The third iteration implements the methods and carries out the study. In this third stage, the framework is again used from top to bottom. Data are gathered and represented in a format useful for study purposes. Process models are implemented, and evaluate the existing landscape as a baseline from which to assess impacts of change, a number of alternative futures are simulated, and their impacts assessed. Decision makers can then better understand the likely future impacts of their choices.

 

　　Decision making is the responsibility of the region's stakeholders, from the individual citizen to the highest levels of government. In order to make decisions, questions must be asked and answered, and options for choice must be framed and deliberated. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the research team and the stakeholders. The study is shaped to respond to the issues and choices posed by the stakeholders. The alternative futures and the results of the assessments of their impacts are presented for stakeholder review and the many decision processes which must precede any major action.

 

　　At the extreme, two decision choices present themselves: "no" and "yes." A "no" implies a backward feedback loop in the framework and the need to alter a prior level. All six levels can be the focus of feedback; "more data," "a better model" and "redesign of the proposed changes" are frequently applied feedback strategies.

 

　　A contingent "yes" decision (still a "no") may also trigger a shift in the scale or size or timing of the study. In a scale shift, the study will again proceed through the six levels of the framework but the several types of model will be different. It will then continue until it achieves a positive ("yes") decision. A "yes" decision implies implementation, and (one assumes) a forward-in-time change to new representation models.

 

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

 

　　While the framework and its set of questions and models looks orderly and sequential, it is frequently not so in application. The line through any study is not a smooth path. It has false starts, dead ends, and serendipitous discoveries, but it does pass through the questions and models of the framework as described herein before decisions can be made.

 

　　A framework is not a theory. It can be a useful aid to the organization of a complex design problem in a workshop, studio or in an applied- research program. It is only as useful as it is seen as useful by the user(s). This framework has been adapted and used many times and in many contexts, and it seems to be useful and robust.

 

　　How does one start?

 

　　I teach my students that there is no such thing as "THE Design Method" or "THE Planning Method" (and I consider a plan to be a design). Rather, there are many methods and they must be chosen and adapted to issues and questions raised by the problem at hand in the second iteration of the framework. Every landscape design regardless of size or scale has three groups of influences which should be considered:  the history of the place and past proposals, the "facts" of the area which are not likely to be changed, and the "constants" which should be incorporated into any proposed alternative.

 

　　An initial field trip is indispensible for the first "scoping" iteration of the framework. It is an intensively scheduled working period with both group and individual responsibilities. Without question the tasks associated with becoming familiar with issues, geography, and people are of prime importance. There are presentations by knowledgeable persons, and these are frequently in conflict with each other. The entire group meets every evening and there is a high level of debriefing and other communications. Of critical importance during the field trip is the absence of any collective attempt to define the study. I make a major point of telling the students that we are on the field trip to observe and ask questions, not to decide anything. I do not want the students to informally negotiate the scope and responsibilities of the project.

 

　　2 CASE STUDY

 

　　2.1 BERMUDA

 

　　The diagramming methods and their organization derive from a studio which I taught in 1982. Bermuda had recently achieved independence from Great Britain. The first Prime Minister, John Swan, requested a study of the future of the garbage dump of that small island nation. There was a plan to build a new waste incinerator but it would take three years (and, in reality, many more) for that project to become operational. The garbage dump was surrounded by civic institutions, a large wetland, the well fields which supplied drinking water to most of Bermuda, and important play fields. It was in the midst of the residential area of the poorest people in the country. A promise had been made as part Mr. Swan's election campaign to transform the dump area into a central park for Bermuda. I offered to teach a studio which would illustrate different assumptions regarding what kind of park and ancillary facilities might be developed for the site, and this offer was accepted and the studio was financed. Students volunteered for the studio knowing that it would be organized with some aspects of a design competition and that not all of their individual designs would be carried forward to the end.

 

　　The studio traveled to Bermuda and visited the study area (Fig.03). There were several presentations and several open meetings for interested persons during which records were kept of the issues raised, and ideas for program elements, physical designs and policies were presented to the students. Each evening I met with the students and had them list and categorize the issues which had been raised, and also to prepare simple diagrams of every idea and proposal which they had been offered or which they themselves had. These diagrams were all simple line drawings to a standard scale. They were anonymous and were intended to be shared, and all students knew this.

 

　　Upon returning to the University, and in the first working session of the studio, the students agreed on a final list of about 20 issues which had to be resolved in any design. These were of two kinds: the constants which had to be incorporated into every design, and the variables, for which there might be alternative diagrammatic solutions. Pairs of students were assigned by their choice to the variable issues and were asked to produce between two and five alternative strategies regarding each issue. There were approximately 80 diagrams each drawn with permanent black marker on thin clear plastic so that they could easily be selected, overlain, and looked at together as a set or, as the students called them, “a sandwich”.