help focus attention. For later analysis, recording and help identify participants and potential the session or taking detailed notes is advisable. advisors for later stages. They may be shared as background material for participants or serve the project team in clarifying complex topics. AGENDA FACILITATOR WITH Q OR T SUPPORTING AUDIO RECORDING MATERIALS OR NOTE-TAKING 16 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3 PHOTO: A facilitator presents the workshop agenda and goals, helping the participants understand the process, tools and expectations to ensure a productive and engaging session. (© Tomaž Pipan) 3.1 WARM-UP Personal or professional barriers could hinder participants’ willingness to engage and affect workshop outcomes. This is especially true when individuals are unaccustomed to participatory methods or represent an institution. Performing some preparatory steps can promote more open participation and lead to more reliable and honest contributions. Their aim is to familiarise participants with the workshop topic and create a comfortable environment with a positive and productive atmosphere. An introductory presentation should clearly describe the workshop process, its purpose, goals and methodological approach. Activities such as drawing or computer-based tasks must be explained in advance, along with the timing of each workshop step, to ensure that the results are aligned with the workshop objectives. In addition to the introductory presentation, one or more of the following warm-up methods may be used to support engagement, focus and a more relaxed working atmosphere. 17 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.1.1 Three horizons WHAT IS IT? The Three Horizons framework (Sharpe, 2020) is a structured tool that encourages future-oriented thinking. It invites participants to reflect on the present situation (Horizon 1), emerging signs of transition (Horizon 2) and long-term aspirations (Horizon 3). Most people find it difficult to envision change in 25 or 3 more years into the future. This method grounds the conversation in the present while gradually guiding participants towards transformative ideas. It also helps reveal participants’ values, shared concerns and ideas for change. HOW IS IT DONE? Participants use a large printed poster that is divided into three horizons. Individually or in small groups, they write their observations and ideas on sticky notes, starting with the characteristics that define the area today, followed by visible trends or changes and, finally, imagining a desirable future. Brief facilitated discussions after each phase help highlight patterns or differences. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? A printed Three Horizons poster, sticky notes, pens and a workspace where participants can This activity primarily serves to introduce gather, discuss and present their contributions. the topic and build mutual trust among the participants. The results also reveal perceptions, priorities and overlooked issues that can enrich the group work in later stages, such as visioning or scenario development. THREE HORIZONS STICKY The poster serves as a visual record of collective thinking and may be revisited to NOTES CANVAS evaluate workshop progress and outcomes. SPACE FOR PENS PARTICIPANTS 18 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3 PHOTO: Visualisation of the Three Horizons framework helps participants reflect on present challenges, emerging changes and long-term aspirations to guide future-oriented thinking. (© Maja Debevec) 19 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.1.2 Role playing WHAT IS IT? Role playing is a structured exercise that helps participants explore different perspectives related to development and spatial planning. Participants gain insights into diverse priorities, constraints and values by taking on the roles of other stakeholders, such as residents, planners, energy companies, NGOs or even 3 future generations. The method encourages empathy, reveals potential areas of conflict or support and highlights concerns that might otherwise remain unspoken, especially those of underrepresented groups. HOW IS IT DONE? Each participant or group is assigned a stakeholder role, along with a brief description of their interests and responsibilities. Participants then respond to a proposed development or future scenario from the perspective of that role, highlighting the perceived benefits, risks, concerns and conditions for support. These reflections are then shared in a group discussion, with a facilitator recording key points on flip charts or a shared board. This creates space for dialogue on overlaps, divergences and alliances. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? Role description cards, flip charts or note sheets, markers and a starting topic (e.g. a scenario or Role playing promotes a shared understand- proposal illustrated with maps or images). ing and prepares participants for collaborative A skilled facilitator to lead the process. activities in subsequent steps. It also reveals perceptions, priorities and blind spots that can inform the development of visions or scenarios. SHS CARDS, SCENARIO FLIPCHARTS OR LARGE SHEETS PENS FACILITATOR 20 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.2 CREATING IDEAS Idea generation addresses the fourth central Geodesign question: How might the study area be altered? This question focuses on potential future changes by developing multiple visions or scenarios. The emphasis is on possibilities; the aim is to generate a variety of alternative ideas for the future. These ideas should reflect diverse values and perspectives on spatial development. Therefore, this step should be one of the core steps of the workshop, offering participants the opportunity to explore and propose alternative ideas. The process requires teamwork in which participants exchange ideas and gradually converge towards a predefined goal. Two approaches can be used: more open approaches (visioning) and more structured approaches (scenario development), which can be applied separately or sequentially. Role playing may also be integrated, with stakeholders acting out assigned roles (e.g. investor, resident, policymaker, environmentalist and NGO representative) and contributing to developing shared ideas. 21 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.2.1 Visioning WHAT IS IT? Group visions are collaboratively developed in small groups to encourage a broad spectrum of creative proposals. The main technique is brainstorming, a creative and imaginative work through which participants identify key spatial priorities and challenges. Participants use hand-drawing techniques, 3 which serve as thinking tools and support the dialogue between the inner imagination and external representation. This method promotes experiential engagement and is simple and accessible. It helps align participant thinking and builds trust and content for more concrete next steps. HOW IS IT DONE? Participants are divided into small groups of 3–6 people. Each group receives clear guidance on their topic (e.g. spatial aspects of the energy transition). Through structured discussion, group members contribute ideas that are then drawn on a shared map. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? A large printed map of the area (format A1 or A0) that allows multiple participants to draw simultaneously. Colourful pencils facilitate a vision map showing the proposed future The outcome of the group work is a creative visioning process. Clear instructions and the facilitator’s support help maintain focus and vision maps serve as the basis for further development of the area. These groups’ alignment throughout the exercise. discussion and the formation of a shared vision. The results also help identify common goals or disagreements among the different visions. COLORFUL QUIDING PENCILS QUESTIONS MAP OF THE AREA (A1 OR A0 FORMAT) 22 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 2 3 PHOTO: Participants collaborate in small groups to hand-draw their visions, using creative brainstorming to identify spatial priorities and challenges. (© Gina Held) 23 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.2.2 Scenario creation WHAT IS IT? While visioning is open-ended and concept-driven, scenario development is more goal oriented. The primary objective of scenario creation is to develop and visualise several possible development paths for the area, usually including one that represents a continuation of current trends. Other scenarios have 3 a clearly defined objective as a reference, for example, identifying space for 50 hectares of solar power plants. Scenarios illustrate where and what specific land-use changes might occur and their potential impacts. HOW IS IT DONE? Participants are divided into groups, each selecting a ‘logic’ or guiding idea for its scenario. Group members negotiate a set of proposed projects and their spatial distribution. They identify problems and discuss the changes needed to achieve the shared scenario. The process may go through several iterations. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? Scenario development can be conducted in require a printed map large enough for and possibly a written summary or short participants to gather around (typically A2 to A0) presentation. These scenarios are then analogue or digital forms. Analogue sessions Each group produces a scenario map and drawing tools, such as coloured markers assessed and compared in the next workshop and crayons. Topographic and thematic maps phase, leading to the integration of ideas into should also be printed for reference. For digital a shared solution. sessions, software (e.g. Geodesign Hub) with thematic maps is required. Each group should have at least one computer for creating project proposals and developing strategies. DRAWING MAP OF THE AREA UTENSILS (A2 TO A0 FORMAT) 24 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 2 3 PHOTO: Participants collaborate to create spatial scenarios, using maps and digital tools to explore concrete land-use changes and negotiate towards shared development goals. (© Tadej Bevk) 25 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.3 EVALUATING IDEAS Once the initial visions or scenarios have been developed, they must be presented to all workshop participants and evaluated. This is a key step that sets the stage for subsequent negotiations. It enables each participant to understand the range of potential solutions and how they may affect their own vision. This step addresses the following Geodesign question: What differences might the changes cause? Each idea must be assessed in terms of its impact on the processes and characteristics of the area. The exchange of viewpoints is a critical part of collaborative group work. By confronting different positions, participants can identify themes for the following steps and thus continue the negotiation process. 26 WORKSHOP EXECUTION PHOTO: Scenarios are presented for evaluation, encouraging participants to exchange perspectives and assess the potential impacts of the proposed changes, which will guide the negotiation and decision-making process. (© Tomaž Pipan) 27 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.3.1 Participatory evaluation – holistic approach WHAT IS IT? The aim of holistic evaluation is to assess each group’s idea—whether a vision or a scenario—as a whole. 3 The evaluation focuses on the level of alignment or misalignment between different ideas. This helps to identify a basis for negotiation towards a final shared vision. HOW IS IT DONE? Each group presents its idea. The other groups then assess how well that idea aligns with their own. Evaluations are recorded in a matrix that shows the influence of idea A on idea B (and vice versa). The evaluation uses a scale of mutual impact: very negative (--), negative (-), positive (+) and very positive (++). WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? Completed group scenarios or visions from the first round and their presentations, as well Once the matrix is filled out, it serves as the as a board or surface to display and fill in the basis for negotiation. The process can start evaluation matrix. by pairing the most divergent or compatible ideas. Groups are then guided into the next negotiation phase (see 3.4 Building Consensus). GROUP SCENARIOS AND PRESENTATION DISPLAY BOARD WITH MATRIX 28 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3 PHOTO: The presenter explains to the group the evaluation process—that is, how each idea will be assessed for its alignment with and impact on other ideas. (© Maja Debevec) 29 2 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.3.2 Participatory evaluation – segmental approach WHAT IS IT? Each group presents its idea (vision or scenario) to the others. The focus is not on the idea as a whole but 3 on its individual components or elements. After a brief presentation, participants evaluate each element separately. This allows the participants to express their support for specific elements of an idea (e.g. a project, spatial change or programme), even if they do not agree with the idea (vision/scenario) in its entirety. HOW IS IT DONE? Participants evaluate individual project elements by placing coloured stickers on the displayed maps. Each participant receives green stickers to highlight elements they agree with and red stickers to indicate elements they do not support. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? Completed and presented ideas and a sufficient number of two types of coloured stickers (for positive and negative feedback), with further discussion and consolidation of The evaluation serves as a foundation for each participant receiving the same number of stickers per colour. The number of each (green) stickers become the basis for ideas. Elements that receive more positive colour of stickers per participant should be predetermined. in the final shared solution. Elements that agreement and are prioritised for inclusion receive mostly negative (red) stickers are likely to be excluded or at least difficult to include. Elements receiving a balanced number of positive and negative stickers PRESENTED IDEAS COMPLETED AND COLOURED the next discussion phase (see 3.4 Reaching 2 TYPES OF signal conflict and should be the focus of STICKERS Consensus). 30 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 2 3 PHOTO: The maps display two ideas in which the individual elements of each group’s vision are evaluated. Green and red stickers indicate the aspects participants support or oppose for inclusion in the joined vision. (© Tomaž Pipan) 31 2 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.3.3 Expert assessment – impact model/GIS assisted WHAT IS IT? A data-driven evaluation of proposals and ideas can also be performed using GIS tools or other evaluation models. These models spatially depict the anticipated impacts of a set of proposed changes (suitability 3 maps), making it possible to overlay them with ideas generated during the workshop. This type of evaluation requires that participants’ ideas be spatially defined, as it is performed as a map overlay analysis. HOW IS IT DONE? Expert evaluation models and maps must be prepared before the workshop. Different types of interventions will produce different impacts, so it is important to anticipate in advance which kinds of ideas are likely to be proposed at the workshop. In addition to identifying spatial interventions, the model must define spatial qualities that are likely to be affected by the interventions and the criteria for measuring impact intensity. The impacts must be presented to the participants transparently and understandably. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? An interactive or printed map of potential impacts that can be overlaid with participants’ If well designed, impact maps and evaluation ideas or a pre-built model that can simulate models can provide a reliable impact impacts using the participants’ input. The latter assessment and serve as an objective requires ideas to be in digital form. and systematic way of comparing ideas with reference to their impact on different objectives of the public interest. These results are used as a basis for the discussion in the next step. A key advantage of this method is that it is independent of participants; thus, they do not feel the burden of ‘criticising’ PRINTED MAP others’ ideas. INTERACTIVE MAP/ OVERLAYED WITH MODEL RUNNED IDEAS WITH IDEAS 32 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 2 3 PHOTO: Expert assessments and impact models are a quick way to provide feedback about the proposals and expose trade-offs and benefits. These models may take more effort to set up, but they also provide tangible information in the workshop to shape the scenarios. 33 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.4 BUILDING CONSENSUS The final step of the workshop addresses the following question: How should the study area be changed? This step invites participants to reflect on the presented ideas and scenarios and to identify ways to recognise and resolve conflicts through negotiation. It includes a discussion of potential impacts (derived from the previous step) and their significance for various stakeholders. The goal is to build on agreements and synergies between scenarios and resolve tensions through dialogue, ultimately making consensual decisions about the area’s future development. In cases in which views and interests are highly divergent, reaching a consensus can be a challenge. This phase often involves multiple iterations, as new ideas may emerge during negotiations. Facilitators must ensure that the participants not only confirm agreed-upon ideas but also actively deal with tensions and disagreements. The evaluation results from the previous step can be used as a checklist of issues that need to be addressed. 34 WORKSHOP EXECUTION PHOTO: The future development of the area is shaped through a dialogue in which stakeholders co-create a shared spatial vision through discussion, exploration of alternatives and conflict resolution. (© Tomaž Pipan) 35 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.4.1 Plenary discussion with all participants WHAT IS IT? A group discussion aims to consolidate all developed ideas (or their elements) into a single shared vision jointly adopted by the participants. It builds upon previous steps in which ideas were developed and evaluated, either in full or by individual components. The discussion requires a skilled facilitator, a high 3 degree of patience and mutual understanding. It works especially well in smaller groups and when the evaluation step reveals only a few major disagreements or fewer divergent ideas. HOW IS IT DONE? All participants collectively discuss the proposed solutions. Elements or ideas that received the most positive feedback are typically prioritised for inclusion in the final vision or scenario. During the discussion, an illustrator or GIS expert creates a map in real time, visually representing the agreed-upon elements. Any elements lacking consensus are excluded from the final version. This creates a vision or scenario that has reached a consensus. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? A plenary setup of space that allows This is the final result of the workshop and participants equal participation, a projector, represents a coordinated agreement on the evaluation results of ideas or their components, area’s future. Spatial planning professionals a map of the area, an illustrator or GIS specialist can use this output in subsequent planning skilled in real-time drawing or mapping and a procedures, and the materials can also be trained facilitator. used to inform other interested stakeholders and the public about the outcomes. PLENARY SETUP PROJECTOR EFFECTIVE EVALUATION MODERATION AND MAP ILLUSTRATOR OF IDEAS LEADERSHIP 36 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 2 3 PHOTO: A collaborative group discussion is held to integrate the prioritised ideas into a final vision, with an illustrator capturing the evolving consensus in real time, ensuring a shared outcome. (© Yuri Schmid) PHOTO: The illustrator captures feedback from participants based on the green and red stickers on the presented maps, identifying the elements of support and areas of conflict for further discussion. (© Gina Held) 37 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.4.2 Negotiating in pairs of groups WHAT IS IT? This approach allows for the gradual development of a shared solution through negotiations between pairs of groups (or individuals if the group is small). Negotiations may concern complete ideas or specific components. Pairs are formed based on the evaluation of ideas (Section 3.3). Each pair sits together and discusses both proposals, aiming to merge them into a consensual solution. Each group is expected to take at least one step 3 towards the other group (the so-called ‘minimal compromise’). In search of a shared solution, this process may be repeated over several rounds. When the first pairs conclude their negotiation, new pairs are formed from the resulting proposal for the next negotiation round. The process continues until a final agreement is reached. The initial pairs of groups can be made according to similarities (convergence approach) or differences (divergence approach). If similar groups are paired first, unresolved conflicts will accumulate in the final round. If divergent groups are paired early on, conflicts are distributed across negotiation rounds, which may lead to more innovative solutions. This approach is practical when many conflicting ideas need to be resolved. The final round of negotiations often resembles a group discussion (Section 3.4.1). HOW IS IT DONE? Negotiation requires at least two groups with pre-evaluated ideas or their elements. The negotiating groups jointly review both proposals and their evaluations and agree on which elements to include, exclude or modify to develop a unified idea. A negotiation can be conducted in an analogue or digital manner. WHAT IS NEEDED? Negotiation requires at least two evaluated ideas HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? sketching or drawing in real time, a printed map Each negotiation round produces partial agreements that are progressively merged into or their elements, one skilled illustrator per pair for GIS expert, a computer and a large screen for the a final solution or identifies issues needing further discussion. The final round yields the and drawing tools for the analogue version, or a digital version. workshop’s agreed-upon outcome: a common vision for the area’s future. The shared vision can be used in future planning procedures and to inform other interested stakeholders and the AT LEAST public. COMPUTER 2 IDEAS WITH EVALUATION LARGE SCREEN FACILITATOR 38 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 2 3 PHOTO: Groups are paired based on previous evaluations to negotiate and merge their ideas into a shared solution, continuing in rounds until a final consensus is reached. (© Tomaž Pipan) 39 WORKSHOP EXECUTION 3.4.3 Voting as individuals WHAT IS IT? Despite all the steps aimed at reaching a consensus, some interests may remain irreconcilable. If a compromise or consensus cannot be achieved among stakeholders, voting is used as a last resort to resolve spatial conflicts. This option is applied only when all other collaborative approaches have failed 3 and a unified decision is necessary to advance the negotiation process further. HOW IS IT DONE? Voting can be anonymous (e.g. paper ballots or digital tools, such as Mentimeter) or public (e.g. by raising hands), depending on the sensitivity of the topic and the roles of the participants. Regardless of the method chosen, the process must be transparent. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? Voting rules, ballots or digital voting software, and a facilitator responsible for counting and Voting provides a ‘forced’ decision- validating the votes. making mechanism when a consensus is unattainable, allowing the negotiation and planning process to continue. The voting results should be published alongside the final outcome to show the degree of agreement or disagreement among the ANALOGUE OR stakeholders. DIGITAL VOTING PLATFORM 40 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP The outputs of co-creating a shared vision—maps, scenarios and spatial ideas— should not remain confined to the event itself. This final chapter addresses how workshop outcomes can be shared with a broader circle of stakeholders for reflection and possible implementation. The activities described here are not part of the formal Geodesign framework but serve as complementary measures to ensure the long-term and broader impact of the process. Together, they contribute to a sense of ownership and continuity. They provide participants with feedback and open new channels for dialogue, visibility, learning and future collaboration. 4 41 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP 4.1 Exhibiting results WHAT IS IT? Effective communication involves presenting the outcomes of the co-creation workshop to both participants and the general public. The documented workshop process and final results can be showcased in physical or digital formats. HOW IS IT DONE? The results can be presented in printed form at a physical exhibition, which may be accompanied by a public discussion or presentation for interested audiences. Feedback can be collected at the event. For a digital exhibition, a dedicated platform may be used to display the process and vision, gather feedback and reach those unable to attend in person. The exhibition and related project activities should be supported by various communication channels and links (e.g. QR codes) and shared via social media and local media. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? For a physical exhibition: venue and printed materials. For a digital exhibition: an online The exhibition informs the interested public platform to present content and gather feedback about the workshop results and presents using available digital tools. the co-created vision. It also provides an opportunity to collect feedback and opinions from the public on the final vision and its potential implementation. EXHIBITION PRINTED 4 SPACE MATERIALS DIGITAL PLATFORM FOR PRESENTING CONTENT 42 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP 2 4 PHOTO: This digital exhibition presents the co-creative visioning workshop’s results, showcasing the process and final outputs, while also providing a platform for feedback and wider public engagement. (Webpage screen capture image © Balz Schlegel) 43 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP 4.2 Workshop report WHAT IS IT? The workshop report serves two main purposes: (1) to document the entire process and (2) to present a synthesised proposal and assess how effectively the workshop addressed the core questions. Dissemination of the report ensures that the results reach a wide range of stakeholders and the public and that all contributions to the process are acknowledged. HOW IS IT DONE? A full report and its summary are prepared and sent to all workshop participants, along with a thank-you note. The message should include information about possible next steps and opportunities for continued involvement. Multiple report versions may be prepared depending on the target audience (e.g. funders, national or international professionals, general public). Emphasis should be placed on clarity, visual appeal and readability for non-technical audiences. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? Materials must be collected throughout the workshop (e.g. interim outputs, notes, survey results and photos). In the end, the materials their contributions are valued and keeps them Sharing feedback shows participants that are compiled into a report using appropriate text and graphic design tools. results. This demonstrates professionalism informed about the project’s progress and and appreciation for their time and effort. Planning professionals and policymakers can also use the report as an input for preparing spatial documents (e.g. strategies, programmes and plans). Dissemination can 4 serve as a promotional and educational tool in professional and public media to promote CABINET WORK good participatory practices. 44 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP Bezirk Affoltern Dienstag, 13. Juni 2023 5 «Aus der Kontroverse entstehen neue Ideen» Workshop der Standortförderung im Rahmen eines WSL-Forschungsprojekts Die Standortförderung beteiligt sich an Sternen befinden, etwa die Vorstellung einem Projekt der Eidgenössischen For- von Gemeindefusionen oder einer Slow- schungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Motion U-Bahn, die überall Ein- und Landschaft, WSL, unter dem Titel «Ener- Aussteigen zulässt. Dies ist ein Beispiel giewende durch integrierte regionale einer durchaus kontrovers aufgenom- Entwicklung». Dazu hat Ende Mai ein menen Vision, doch aus der Kontroverse Workshop stattgefunden, dessen Ergeb- können neue Ideen entstehen. nisse nun auf einer digitalen Ausstel- Neu ist die Dimension, den Touris- lung nachvollzogen werden können. Der mus verstärkt anzuschauen, einge- «Anzeiger» hat dazu ein Gespräch mit bracht worden. Bestätigt hat der Work- den Verantwortlichen geführt. shop die Arbeit in den Bereichen Energie und Natur. Unbestrittenes Ziel ist eine «Anzeiger»: Beginnen wir mit dem Projekt verstärkte Zusammenarbeit der Gemein- der WSL, an dem sich die Standortförde- den. Wenig kontrovers war auch, dass rung Knonauer Amt beteiligt: Welche Ziel- der Innovations-, Bildungs- und For- setzung verfolgt es? schungsstandort Knonauer Amt ge- Matthias Buchecker: Wir wollen die stärkt werden soll. Eine konkrete Frage Energiewende durch gemeinsame Visio- war: Könnte man nicht etwas machen nen der regionalen Landschafts- und Mit der spontan gezeichneten Visualisierung vor Augen liessen sich Visionen konkretisieren. (Bild Yuri Schmid) am Standort von Obi? Die Antwort dar- Raumentwicklung fördern. Mit Unter- auf ist nicht einfach, denn die Region stützung des Nationalfonds und der sehr hoher Wert, der bestätigt, dass wir Vrhovac: Es geht darum, lebenswer- individuelle Wünsche an die Zukunfts- hat keinen verbindlichen Einfluss dar- Slowenischen Forschungs-Akademie die Region zu Recht ausgewählt haben. te Räume zu entwickeln. Eine Diskre- entwicklung. In der zweiten Phase fand auf, doch gerade deshalb ist die Frage untersuchen wir in der Schweiz und in panz zwischen den Wünschen der Be- ein Austausch dieser Anliegen in den sehr spannend. Slowenien je zwei unterschiedliche Re- Welche Motivation führte zur Beteiligung völkerung und den Absichten der Pla- Gruppen statt. Abschliessend präsentier- Buchecker: Auch für uns war der gionen, um zum Abschluss der Studie der Standortförderung? nung ist unübersehbar. In diesem Visio- ten die Gruppen im Plenum ihre soeben Workshop sehr wertvoll. Wir konnten eine Handlungsanleitung mit Empfeh- Johannes Bartels: Mich interessieren nierungsworkshop wollten wir in Kom- erarbeiteten Vorstellungen und Visio- bereits konkrete methodische Erkennt- lungen für Regionen vorlegen zu kön- weniger die theoretischen Erkenntnisse bination mit der Befragung herausfin- nen. Der Illustrator setzte alles spontan nisse gewinnen. nen. In der Schweiz haben wir neben der Studie als der praktische Nutzen für den, was die Bevölkerung sich für die zeichnerisch um und unterstützte so dem Knonauer Amt die Region Albula die Energieregion Knonauer Amt. Ver- regionale Entwicklung und Energiever- die Erarbeitung einer gemeinsamen Welches sind die nächsten Schritte? ausgewählt. In allen Regionen werden schiedene Regionen im Kanton Zürich sorgung wünscht. Während acht Stun- Vision. Bartels: Wir müssen nun die Ideen, Visionierungsprozesse durchgeführt, wie Schlieren, die Flughafenregion oder den haben knapp 50 Teilnehmende aus die formuliert und gezeichnet wurden, die durch Befragungen vor- und nach Dübendorf, aber auch Zug, haben sich allen Bereichen der Bevölkerung in neun Hat der Workshop die Erwartungen darauf abklopfen, was realistisch und den Interventionen evaluiert werden. bereits als Innovationsstandorte positio- Gruppen intensiv gearbeitet. Ein Illust- erfüllt? sinnvoll ist. Anschliessend werden wir Božana Vrhovac: Im Knonauer Amt niert. Wir müssen uns unsere eigene rator hat geholfen, das ganze greifbar Bartels: Wir sind mit dieser Methode Massnahmen definieren und priorisie- wurde im April 2023 die Vorbefragung Positionierung überlegen. Dieser strate- zu machen. Diese Visionierung schafft erstaunlich weit gekommen. Während ren. Finanziell werden wir dabei von der verschickt, und fast ein Viertel der etwa gischen Herausforderung dient die Teil- eine hervorragende Grundlage, auch verbale Visionen in den Wolken bleiben kantonalen Standortförderung unter- 3000 angeschriebenen Personen haben nahme am Projekt. bezüglich der Kontroversen, die selbst- können, muss man sie auf der Karte auf stützt. Dies unterstreicht, dass unser den Fragebogen beantwortet. Dies ist ein verständlich, wie in jedem demokrati- den Punkt bringen. Die inhaltlichen Er- Wille, eine Vorbildregion zu sein, auch Wo steht die Region in diesem Prozess? schen Prozess, bestehen. gebnisse haben die allgemeine Stossrich- ausserhalb unseres Bezirks auf Anerken- Zweiter Workshop im November Bartels: Vor zwanzig Jahren provo- Buchecker: Wir teilten den Work- tung der Standortförderung bestätigt. nung stösst. zierte die Autobahnplanung durch das shop in drei Teile ein. Zuerst formulier- Wir haben nun viele Ideen, auch solche, Am Gespräch beteiligten sich: Jo- Säuliamt die Frage: Was macht die Auto- ten die Teilnehmenden spontane, die sich – gelinde gesagt – noch in den Interview: Bernhard Schneider hannes Bartels, Geschäftsleiter bahn mit unserer Region und was wol- ANZEIGE Standortförderung Knonauer Amt; len eigentlich wir? Daraufhin wurde Matthias Buchecker, Senior Scientist 2003 erstmalig ein regionales Leitbild Forschungseinheit Wirtschafts- und entwickelt, woraus die heutige Stand- ekz-zugerland.ch Sozialwissenschaften der eidg. For- ortförderung entstanden ist. Heute for- schungsanstalt WSL, Projektleiter; dert uns unter anderem die Energiewen- Božana Vrhovac, Doktorandin ETH, de heraus. Bis heute ist das Knonauer Raumplanung, Stadtplanung und Amt trotz A4 ländlich-idyllisch geblie- Räumliche Entwicklung, Projektmit- ben, gleichzeitig innovativ, eine stark arbeiterin. Die Ergebnisse des Work- wachsende Wohnregion und rangiert shops werden präsentiert auf schweizweit unter den top-twenty Wirt- Sale https://vision2050ka.ch. Im Novem- schaftsregionen. ber wird die Arbeit im Rahmen eines zweiten Workshops fortgeführt. (red) Welche Funktion erfüllte in diesem Rahmen der Visionierungsworkshop in Affoltern? Jetzt shoppen und sparen! PHOTO: Das visuelle Ergebnis des Workshops: Eine Zeichnung, in der alle Ideen bunt The report shows the co-creative process and summarises the outcomes of shared visions. (© Maja Debevec) A local newspaper clipping shows how the visions from the workshop were presented to the wider public as a visual and nebeneinander Aufnahme gefunden haben. (Illustration Balz Schlegel) accessible narrative of shared ideas. (Affolter Anzeiger, 13. 6. 2023) 45 2 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP 4.3 Backcasting WHAT IS IT? An action plan outlines the steps (interim results) and measures needed to realise a vision or scenario within a defined timeframe. HOW IS IT DONE? Backcasting is a structured approach that creates a plan to achieve an already defined shared vision or scenario by moving backwards from the goal (vison, scenario) to the present and identifying the intermediate steps and actions required. A separate workshop is organised after the vision or scenario is completed. Individual elements (e.g. rooftop solar panels) are treated as implementable projects. The backcasting process then defines, step by step, the necessary actions, responsible stakeholders, resources and timeline for implementing these projects. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? Scenarios are usually more structured and easier to use as a basis for backcasting. The The action plan can be partially or fully visions may need to be reformulated to make integrated into local planning documents them suitable for implementation. A table (e.g. regional or municipal spatial plans) should be prepared listing the projects in or other sectoral strategies. This makes it rows and the implementation plan elements easier to identify the necessary actors and to in columns, depending on the level of detail define follow-up measures. and the intended outcome (e.g. planning, financial, administrative, organisational actions, responsible parties, time and cost estimates). 4 STRUCTURED FACILITATOR CANVAS 46 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP 2 PHOTO: A participant sketches a backcasting plan outlining the step-by-step actions needed to transform elements of the shared vision into actual projects. (© Yuri Schmid) 4 47 2 WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP 4.4 Survey for participants WHAT IS IT? A survey collects feedback from participants about the workshop. It helps planners understand how the co-creation process affected the participants’ views on participatory methods, perceptions of others’ interests and the development of a shared vision. HOW IS IT DONE? Participants fill out a questionnaire before and after the workshop. Using some of the same questions in both surveys allows for the assessment of how the workshop influenced participants’ attitudes. These questions may address views on participatory processes or development and conservation priorities in the area. After the workshop, the participants are also asked to what extent they agree with the final result, how well their ideas were incorporated and whether their understanding of spatial issues and other stakeholders’ interests has improved. WHAT IS NEEDED? HOW TO USE THE RESULTS? Prepared questionnaires for the pre- and post- workshop surveys. Survey results should be shared with participants, either in writing or at an informational event. The feedback can help improve the design of future participatory processes and enhance the credibility of the results. BEFORE WORKSHOP AFTER WORKSHOP SURVEY SURVEY 4 48 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS Successfully organising a participatory visioning process depends not only on the methods used but also on a wide range of practical decisions that ensure inclusiveness, smooth facilitation and meaningful results. One key factor is the choice of tools. These should reflect the workshop’s goals and the participants’ capabilities. All tools should enable equal participation and should not favour one group over another. If digital tools are used, it is advisable to include technical support staff to ensure that all participants can engage equally. In this case, additional guidance or demonstration may be required. In analogue formats, an illustrator or visual artist can be included in the process to visually capture interim and final ideas. Engaging a diverse group of stakeholders—from institutional representatives to members of local communities—is essential for the legitimacy and relevance of the participatory process. Stakeholder availability must be taken into account. Some, particularly those with personal interests, may be willing to invest more time. Civil servants, however, may be constrained by other duties. Workshop organisers should also be mindful of the so-called ‘participation fatigue’ and consider consolidating activities to minimise repetitive engagement. Clearly communicating the benefits of participation is critical to maintaining high levels of motivation. A well-structured workshop agenda is key to this effort. Preparing a detailed protocol—including schedules, expected outputs and assigned responsibilities—ensures a smooth process. Informing stakeholders in advance with a clear agenda helps align expectations and encourages effective engagement. The programme should also include enough time for breaks and informal interaction, which will help to create a more relaxed and collaborative atmosphere. Workshops also entail financial costs. Budgeting must account for event logistics (venue, equipment), materials, facilitation, refreshments, communication and possible external consultants. Organisers should also consider the indirect costs that participants bear, such as travel expenses or time away from work. An 49 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS important but often overlooked aspect is catering, which influences participants’ focus and satisfaction, making it a practical and symbolic investment in the event’s success. The choice of venue plays an important role in promoting creative and collaborative work. The space should be sufficiently large, accessible and well- equipped, offering areas for both group work and informal socialising. Public buildings, such as municipal halls, can reduce costs and encourage local participation. Lastly, well-trained facilitators are crucial for guiding participants through the process. If the workshop involves more than 15 participants or addresses contentious topics, including an external facilitator is recommended to ensure effective facilitation. (© Gina Held) 50 Literature BUCHECKER, M., FANKHAUSER, M. AND GAUS, R. (2023) ‘Finding shared solutions in integrated landscape or natural resource management through social learning: A quasi-experimental evaluation in an Alpine region’, Landscape Ecology 38, 4117– 4137 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01274-y GAILING, L. AND A. RÖHRING. (2016) ‘Is it all about collaborative governance? Alternative ways of understanding the success of energy regions’, Utilities Policy, 41(August), pp. 237–45. HABERMAS, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Vol. 1/2. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. SHARPE, B. (2013) Three Horizons: The Patterning of Hope. Devon: Triarchy Press. SPÄTH, P. AND ROHRACHER, H. (2010) ‘Energy regions: the transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures’, Research Policy, Special Section on Innovation and Sustainability Transitions, 39(4), pp. 449–58. STEINITZ, C. (2012) A framework for geodesign. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press. 51 Colophon CREATING A SHARED VISION WOORKBOOK FOR INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE VISIONING AUTHORS: Tadej Bevk, Tomaž Pipan, Maja Debevec and Mojca Golobič (Univerza v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta), Božana Vrhovac and Matthias Buchecker (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research) PROOFREADING: Leah Constance Castaño GRAPHIC DESIGN: Manca Krošelj PUBLISHING: University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Landscape Architecture PROJECT: Fostering energy transition through integrated landscape visioning: Social learning in different regional institutional contexts PROJECT PARTNERS: University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty and Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL PROJECT DURATION: 1. 12. 2021–30. 11. 2024 FUNDING: This publication is a result of the bilateral project ‘Fostering energy transition through integrated landscape visioning: Social learning in different regional institutional contexts’, funded by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) under project number J7-3157 and the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) under Grant 100019E_203670/1. The publication’s preparation and publishing were cofounded by the Research Programme Landscape as a living environment (P4-0009), supported by ARIS. LJUBLJANA, OCTOBER 2025 DIGITAL COPY PUBLICATION IS AVAILABLE AT: repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=174255 Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID 251049731 ISBN 978-961-6833-26-4 (PDF) CREATING A SHARED VISION. WORKBOOK FOR INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE VISIONING. This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike-4.0 International licence. University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty. This workbook aims to enhance the use of Integrated Landscape Visioning as participatory planning approach by introducing a systematic approach called Geodesign. Integrated Landscape Visioning is a co-creative process that aims to create visions for spatial plans, leading to improved planning practices and stakeholder relationships. Integrated Landscape Visioning combines sociological and spatial planning methods to overcome the lack of cooperation among different actors and stakeholders. Spatial cohesion and balanced, sustainable development are reached through the moderated process of informal spatial negotiation. The participants are guided to form ideas about spatial development objectives/goals in their area into a comprehensive development vision by forming different proposals and scenarios and negotiating joint strategic decisions. Integrated Landscape Visioning has been found to have considerable learning effects, not just for the participants, but also for the public that has been informed about the outcome. It helps participants to reflect about desired developments and potential actions to support these developments. Thus, Integrated Landscape Visioning enhances residents’ trust in planning institutions and helps legitimise planning. Geodesign is a conceptual and methodological framework that helps planners to organize and conduct the very beginning and strategic stages of designing for longer-term change in a large, multi-system, multi-client and contentious context where the goal is concurrence and agreement (Steinitz, 2012).