sustainability

Article Scalability in the Application of Geodesign in Brazil: Expanding the Use of the Brazilian Geodesign Platform to Metropolitan Regions in Transformative-Learning Planning

Ana Clara Mourão Moura * and Christian Rezende Freitas

School of Architecture and Urbanism, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 30130-140, Brazil; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The Brazilian Geodesign platform was proposed based on extensive experience in Geode- sign workshops, aiming to adapt the method to the country’s cultural specificities, with a commitment to support the construction of opinions in planning, in the process of transformative-learning plan- ning. To test the scalability of the method, a study was developed in 13 metropolitan regions of the country, with the involvement of universities, distributed from north to south, in different biomes and urbanization conditions. The same method was proposed for everyone, starting from the same collection of 40 thematic maps to support discussions about alternative futures in land use. Par- ticipants used the GISColab platform and went through the same stages of analysis, proposition, and negotiation of ideas. As a result, there was an improvement in the projects developed between



 the first and the last day of work, with the expansion of compliance with the goals of sustainable development (SDG) and areas for carbon credit. It was possible to observe that, although they used Citation: Moura, A.C.M.; Freitas, the same framework proposed, each group adapted the method to their local reality, proving the C.R. Scalability in the Application of Geodesign in Brazil: Expanding the scalability of the process and the necessary flexibility for employment in different realities, ensuring Use of the Brazilian Geodesign a defensible and reproducible criterion. As recommendations, it would be interesting to apply Platform to Metropolitan Regions in the same study of multiple simultaneous cases in another country, to analyze the scalability and Transformative-Learning Planning. flexibility to local changes, as it happened in the experiment. This would be entirely possible, as the Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508. https:// platform is based on worldwide OGC standards (Open Geospatial Consortium) and would have full doi.org/10.3390/su13126508 interoperability in use.

Academic Editor: George Keywords: co-creation; territorial planning; Geodesign; GISColab D. Bathrellos

Received: 11 May 2021 Accepted: 2 June 2021 1. Introduction: Co-Creation Planning in Brazil Published: 8 June 2021 Spatial planning is still a major challenge in Brazil, as well as to the rest of the

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral world. It is not an easy task to recognize that space should be thought of in terms of its with regard to jurisdictional claims in local culture and values, according to its geographical specificities and the exploration published maps and institutional affil- of its potential uses, adjusting it according to its vulnerabilities, while respecting the iations. needs imposed by a global consciousness. Brazil owes a significant growth in its thought processes regarding space to the period in which modernist thinking was prevalent, where space was understood as a blank canvas for architects to draw and, thanks to the creative genius of urban design, be able to solve complex social, environmental, and economic issues. However, time has shown that cities that were delimitated and planned as complete Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. cosmoses required less than 50 years to be transformed into complex and dynamic areas This article is an open access article (Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Palmas, and others). At the same time, the City Master Plans, distributed under the terms and instruments that were supposed to translate collective agreements and shared routes as conditions of the Creative Commons values to be pursued, also became pieces borne out of pure legal obligation, and became Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// poorly effective in terms of urban landscape. This can be expressed by the percentage of creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ buildings that indeed fulfill the requirements of Master Plans and the Law for Land Use 4.0/). and Occupation in different municipalities.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126508 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 2 of 18

What is observed in planning programs is that top-down processes failed to promote quality to a common future for the citizens. Planners worked in authorial proposals, not considering the opinions of the people living in the place. With this in mind, it seems appropriate to experiment with bottom-up processes that start by listening to the expectations of the citizens. In investigating possible paths, Geodesign emerges as a method that promotes the collective construction of opinions and ideas, in a process that focuses on co-creating and negotiating an alternative future. However, everything relies on how it is applied and how the different stages of the planning system are executed. As a significant contribution for shared planning processes, Geodesign has been widely developed over the past decade. Some authors argue that it represents a continuity from the topics initially proposed by McHarg in “Design with Nature” [1], as the process could even be analogically conducted. Nonetheless, the major difference is in associating resources provided by geospatial technology, especially web-based ones, and using them as a support for collectively planning alternative futures for a given landscape [2–4]. In essence, it is about planning (designing), considering geography (geo), and including different social agents into a dynamic construction that is led by a mediator. Among these authors, Steinitz’s [5] work is noteworthy. They structured a framework that includes models that are built on pre-workshop stages and during the workshop itself, both of which support decision-making. In Brazil, shared planning is clearly stated as a goal in the 19880s Constitution, also known as the “Citizen Constitution,” which established that decisions that affect the interests of our society must be taken collectively. This takes shape in Law 10.257 from 2001, the Statute of Cities, which defines participatory planning as a requisite. The question is: what kind of participation? According to Khakee [6], there are different levels and forms of integrating citi- zens into planning processes, namely, through the following lines of thought: Rational- Comprehensive Planning; Incremental Planning or Incrementalism; Advocative Planning; Implementation-oriented Planning; Strategic Planning; Transitive or Participatory Planning; Negotiation Planning and Communicative Planning. All the approaches can be considered and accepted as forms to include citizen participation in decision-making processes, but all of them also bear serious limitations in terms of what that “participation” is. Based on Khakee’s (op. Cit.) schematics, and the discussions led by authors such as Pressman and Wildavsky [7], Kinyashi [8], Oliveira [9], and Stumptener [10], we proposed the evaluation of how these different approaches relate to planning in Brazil. Rational- Comprehensive planning was and still is widely used in Brazil, conducted by groups of technicians that elaborate robust studies regarding an area and based on its characterization, possible vulnerabilities, and potentialities, making decisions alongside political forces. Long and thorough diagnoses are produced, which include listening to citizens, but by the end of the process, the reality has already been transformed, and the plan continues to be mostly the result of a group’s authorial process. Advocative Planning is quite common in projects that take place in Brazil’s more disadvantaged communities. Technicians believe they need to act on behalf of the people they represent, even creating structures that guide how actions are to be taken, so that citizens believe they are taking part in the process even though, in fact, they are being conducted regardless of the noble intentions of their guides. Strategic Planning would only be possible if we had already identified, as a first step in regional planning, the landscape units and scopes, the main values, and genius loci of the places. Participatory Planning aims to create bonds between citizens and technicians, but the latter would need to have strong communicational skills and the ability to orchestrate processes and motivate people, without disregarding that technical guidance should act as an additional source of information. Unfortunately, technicians would need to expand their own conditions to listen to citizens and perform mediations that are more than simply asking people to vote on proposals. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 3 of 18

Negotiation Planning has become common in Brazil, when different social groups settle on deals that benefit both parties (or more), which is the case in Consortium Opera- tions and other kinds of agreements that use both public and private resources to fulfill the interest of all parties involved. Although it is based on the partnerships established by different sectors, these agreements do not necessarily constitute shared decisions that were achieved in consideration of other social agents. Still using Khakee’s [6] model, Communicational Planning defends the idea that each action is specific to an individual case, therefore acknowledging that planners are a nonneu- tral part in the process and should act as mediators, guiding discussions toward achieving consensus. When analyzing Geodesign and the framework proposed by Steinitz [5], it is possible to observe the central role a mediator can have, as they will be the ones who define: which themes will be discussed (conceived as systems); the spatial analysis models that will be offered to participants as the basis for further work (Evaluation Models); the areas allowed to receive proposals; the calculation involving the impact of the decisions taken by participants (and classified as positive or negative according to the organizing group, based on a matrix that checks whether the ideas were placed on the locations that are appropriate to receive them). Moreover, the mediator must orchestrate things in a way the group is able to achieve a final decision, even if using strategies that do not necessarily expand their understanding of the problem at hand. In that sense, the idea of Transformative Learning, proposed by Forester [11], is particularly interesting and suitable for contemporary Brazil. The reason is that Brazilian citizens need to learn how to participate, rather than undergo processes in which they are conducted and led to believe that they have participated. It is worth noting that, to Forester (op. Cit.), the product of planning is not necessarily the plan, but can also and should be a way for participants to create knowledge, which is what provides support for opinion making. In the evolution stage, in which citizens need to learn to act, there is no room for conducting participants through models that already tell them where to do what and, ultimately, working as a means toward a model of decision-making. In this current stage of planning, the goal must be to transform citizens who will effectively have their opinions registered and choose, on their own, which variables will define how they choose the “right” area. Furthermore, they have a right to an individual vote even though they will also participate in collective processes that involve listening and discussing. GisColab was created to support planning processes based on Geodesign, in a flexible way to adapt to different work frameworks according to the specifics of the case study. In its approach, the most tested process has been to start by listening to citizens’ opinions through reading enrichment, followed by the construction of ideas. The participants do not receive a synthesis as an evaluation map, but a collection of maps that represent the main variables they can combine freely, to choose the right place and the right idea according to their way of thinking. GISColab, the Brazilian Geodesign platform, was developed by Freitas and Moura [12], and structured around three main components: (a) Geographical Base—The data produced can be stored in GDB (Geographic Database) format, Shapefile for vectorial information, and GeoTIFF for raster data. (b) Geoserver Map Server—Using open-source standards established by the Open Geospa- tial Consortium (OGC). The Map Server is responsible for converting geographical information into webservices, thus lending a more dynamic nature to the diffusion of data, and guaranteeing interoperability. (c) Metadata Catalog—The metadata catalog server is responsible for documenting all the information produced that will be used for decision making and spatial analysis. It plays the crucial role of formalizing and registering the spatial set that was used as data in decision making and of registering all the information derived from reading and analyzing the basic data. For this purpose, Geonetwork, a catalog software that manages spatially referenced resources, was used. It is currently used in several data infrastructure initiatives across the world. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 4 of 18

(d) WebMap/WebGIS—WebGIS allows us to retrieve and visualize the information that is registered on the metadata catalog, as well as organizing it in ways that provide a clearer context of the data and its subsets. Furthermore, other functionalities were developed, which allow its use in shared decision-making processes and Geodesign. We used Mapstore2, but optimized by scripts and programming made by us. It is a highly modular WebGIS open-source software developed by GeoSolutions, to safely create, manage, and share maps and panels. With the goal of conducting a comparative research on Geodesign planning, as well as building a national study group, a single research topic was developed, namely: “Geode- sign Brazil: Trees for Metropolitan Regions,” referring to 13 Brazilian metropolitan regions located across the country. The same method was proposed to all case studies, using the GISColab platform and the same Geodesign framework, to find similarities and differences in performances in planning, as the country has continental size, as well as many different local realities in geography, climate, culture, economy, and social conditions. Even though a scope was delimited—Metropolitan Regions—each still bears its own realities in terms of landscape, connections, social and cultural groups, population size, and infrastructure. In theory, when a metropolitan region is delimited, planning should be considered in broader terms, as an urban agglomeration that is polarized by the main city and in which comparisons can be made regarding infrastructure, economic production, and habitation. That would be the case in theory; however, what we can observe is that, in many cases, there are different conditions in different cities that are disconnected among themselves and may include large areas with no common relationships to one another. Therefore, despite defining a specific scope (metropolitan regions) to compare them, their realities are significantly different. Given a country with such complexity, planning methodologies need to be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to different realities, even if following a single, agreed-upon framework. Comparing realities is hardly possible and often results in no learning experience, but comparing how processes are appropriated is interesting and may lead to a transformative learning experience.

Materials and Methods As materials and methods, it is necessary to identify the processes proposed by the IGC world group (International Geodesign Collaboration (the International Geodesign Collaboration group. Available online: https://www.igc-geodesign.org/ (accessed on 4 January 2021)) network) and the specific processes adopted by the Brazilian group. The world group that investigates Geodesign as a method of participatory planning in many parts of the world proposes, for each year, common working routes, and common goals, so that all participants follow these proposals in their countries and in their case studies. For the years 2020/2021, the agreement was to apply Geodesign to discuss inno- vative ideas for regional planning, considering the themes of water, vegetation, housing, transportation, commerce and industry, institutions, energy, agriculture, tourism and cul- ture, and carbon credit, with an emphasis on CCO2. The ideas should favor meeting the goals of sustainable development (SDG), with an emphasis on global climate change. The participating countries already have experience in Geodesign, and the challenge would then be to work with the problem of innovation and SDGs. In a global meeting, participants will have the opportunity to report their experiments, presenting the positive and negative results of the method. Specifically for Brazilian experiments, it was decided to use the Brazilian Geodesign Platform, GISColab, and it was established that all 13 case studies, from metropolitan regions, would start their work with the same collection of thematic maps, characterizing the study areas, in the form of a WebGIS. As a first task, they would be asked to record notes on existing vulnerabilities and potentialities, in the form of a VGI (Volunteered Geographic Information). As a second task, they would be asked to propose ideas according to the established themes, and for 3 meetings, they would increase the level of innovation of these ideas. Finally, through negotiation processes, they would result in a territorial plan for the Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

the study areas, in the form of a WebGIS. As a first task, they would be asked to record notes on existing vulnerabilities and potentialities, in the form of a VGI (Volunteered Ge- ographic Information). As a second task, they would be asked to propose ideas according to the established themes, and for 3 meetings, they would increase the level of innovation of these ideas. Finally, through negotiation processes, they would result in a territorial plan for the area, covering the SDGs and guaranteeing a 30% increase in carbon seques- tration. Each step is detailed in the development of the text.

2. Trees for Metropolitan Regions: Geodesign Brazil Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 The project was created for a group of Brazilian universities 5to of 18participate in the IGC—International Geodesign Collaboration network, which deals with scenario-based research projects at regional and local scales, while also addressing future global changes usingarea, coveringGeodesign. the SDGs Each and year, guaranteeing the organizers, a 30% increase led in by carbon Steinitz, sequestration. create a Each work proposal that step is detailed in the development of the text. must be followed by participants in their local case studies, so that, during the event, the results2. Trees can for Metropolitanbe presented, Regions: compared, Geodesign and Brazil shared between everyone. InThe 2021, project the was proposal created for was a group that of each Brazilian group universities selected to an participate area of in regional the dimension, IGC—International Geodesign Collaboration network, which deals with scenario-based usingresearch a set projects of eight at regional specific and localsystems scales, and while two also additional addressing future ones global of their changes choice, to tackle the issueusing of Geodesign. carbon Eachcredit year, and the organizers,build scenarios led by Steinitz, for the create “Non-adopter,” a work proposal “Late-adopter,” that and “Early-adopter”must be followed by approaches participants in in their the local years case of studies, 2035 and so that, 2050. during the event, the resultsIn canBrazil, be presented, a group compared, was formed and shared to apply between the everyone. same approach in each of their metropol- In 2021, the proposal was that each group selected an area of regional dimension, itanusing regions: a set of eight Trees specific for Metropolitan systems and two Regions. additional onesThe of13 their metropolitan choice, to tackle regions the (MR) and the 15issue universities/institutions of carbon credit and build involved scenarios forwere: the “Non-adopter,”Universidade “Late-adopter,” Federal da Bahia and (Salvador MR), Universidade“Early-adopter” approachesFederal do in thePará years (Belém of 2035 MR), and 2050. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Belo HorizonteIn Brazil, MR), a group Universidade was formed to apply do Estado the same approachde São inPaulo each of campus their metropolitan Rio Claro and Univer- regions: Trees for Metropolitan Regions. The 13 metropolitan regions (MR) and the sidade15 universities/institutions de Campinas (Campinas involved were: MR), Universidade Univer Federalsidade da do Bahia Extremo (Salvador Sul MR), Catarinense (Car- boníferaUniversidade MR), Federal Universidade do Pará (Bel édom MR), Estado Universidade de Santa Federal Catarina de Minas (Florianópolis Gerais (Belo MR), Univer- sidadeHorizonte Federal MR), Universidade do Ceará do(Fortaleza Estado de S ãMR),o Paulo Universidade campus Rio Claro Federal and Universidade de Goiás (Goiânia MR), de Campinas (Campinas MR), Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense (Carbonífera MR), UniversidadeUniversidade do Federal Estado de do Santa Amapá Catarina and (Florian Secretariasópolis MR), do UniversidadeEstado do FederalGoverno do do Amapá (Ma- capáCear áMR),(Fortaleza Universidade MR), Universidade Federal Federal de Tocantin de Goiás (Gois (Palmasânia MR), MR), Universidade Universidade Federal Federal de Per- nambucodo Amapá and(Recife Secretarias MR), do Universidade Estado do Governo Federal do Amap Ruralá (Macap do áRioMR), de Universidade Janeiro and Universidade FederalFederal dede Tocantins Juiz de (PalmasFora (Rio MR), de Universidade Janeiro MR Federal), and de Universidade Pernambuco (Recife do Estado MR), de São Paulo Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro and Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (São(Rio dePaulo Janeiro MR) MR), (Figure and Universidade 1). do Estado de São Paulo (São Paulo MR) (Figure1).

Figure 1. The MRs (metropolitan regions) that were studied. Source: the authors. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 6 of 18 Figure 1. The MRs (metropolitan regions) that were studied. Source: the authors.

In the Brazilian case studies, we adopted the eight basic systems defined by the IGC (hydrography,In the Brazilian vegetation, case transportation, studies, we adopted habitation, the eightcommerce basic and systems industry, defined energy, by theag- riculture,IGC (hydrography, and institutions) vegetation, and transportation,included, as specific habitation, systems, commerce tourism and and industry, culture, as energy, well asagriculture, carbon credits. and institutions) This guaranteed and included, that the as main specific theme systems, was more tourism thoroughly and culture, discussed as well throughas carbon proposals credits. This(areas guaranteed for recovery that and the CO main2 sequestration), theme was more even thoroughlyif they coincided discussed with ideasthrough that proposals were simultaneously (areas for recovery proposed and in CO one2 sequestration), of the other nine even systems. if they coincided with ideasThe that platform were simultaneously used for developing proposed the in 13 one case of the studies other was nine GISC systems.olab, the Brazilian GeodesignThe platform platform, used which for incorporates developing theresour 13ces case from studies WebGIS, was GISColab,SDI (Spatial the Data Brazilian Infra- structure),Geodesign and platform, dynamic which scripts incorporates that support resources decision-making from WebGIS, (Moura SDI (Spatial and Freitas, Data Infras-2020). Thetructure), meetings and for dynamic each case scripts study that took support place decision-makingover 4 weeks, with (Moura around and 3 to Freitas, 4 h of 2020).work perThe week, meetings according for each to case the studyfollowing took placeschedule over: (1) 4 weeks, Reading with Enrichment; around 3 to (2) 4h Proposal of work perfor theweek, Scenario according Without to the Innovations following schedule: (non-adopter) (1) Reading in 2035 Enrichment; and 2050; (3) (2) Proposal Proposal for the ScenarioScenario Withoutwith Innovations Innovations (Late-adopter) (non-adopter) in in2035 2035 and and 2050; 2050; (4) (3) Proposal Proposal for for the the Scenario with InnovationsSeveral Innovations (Late-adopter) (Early-adopter) in 2035 and in 2050; 2035 (4) and Proposal 2050; (5) for Post-Workshop the Scenario with Analysis Several (FigureInnovations 2). (Early-adopter) in 2035 and 2050; (5) Post-Workshop Analysis (Figure2).

Figure 2. GISColab Platform with the cont contextsexts of “Reading Enrichment” ( A,,B);); “without innovations” innovations” (2035 (2035 and and 2050), 2050), “With“With Innovation”Innovation” (2035(2035 andand 2050), and “Several“Several Innovations” (2050, groups A,B). An example of of São São Paulo MR. Source: Source: the authors.

ToTo prepare the workshop, UFMG’s group (Federal(Federal University of Minas Gerais) was responsibleresponsible for for producing producing the the entire entire collection collection of of data for each MR (metropolitan region) region) andand transforming itit intointo spatial spatial information, information, thus thus guaranteeing guaranteeing everyone everyone would would receive receive the thesame same set ofset around of around 40 thematic 40 thematic maps maps used toused support to support the analysis the analysis of the 10of systems,the 10 systems, as well asas forwell building as for building ideas. All ideas. the data All were the data retrieved were from retrieved free platforms, from free 2 platforms, of them international 2 of them international(satellite and terrain(satellite images) and terrain and 15 images) national an ones,d 15 allnational of which ones, underwent all of which adjustments underwent for adjustmentscartographic for projection, cartographic spatial projection, cropping, spat attributeial cropping, association, attribute and association, caption organization and cap- tionto achieve organization specific to goals, achieve as wellspecific as standardizinggoals, as well as them. standardizing Aside from them. the workAside involving from the workthe data involving itself, geoprocessing the data itself, models geoprocessing were applied models to were transform applied them to intotransform geospatial them infor- into geospatialmation, according information, to at leastaccording one of to the at following least one procedures:of the following (a) Taxonomic procedures: classification (a) Taxo- nomic(classes classification of captions created(classes according of captions to specificcreated goals);according (b) Spatialto specific classification goals); (b) (identify Spatial classificationareas of influence (identify or in areas which of occurrences influence or were in which concentrated); occurrences (c) Mathematicalwere concentrated); classifica- (c) Mathematicaltion (employs classification models according (employs to indexes models or according algorithms); to indexes (d) Hierarchical or algorithms); classification (d) Hi- erarchical(occurrences classification per degree (occurrences of pertinence per to thedegr goalsee of ofpertinence the study). to the goals of the study). The 40 maps were organized according to systems, to be used by participants in WebGIS format. Some themes showed up in more than one system, sometimes with the same caption, and other times with a highlight on captions that have relevance for a given system. For instance, the theme “Surface Temperature” is of particular interest to the “Energy” system but is also of interest for “Carbon Credits.” The theme “Insolation per Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18

The 40 maps were organized according to systems, to be used by participants in WebGIS format. Some themes showed up in more than one system, sometimes with the same caption, and other times with a highlight on captions that have relevance for a given

Sustainabilitysystem.2021, 13 For, 6508 instance, the theme “Surface Temperature” is of particular interest to the “En-7 of 18 ergy” system but is also of interest for “Carbon Credits.” The theme “Insolation per As- pect” is particularly relevant for the “Energy” system, but also for the “Agriculture” one. “Slope inclinations”Aspect” are important is particularly for relevantthe “Transportation” for the “Energy” system, system but (due also forto the “Agriculture”maximum one. inclinations of 15%“Slope for road), inclinations” “Habitation” are important (highlighting for the “Transportation” maximum inclinations system (due of to the30% maximum for urban installments),inclinations and “Agriculture” of 15% for road), (separating “Habitation” a maximum (highlighting inclination maximum of inclinations 13% for ag- of 30% ricultural mechanization).for urban Therefore, installments), layer and “Agriculture” distribution (separating was freely a maximum used by inclination participants of 13% for agricultural mechanization). Therefore, layer distribution was freely used by participants through overlaps, transparency,through overlaps, or transparency, even by moving or even the by moving system the around system around(Figure (Figure 3). 3).

Figure 3.Figure Example 3. Example of a thematic of a thematic map map showing showing inclinat inclinations,ions, one one for for each each MR. Source:MR. Source: the authors. the authors.

It should be noted that the same collection of thematic maps separated by systems It should be noted that the same collection of thematic maps separated by systems for each area was provided for all groups, but during the workshops, some of them for each area was providedincluded, on for their all owngroups, account, but additionalduring the layers workshops, that were deemed some of strategic them forin- their cluded, on their owndecision-making. account, additional layers that were deemed strategic for their deci- sion-making. 2.1. Reading Enrichment—Day 1 of the Workshop During the first day of the workshop, groups were given access to their respective 2.1. Reading Enrichment—Day 1 of the Workshop projects in GISColab and were instructed to work within the context of “Reading En- During the firstrichment.” day of Thethe 43workshop, maps were grou presentedps were in WebGIS given format,access organizedto their respective according to the projects in GISColab10 and systems, were as discussedinstructed above, to work and the within participants’ the context task was of to“Reading conduct an Enrich- informative ment.” The 43 mapsreading were of presented the data, by analyzingin WebGIS each format, individual organized map, groups according of overlapping to the maps, 10 using transparency resources, or moving the layers around and creating compositions of interest. systems, as discussed Onceabove, they and felt informedthe partic enough,ipants’ the task participant was to would conduct notify thean others,informative add remarks, reading of the data,complement by analyzing it with each missing indivi information,dual map, register groups noteworthy of overlapping vulnerabilities maps, orusing potential transparency resources,uses, and or addmoving warnings the regardinglayers around known and conflicts creating within compositions the areas. This process of inter- is called est. “Annotation,” in which points are marked according to the color scheme used by systems in the workshop. Organizers could also allow participants to create their notes as lines Once they feltor informed polygons, butenough, the decision the part wasicipant made to would standardize notify them the as pointsothers, with add symbols re- to marks, complementfacilitate it with geovisualization, missing information, as using color register schemes noteworthy allows for a vulnerabilities visual aggregation or of the potential uses, and notesadd warnings (Figures4 and regarding5). known conflicts within the areas. This process is called “Annotation,” Thein which participants points could are also marked include according new layers of to maps the intocolor the scheme systems ifused they deemedby them relevant. Out of the 12 total groups, 4 of them included layers regarding specific systems in the workshop. Organizers could also allow participants to create their notes as traits of the area, which they considered fundamental for further discussions. The result of lines or polygons, butthis the initial decision reading ofwas the made local reality to standardize results in a dynamic them as layer points for the with following symbols stages of to facilitate geovisualization,the process. as In otherusing words, color asschemes new annotations allows for are made,a visual they aggregation are automatically of the added notes (Figures 4 and 5). Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 8 of 18

SustainabilitySustainability 2021 2021, 13, 13, x, xFOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 8 8of of 18 18 and show up in all the contexts as an informative layer, thus providing extra support for designing ideas (Figure6).

Figure 4. Example of Reading Enrichment—Rio de Janeiro MR. Source: the authors.

FigureFigureFigure 4.4. 4.Example Example Example of Readingof of Reading Reading Enrichment—Rio Enrichment—Rio Enrichment—Rio de Janeiro de de MR. Janeiro Janeiro Source: MR. theMR. authors.Source: Source: the the authors. authors.

Figure 5. Symbols were standardized according to the systems during the Annotation stage. Source: authors.

The participants could also include new layers of maps into the systems if they deemed them relevant. Out of the 12 total groups, 4 of them included layers regarding specific traits of the area, which they considered fundamental for further discussions. The result of this initial reading of the local reality results in a dynamic layer for the following stages of the process. In other words, as new annotations are made, they are automatically added and show up in all the contexts as an informative layer, thus providing extra sup- FigureFigureFigure 5. 5. SymbolsSymbols Symbols werewere were standardized standardized standardized according according according to the to to systemsthe the systems systems during during during the Annotation the the Annotation Annotation stage. stage. stage. Source: Source: port authors.forSource:authors. designing authors. ideas (Figure 6).

TheThe participants participants could could also also include include new new layers layers of of maps maps into into the the systems systems if if they they deemeddeemed them them relevant. relevant. Out Out of of the the 12 12 total total gr groups,oups, 4 4of of them them included included layers layers regarding regarding specificspecific traits traits of of the the area, area, which which they they consid consideredered fundamental fundamental for for further further discussions. discussions. The The resultresult of of this this initial initial reading reading of of the the local local reality reality results results in in a adynamic dynamic layer layer for for the the following following stagesstages of of the the process. process. In In other other words, words, as as new new annotations annotations are are made, made, they they are are automatically automatically addedadded and and show show up up in in all all the the contexts contexts as as an an informative informative layer, layer, thus thus providing providing extra extra sup- sup- portport for for designing designing ideas ideas (Figure (Figure 6). 6).

Figure 6. AnnotationsFigure 6. Annotations as a dynamic as a dynamic layer on layer other on other contexts. contexts. Anno Annotationtation layer layer in in the the context of of “2050 “2050 Non-Adopter” Non-Adopter” (2050 without Innovations)(2050 without Innovations)scenario, on scenario, Recife onMR. Recife MR.

In cases where there were many participants, they were separated into groups A and B, with the reading enrichment stage taking place in separate contexts, and their annota- tions being later united into a single layer, during the following stages of the workshop.

FigureFigure 6. 6. Annotations Annotations as as a adynamic dynamic layer layer on on other other contexts. contexts. Anno Annotationtation layer layer in in the the context context of of “2050 “2050 Non-Adopter” Non-Adopter” (2050 (2050 withoutwithout Innovations) Innovations) scenario, scenario, on on Recife Recife MR. MR.

InIn cases cases where where there there were were many many participants participants, they, they were were separate separatedd into into groups groups A A and and B,B, with with the the reading reading enrichment enrichment stage stage taking taking place place in in separate separate contexts, contexts, and and their their annota- annota- tionstions being being later later united united into into a asingle single layer, layer, during during the the following following stages stages of of the the workshop. workshop. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18 Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 9 of 18

In cases where there were many participants, they were separated into groups A and B, 2.2. Ideawith Proposals—Without the reading enrichment Innovations—Day stage taking place in 2 separateof the Workshop contexts, and their annotations Duringbeing later the united second into encounter, a single layer, participants during the following were encouraged stages of the workshop. to read the annotations left by2.2. others Idea Proposals—Without in the “Annotations” Innovations—Day layer, which 2 of the Workshopis symbolized as “Reading Enrichment” and is groupedDuring thewith second the other encounter, contexts participants as a dynamic were encouraged layer. to read the annotations Thisleft by is others the moment in the “Annotations” where ideas layer, are which proposed, is symbolized initially as “Reading without Enrichment” innovations, or in otherand words, is grouped in the with traditional the other contextssense of as planning, a dynamic layer.as a “non-adopter.” Although the IGC’s work proposalThis is stated the moment that only where the ideas 2050 are “non-adopter” proposed, initially scenario without was innovations, required, or inwe decided other words, in the traditional sense of planning, as a “non-adopter.” Although the IGC’s to alsowork work proposal with stated the context that only of the the 2050 2035 “non-adopter” “non-adopter” scenario wasscenario required, as wewell. decided The reason is that itto would also work be with a way the contextfor participants of the 2035 “non-adopter”to better understand scenario as planning well. The reasonin shorter- and longer-termis that it scales. would be Initially, a way for as participants there were to no better innovations understand required, planning in we shorter- did not and encourage participantslonger-term to scales.fulfill Initially,any goals as there or wereto give no innovations extra thought required, to wethe did issue not encourageof carbon credits, whichparticipants was presented to fulfill anyas goalsjust another or to give extraone thoughtof the tosystems the issue being of carbon discussed. credits, which Participants was presented as just another one of the systems being discussed. Participants could use couldpoints, use points, lines, and lines, hollow and polygons hollow (composed polygons of (composed polylines) to of design polylines) their ideas. to design No goals their ideas. No goalswere were established established and, despite and, their despite knowledge their of knowledge the existence of 10the systems existence for proposing of 10 systems for proposingideas, noideas, group no managed group tomanaged create proposals to create for everyproposals one of themfor every (Figure one7). of them (Figure 7).

Figure 7. IdeaFigure proposals 7. Idea proposals for “without for “without innovations,” innovations,” represented represented as as graphical graphical elements,elements, and and their thei descriptions,r descriptions, or the or the “Di- alogs.” Scenario“Dialogs.” for Scenario Palmas for MR, Palmas 2050 MR, Without 2050 Without Innovations. Innovations.

2.3. Idea2.3. Proposals—With Idea Proposals—With Innovations—Day Innovations—Day 3 of3 theof the Workshop Workshop In order to construct ideas with some innovations considered, as part of the “late- Inadopter” order context,to construct participants ideas were with asked some to consultinnovations the examples considered, defined as “assump-part of the “late- adopter”tions,” context, previously participants prepared by thewere IGC asked group. to The consult selection the of ideasexamples organized defined according as “assump- tions,”to previously each system hadprepared the goal by of encouragingthe IGC group. users toThe choose selection proposals of ideas that were organized different according to eachfrom system the usual had ones, the though goal of also encouraging allowing them users to create to choose their own proposals innovative that proposals. were different The participants consulted the IGC website to select assumptions to apply to their studies. from the Inusual some ones, projects, though the participants also allowing were divided them to into create Group their A and own Group innovative B. Group A proposals. The participantswas asked to elaborateconsulted the the 2035 IGC with website innovations to select (late-adopter) assumptions scenario to considering apply to onlytheir studies. Inthe some annotations projects, provided the participants by the Reading were Enrichment divided stage. into Group B A was and to Group create the B. Group A was asked2050 with to elaborate innovations the scenario 2035 (late-adopter) with innovations but observing (late-adopter) the ideas that scenario were previously considering only presented in the context of 2035 without innovations (non-adopter). In projects where the annotations provided by the Reading Enrichment stage. Group B was to create the 2050 with innovations scenario (late-adopter) but observing the ideas that were previously presented in the context of 2035 without innovations (non-adopter). In projects where the number of participants was lower, the same logic was applied, but the same group of participants created both proposals according to their time sequence. As the project had to contain innovations, aside from the listed ideas, participants should also be able to achieve goals related to carbon credits. For the year of 2050, it was necessary that they proposed a minimum of a 30% increment in areas with robust vegeta- tion cover, which could be obtained by investing in the conservation of strategic areas, the expansion of areas with potentialities, or even by creating new areas located in positions of particular interest. As they were required to consider both the 2035 and 2050 scenarios, Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 10 of 18

the number of participants was lower, the same logic was applied, but the same group of participants created both proposals according to their time sequence. As the project had to contain innovations, aside from the listed ideas, participants should also be able to achieve goals related to carbon credits. For the year of 2050, it Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEWwas necessary that they proposed a minimum of a 30% increment in areas with robust10 of 18 vegetation cover, which could be obtained by investing in the conservation of strategic areas, the expansion of areas with potentialities, or even by creating new areas located in positions of particular interest. As they were required to consider both the 2035 and 2050 scenarios, theythey had had to to make make decisions decisions regarding regarding the the goal goal until until 2035, 2035, and and by by 2050, 2050, they they had had to to achieve achieve thethe minimum minimum requirement requirement of of 30%. 30%. ToTo support support their their decisions, decisions, participants participants had had access access to to thematicthematic maps maps regarding regarding the the surface surface temperature, temperature, distribution distribution of of robust robust vegetation vegetation cover cover andand protectedprotected areas,areas, and and landscape landscape ecologyecology metricsmetrics perper vegetationvegetation fragmentsfragments (core(core area,area, stepping-stones,stepping-stones, and and shape shape factor) factor) (Figure (Figure8 ).8).

FigureFigure 8. 8.Landscape Landscape EcologyEcology MetricsMetrics perper fragmentsfragments ofof robustrobust vegetationvegetation cover: cover: corecore area,area, stepping-stepping- stones,stones, and and shape shape factor factor (perimeter/area). (perimeter/area). AnAn exampleexample ofof SSãoão PauloPaulo MR.MR. Source:Source: thethe authors.authors.

TheThe goalgoal ofof aa 30%30% robustrobust vegetationvegetation covercover waswas defineddefined accordingaccording toto aa paperpaper byby CrowtherCrowther etet al. [13] [13] that that indicates indicates that that an an increment increment of ofthis this magnitude magnitude by by2050 2050 could could bal- balanceance out out the the global global deficit deficit in incarbon carbon credit. credit. For For the thecalculation calculation of average of average vegetation vegetation val- values,ues, the the maps maps of of Crowther Crowther et et al. al. (op. (op. Cit) Cit) were were used, and for thethe calculationcalculation ofof carbon carbon creditcredit potentialpotential aboveabove thethe ground,ground, thethe mapsmaps of Spawn and Gibbs [14] [14] were used. As As a asupporting supporting process process for for decision-making, decision-making, an algorithm an algorithm was wasincluded included to perform to perform the calcu- the calculationslations regarding regarding polygon polygon areas areas in inlocations locations used used for for carbon carbon sequestering. TheThe resultsresults werewere presentedpresented asas widgets,widgets, whichwhich dynamicallydynamically informinform participantsparticipants ofof thethe percentagepercentage achievedachieved by by the the proposals, proposals, total total polygon polygon area, area, the the number number of of trees trees that that will will be be inserted inserted in in thatthat specific specific case case study study area area (the (the amount amount is is a a function function of of the the biome biome and and local local conditions), conditions), andand howhow muchmuch CO2CO2 sequestering sequestering willwill bebe generated generated above above and and below below soil soil (measured (measured in in MgCMgC units).units). ToTo reach reach these these values, values, the the widget widget would would calculate calculate today’s today’s robust robust vegetation vegetation sequesteringsequestering raterate forfor eacheach casecase study,study, definedefine thetheaverage average ofof treestrees ininthese these existingexisting areas,areas, andand projectproject whatwhat a 30% increase increase would would mean. mean. The The script script would would then then measure measure what what was wasproposed proposed and andpresent present the thepartial partial results, results, providing providing participants participants with with their their group’s group’s per- performance (Figures9 and 10). formance (Figures 9 and 10). Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18 Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 11 of 18

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Figure 9. Example of the calculation of 30% of the existing area, number of existing trees, and the target achieved according FigureFigure 9. Example 9. Example of the of calculation the calculation of of30% 30% of ofth thee existing existing area, area, number of of existing existing trees, trees, and and the the target target achieved achieved according according to the goal. Belo Horizonte MR, in which it was necessary to work with the Cerrado (savanna) and Mata Atlântica (Atlantic to theto goal. the goal.Belo BeloHorizonte Horizonte MR, MR, in which in which it was it was necessary necessary to to work work with thethe Cerrado Cerrado (savanna) (savanna and) and Mata Mata Atlâ Atlânticantica (Atlantic (Atlantic Forest)Forest) areasForest) areas as the areas as regionthe as region the is region in is thein is the in transition the transition transition area area area of ofof these these these two two biomes. biombiomes.es. Source: Source:Source: the the the authors. authors. authors.

FigureFigure 10. Dynamic 10. Dynamic calculation calculation of ofthe the areas areas proposed proposed for for CO2 recovery:recovery: as as percentage, percentage, area area in kmin 2km²,, CO2 CO2 sequestering sequestering above the proposed soil, CO2 sequestering below the proposed soil area, and number of trees proposed. Florianópolis MR Figure 10. aboveDynamic the proposed calculation soil, CO2 of sequesteringthe areas proposed below the proposedfor CO2 soil reco area,very: and numberas percentage, of trees proposed. area in Floriankm², óCO2polis MRsequestering and theand proposed the proposed metrics metrics for forthe the 2050 2050 with with innovations innovations scenario. Source:Source: the the authors. authors. above the proposed soil, CO2 sequestering below the proposed soil area, and number of trees proposed. Florianópolis MR and the proposed metrics for the2.4. 20502.4. Idea Idea with Proposals—Several Proposals—Several innovations scenario. Innovations—Day Innovations—Day Source: the 4 4 of authors.of the the Workshop Workshop DuringDuring the the fourth fourth and and final final encounter, encounter, partic participantsipants were askedasked to to revisit revisit and and eval- evaluate 2.4. Idea Proposals—Several Innovations—Day 4 of the Workshop theuate proposals the proposals for 2035 for with 2035 innovations with innovations to create to create proposals proposals for 2050 for 2050 with with Several Several Innova- Innovations, according to the Early-Adopter logic. Workshops with a lower number of tions,During according the fourth to the and Early-Adopter final encounter, logic. partic Workshopsipants with were a askedlower tonumber revisit of and partici- evaluate participants used only the context of 2050-A Several Innovations, but those with a higher thepants proposalsnumber used were only fordivided 2035the context with into 2050-A innovationsof 2050-A and Several 2050-B to cr Several Innovations,eate proposals Innovations, but thosefor with 2050a with negotiation with a higher Several stage number Innova- tions,werein according thedivided end. into to the2050-A Early-Adopter and 2050-B Several logic. WorkshopsInnovations, with a a negotiation lower number stage ofin thepartici- pantsend. used Once only more, the context similar to of in 2050-A the round Several of day Innovations, 3 (with innovations), but those participants with a higher were number were encourageddividedOnce more, into to search2050-Asimilar the toand list in of2050-Bthe ideas round providedSeveral of da Innovations, byy 3 IGC (with (assumptions) innovations), with a tonegotiation select participants ideas, stage or were in the end.encouraged they could to even search come the up list with of very ideas innovative provided ideas by onIGC their (assumptions) own. They were to select also asked ideas, or theyOnce could more, even similar come up to with in thevery round innovative of da ideasy 3 (with on their innovations), own. They were participants also asked were to fulfill a minimum goal of a 30% increase in CO2-sequestering resources, proposing new encouraged to search the list of ideas provided by IGC (assumptions) to select ideas, or areas of conserving, creating, or adding robust vegetation. To control if they had achieved theythe could goal, theyeven used come a widget,up with a toolvery presenting innovative algorithms ideas on that their provided own. They visual were support also to asked to fulfillthe indexes. a minimum goal of a 30% increase in CO2-sequestering resources, proposing new areas of conserving, creating, or adding robust vegetation. To control if they had achieved the goal, they used a widget, a tool presenting algorithms that provided visual support to the indexes. SustainabilitySustainability 2021, 13, x2021 FOR, 13 PEER, 6508 REVIEW 12 of 18 12 of 18

to fulfill a minimum goal of a 30% increase in CO2-sequestering resources, proposing new areas of conserving, creating, or adding robust vegetation. To control if they had achieved The fundamental difference in this final stage was the construction of more robust the goal, they used a widget, a tool presenting algorithms that provided visual support to dialogsthe indexes.and the voting mechanism. Once the ideas were presented, participants would add theirThe comments fundamental regarding difference each in this proposal. final stage Th wase comments, the construction in the of moreform robustof dialogs, aim to questiondialogs andor request the voting additional mechanism. information Once the ideas on were the presented, ideas, lend participants support would or addprovide criti- cism,their and comments impose conditions regarding each on proposal. their execut The comments,ion. Registered in the form comments of dialogs, are aim fundamental to question or request additional information on the ideas, lend support or provide criticism, for theand following impose conditions stage, onwhich their execution.is the voting. Registered The commentsreason isare that fundamental participants for the will issue a vote following(“like” or stage, “don’t which like”) is the not voting. only The based reason on is thatthe participantslocation, title, will issueand adescription vote (“like” of ideas, but alsoor “don’t based like”) on the not onlycomments based on made the location, by othe title,r participants. and description It ofis ideas,worth but noting also that dis- cussionsbased can on thetake comments place in made groups, by other as they participants. exercise It listening is worth noting and thatexchange discussions thoughts, but can take place in groups, as they exercise listening and exchange thoughts, but that voting that voting is individual, because we consider it important that each participant is able to is individual, because we consider it important that each participant is able to manifest manifesttheir owntheir thoughts own thoughts to create a senseto create of co-responsibility. a sense of Asco-responsibility. previously discussed, As in previously larger dis- cussed,groups, in larger the contexts groups, were the alternated contexts for were commenting, alternated and for the commenting, final result is the and synthesis the final result is theof synthesis both designs of (Figureboth designs 11). (Figure 11).

Figure 11.Figure Several 11. InnovationsSeveral Innovations Scenario Scenario (Early-Adopter) (Early-Adopter) for for 2050. Belo Belo Horizonte Horizonte MR forMR the for 2050 the with 2050 Several with InnovationsSeveral Innovations scenario, Groupscenario, A Group and Group A and Group B, and B, andthe thevotes votes for for integrating integrating thethe proposals. proposals. Source: Source: authors. authors.

3. Post-Workshop Evaluation and Further Discussions 3. Post-Workshop Evaluation and Further Discussions Questionnaires were submitted to all participants in Brazil. In total, 113 replies were Questionnairesobtained. Most of thewere participants submitted identified to all participants themselves as in students Brazil. (76%), In total, followed 113 replies by were obtained.professors Most (11%), of the public participants sector professionals identified (8%), themselves and private as sector studen professionalsts (76%), (5%). followed by professorsA little (11%), less than public half of sect theor participants professionals replied (8%), that theyand hadpriv priorate sector knowledge professionals of the (5%). Geodesign methodology (41%), but 69% said that they never participated in a workshop of A little less than half of the participants replied that they had prior knowledge of the Ge- this nature and 99% said that they improved their knowledge on the subject. Participants odesignwho methodology declared to have (41%), a deeper but knowledge 69% said of that the area they prior never to the participated workshop account in a workshop for of this nature65%, and and 99% 99% replied said to that have they increased improved their interest their on knowledge the area. on the subject. Participants who declaredRegarding to have the usea deeper of the GISColab knowledge platform, of the 86% area declared prior thatto the it was workshop easy to use account for 65%, duringand 99% the Annotationreplied to stage, have 86% increased found it easy their to useinterest during on the the Dialog area. stage, and 94% that Regarding the use of the GISColab platform, 86% declared that it was easy to use during the Annotation stage, 86% found it easy to use during the Dialog stage, and 94% that it was easy to use during the voting stage. A total of 96% of participants replied that they understood how the process of Geodesign works and 86% declared that they under- stood the logic of the non-adopter, late-adopter, and early-adopter. Regarding the collec- tion of maps made available through the WebGIS platform, 97% of participants consid- ered it important to have access to that resource. When asked about the existence of maps that they did not use during the workshop, answers indicate that many of them did not use maps of airport locations, ducts (infra- structure), caverns, and number of young people. Some of the most used maps were urban Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 13 of 18

it was easy to use during the voting stage. A total of 96% of participants replied that they understood how the process of Geodesign works and 86% declared that they understood the logic of the non-adopter, late-adopter, and early-adopter. Regarding the collection of maps made available through the WebGIS platform, 97% of participants considered it important to have access to that resource. When asked about the existence of maps that they did not use during the workshop, answers indicate that many of them did not use maps of airport locations, ducts (infras- tructure), caverns, and number of young people. Some of the most used maps were urban spot and urban area, robust vegetation, soil coverage and use, and conservation units. Maps that participants would like to include consist of mining areas, bus stops, gardening and farming areas, zoning according to local Master Plans, height templates according to legislation for land use and occupation, geological risks, and highlights on areas that contain villages and slums. In replies to open-ended questions regarding the potentialities of Geodesign and the employment of GISColab, many noted the possibility of widespread application in planning processes, as well as the positive impact this can have in the future of the studied areas. They pointed out how participants were involved in co-creation, the possibilities for citizen participation, and the expansion of knowledge that the experience provided, as well as the potential for considering different points of view and the flexibility of the platform. There was a lot of positive feedback, but we highlight three of them that synthesize the overall response: “The conceiving of Geodesign, it seems to me, is the right thing to do when we think about optimizing the use of scarce resources and territorial planning with the goal of promoting the well-being of these generations, as well as future ones.” “Geodesign is a tool that manages to provide an egalitarian database that is easy to manage, so that people with different experiences can have the same basic support to apply their ideas. This allows planning to be truly integrated and shared among its different agents.” “It can change the course of urbanization processes, through the inclusion of environmental aspects that are necessary to promote a better quality of life in the cities, and reduce the vulnerability of its population, especially the less privileged ones.” Few comments addressed the limitations, and most focused on the limitations of a web-based platform and the restrictions imposed by slow Internet connection, delays when loading data, outdated data that were retrieved from national spatial data infrastructures, and criticism involving the difficulty of thinking about innovations in a country where basic issues have not yet been solved. In evaluating the results from the proposed scenarios, CO2 sequestering and contribu- tions to CO2 credit were the most successful ones. This is likely due to the use of widgets with alerts on the metrics used, which encouraged participants to work a bit harder in constructing their ideas. The quality of the maps provided to facilitate the construction of ideas is also worth noting (soil uses, current vegetation condition, surface temperature, protected areas, and landscape ecology metrics per fragment of vegetation). However, many systems did not receive the same attention when creating ideas, which will require a more active role by mediators in encouraging idea building for all systems, perhaps by promoting thematic debates and resorting to the help of experts. A post-workshop analysis proposed by the IGC group was to evaluate if the objectives of sustainable development (Sustainable Development Goals–SDGs, ONU), agreed upon in 2015 as goals for 2030, were addressed in the workshop, according to a 17-item list (1. No Poverty; 2. Zero Hunger; 3. Good Health and Well-being; 4. Quality Education; 5. Gender Equality; 6. Clean Water and Sanitation; 7. Affordable and Clean Energy; 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth; 9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure; 10. Reduced Inequality; 11. Sustainable Cities and Communities; 12. Responsible Consumption and Production; 13. Climate Action; 14. Life below Water; 15. Life on Land; 16. Peace and Justice Strong Institutions; 17. Partnerships to achieve the Goal). Within the IGC proposal, they should be Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 14 of 18

taken as goals for 2050, so that they also achieve the goals for global change according to Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18 the United Nations Paris Agreement on Climate. Despite being a qualitative evaluation, suitable for future studies on how to improve measurements, it was interesting to analyze the positive evolution in metrics regarding non- adopter, late-adopter, and early-adopter, in all groups. Although the issue of incremental and innovations,by increasing in viewthe time of early dedicated adopters, to was help eventually participants challenging understand for the the groups, meaning it is of the workshop.important to note that there was, indeed, an increase in the conditions for fulfilling the goals of sustainable development, even if just by improving the proposals over time and by As a way of analyzing the fulfillment to the SDG, each idea proposed in the plans is increasing the time dedicated to help participants understand the meaning of the workshop. associatedAs with a way at of least analyzing one of the the fulfillment 17 objectives. to the SDG,With each this idea indexing, proposed it is in possible the plans to com- puteis how associated many with and atwhich least oneof the of the objectives 17 objectives. were With met thisin each indexing, theme it is(water, possible vegetation, to transportation,compute how housing, many and whichamong of theothers). objectives For were each met constructed in each theme scenario (water, vegetation, (Non-Adopter, Late-Adopter,transportation, and housing, Early-Adopter), among others). the sum For eachof the constructed achieved scenario score is (Non-Adopter, obtained, which is recordedLate-Adopter, on the “y” and axis Early-Adopter), of the graph the in sum Figure of the 12. achieved On the score“x” axis is obtained, of the same which graph, is the recorded on the “y” axis of the graph in Figure 12. On the “x” axis of the same graph, the evolutionevolution of the of the scenarios scenarios is is indicated indicated (Figure (Figure 12 ).12).

Figure 12.Figure Comparative 12. Comparative chart chartof the of performances the performances obtained obtained by by 7 7ex examplesamples of of the groups in in terms terms of of the the Sustainable Sustainable De- velopmentDevelopment Goals—SDGs, Goals—SDGs, UN. Source: UN. Source: the authors. the authors.

4. Closing Remarks 4. Closing Remarks In a general evaluation of the 13 workshops, we initially point out the willingness ofIn the a general groups, scatteredevaluation throughout of the 13 the workshops, country, including we initially every region, point toout participate the willingness in of the groups,the project. scattered More groups throughout wouldhave the country, participated including if it were every not limited region, to Metropolitanto participate in the project.Regions, More as groups not all universities would have are ableparticipated to develop if studies it were of thisnot nature, limited because to Metropolitan they are Re- gions,not as located not all in thisuniversities type of administrative are able to unit.develop Additional studies time of wouldthis nature, also favor because a more they are not locatedencompassing in this participation. type of administrative The project started unit. in Additional early February, time and would all the also workshops favor a more had already been concluded by late April. The group that was responsible for organizing encompassing participation. The project started in early February, and all the workshops the data and setting up the platform required one week to build each project, so as our had deadlinealready wasbeen due concluded and a significant by late numberApril. Th ofe experiments group that have was been responsible achieved, for we organizing are the datacurrently and no setting longer up conducting the platform new workshops. required one week to build each project, so as our deadlineAccording was due to and reports a significant from participants number and of coordinators, experiments the have process been was consideredachieved, we are currentlyeasy to no understand longer conducting and execute. new Some workshops. coordinators expressed that the quality of the final projectsAccording could to be reports improved from and participants that they were and concerned coordinators, due to the factprocess that notwas all considered 10 systems received ideas, but that the outcome of the workshop is not necessarily a plan but easyrather to understand a greater understanding and execute. of Some the process, coordina basedtors on expressed Transformative that Learning,the quality which of the final projectswas quitecould clear be inimproved our evaluation. and that Although they mostwere ofconcerned the participants due to were the students, fact that they not all 10 systemsare also received part of ideas, the communities but that the and outcome belong to of specific the workshop social groups. is not In necessarily that sense, wea plan but ratherbelieve a greater it was aunderstanding test to the learning of process the process, regarding based the area on andTransformative its potential uses Learning, and vul- which was nerabilities,quite clear as in well our to evaluation. observe the improvementAlthough most in the of capacity the participants to participate were and providestudents, they are alsoopinions, part whichof the are communities the most significant and belong and desirable to specific achievements social groups. of the experiment. In that sense, we believe it was a test to the learning process regarding the area and its potential uses and vulnerabilities, as well to observe the improvement in the capacity to participate and pro- vide opinions, which are the most significant and desirable achievements of the experi- ment. The process based on the GISColab platform is based on the usage of information layers in WebGIS format, which are freely available on spatial data infrastructures (SDIs). Several coordinators and participants noted the lack of updates and further detailing of available information, which is a limitation on the quality of the data that is currently available for planning purposes. Those with expert knowledge in the field of geopro- cessing can provide major improvements on the quality of the information by producing their own data, and it is worth noting that some (a third of the total group) decided to take Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 15 of 18

The process based on the GISColab platform is based on the usage of information layers in WebGIS format, which are freely available on spatial data infrastructures (SDIs). Several coordinators and participants noted the lack of updates and further detailing of available information, which is a limitation on the quality of the data that is currently available for planning purposes. Those with expert knowledge in the field of geoprocessing can provide major improvements on the quality of the information by producing their own data, and it is worth noting that some (a third of the total group) decided to take the initiative and added their own layers. However, the need for Brazil to advance its data infrastructure should be registered here, in municipal, state, and national levels, so that planners can dedicate themselves to the proposal stage, instead of focusing solely on the analysis and diagnosis stages. GISColab, the Brazilian Geodesign platform, was widely approved by participants, who considered it easy to use. It is important to point out that several participants adapted the platform for tasks that were not previously requested, using it to include layers, and optimize and personalize processes according to their own terms. The GISColab platform adheres to the norms defined by the OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium), thus using standardized patterns for geospatial data and geographic information, which allows for a broad range of applications and for its insertion into global projects. The platform can run on the formats such as WMS (Web Map Service), WFS (Web Feature Service), and WPS (Web Processing Service), and, in terms of heavier layers, it can resort to WMTS (Web Map Tile Service) resources. It allows wide interoperability in data consumption and production. Among the most promising tools for supporting the workshop conduction, dynamic layers and widget alerts seem particularly relevant. They are both possible thanks to WPS (Web Processing Service) access, as it automatically processes data as participants work on their proposals. The dynamic layer is updated in real time for the work contexts, gathering annotations into a single geovisualization element. The widgets display metrics that are dynamically calculated based on the idea designs created by participants. Although dashboards were available, they were not used during the workshops. However, they could have been used to present a new form of visualizing information regarding the proposed ideas, by using charts and analyses of particular interest. Although a single script was planned for all groups, with a conceptual base and justifications on how to conduct the required tasks on the platform, for each of the days in the workshop, each group adapted the method to their local reality, proving the scalability of the process and the necessary flexibility for employment in different realities: (1) nego- tiation and voting; (2) projective design; (3) tables and ideas; (4) technology and media; (5) landscape and units; (6) actors and values; (7) maps and data; (8) teaching and geogra- phy; (9) networks and asynchronicity; (10) technical and institutional; (11) discoveries and the location; (12) revision concepts (Figure 13). The Belo Horizonte MR group stood out due to their actions toward negotiation and voting, which permeated the entire processes, in every stage, thus broadening the use of the Dialogs and Voting tools. The São Paulo MR group, formed mostly by architects and contributions by biologists, employed the form of work used by the architects, based on projective drawings, even if guided by a collective discussion. The Florianopolis MR group was comprised of participants from the field of social sciences, with strong interest in Law, History, and Sociology, and only a small part of them came from spatial and territorial sciences. Therefore, they opted for working with more abstract ideas and the creation of tables to achieve a decision on their ideas, in such a way that the spatial location was not the starting point for the process. The Rio de Janeiro MR group acted in a quite tech-forward manner, using social media applications, and building a VGI (Volunteered Geographic Information) on ViconSaga (a web-based platform developed by the coordinator of the case study). As it works as a VGI, they brainstormed ideas regarding the case study and uploaded those data into GISColab. The Fortaleza MR group divided the area into landscape units and attributed each participant with the responsibility of conceiving and proposing ideas for that given Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18

the initiative and added their own layers. However, the need for Brazil to advance its data infrastructure should be registered here, in municipal, state, and national levels, so that planners can dedicate themselves to the proposal stage, instead of focusing solely on the analysis and diagnosis stages. GISColab, the Brazilian Geodesign platform, was widely approved by participants, who considered it easy to use. It is important to point out that several participants adapted the platform for tasks that were not previously requested, using it to include layers, and optimize and personalize processes according to their own terms. The GISColab platform adheres to the norms defined by the OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium), thus using standardized patterns for geospatial data and geographic information, which allows for a broad range of applications and for its insertion into global projects. The platform can run on the formats such as WMS (Web Map Service), WFS (Web Feature Service), and WPS (Web Processing Service), and, in terms of heavier layers, it can resort to WMTS (Web Map Tile Service) resources. It allows wide interoperability in data consumption and produc- tion. Among the most promising tools for supporting the workshop conduction, dynamic layers and widget alerts seem particularly relevant. They are both possible thanks to WPS (Web Processing Service) access, as it automatically processes data as participants work on their proposals. The dynamic layer is updated in real time for the work contexts, gath- ering annotations into a single geovisualization element. The widgets display metrics that are dynamically calculated based on the idea designs created by participants. Although dashboards were available, they were not used during the workshops. However, they could have been used to present a new form of visualizing information regarding the pro- posed ideas, by using charts and analyses of particular interest. Although a single script was planned for all groups, with a conceptual base and jus- tifications on how to conduct the required tasks on the platform, for each of the days in Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 the workshop, each group adapted the method to their local reality, proving the16of scalability 18 of the process and the necessary flexibility for employment in different realities: (1) nego- tiation and voting; (2) projective design; (3) tables and ideas; (4) technology and media; (5) landscapespace. The and Campinas units; MR (6) focused actors onand detailing values; the (7) role maps of social and actors, data; dividing (8) teaching participants and geogra- phy;according (9) networks to environmental, and asynchronicity; social, and (10) economic technical axes and (which institutional; form the (11) sustainability discoveries and the location;tripod), and (12) attributing revision eachconcepts group (Figure with the 13). responsibility for a given set of systems.

Figure 13.Figure The 13. differentThe different ways waysin which in which the theworkshop workshop was was incorpor incorporatedated and and adapted, adapted, according according to local to specificities.local specificities. Source: authors.Source: authors. The Belém MR group was mostly comprised of teachers and students from within the field of geoprocessing, which resulted in a greater interest in the data, in the creation of models for spatial analysis, and in a longer period dedicated to the reading enrichment stage. The Goiânia MR group used the experiment and the platform as a tool for teaching Geography, detailing their study of the relationships between geographic variables, and conducting, in their post-workshop stage, a specific application in a new case study as part of their undergrad program. The Recife MR group proposed to deal with time in an asynchronous fashion, exploring the potential uses of the internet to evaluate the possibility of applying the method in broader public inquiries, where synchronous actions were to be avoided. Therefore, their challenge was to plan for ways to keep participants connected and committed. The Macapá MR group was mostly formed by professionals from the public sector, which were part of the Amapá State Office. They managed to fulfill the goal of testing the possibilities for implementing such a method in their professional routines, and it was clear that the way they approached the proposition, analysis, and approval of ideas was strongly associated with the kind of work they do as part of the state’s public service network. The Palmas MR group faced the challenge of conducting a study in a capital city that was recently planned and built (its foundation was in 1989), which is also a metropolitan region with no metropolitan nature. In other words, with cities that do not form conurbations and have little contact with each other, the initial focus was clearly on defining the characteristics of the area, expanding their knowledge of their object of study, and then creating proposals that were suited for that reality. Lastly, the Carbonífera MR group, located in the far-south of Santa Catarina state, experienced the need to question and review key concepts, as the topic “innovations,” represented by the idea of “early-adopter,” was a major challenge. The reason is that the area has a strong attachment to traditions brought by their immigrant ancestors, who take pride in maintaining their local way of life. Hence, they do not view the “non-adopter” concept as something negative or that needs to Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 17 of 18

be overcome, but rather as a local characteristic. Through their concept review, innovations and adopters were then re-constructed as those who have a strategic knowledge of how to use their local culture and values to promote positive change. Considering what was hereby presented, it is important to note how even though there was a single script, each workshop adapted itself to fit within its local values. This is crucial for a country with continental size, a highly diverse culture, and such different expectations between groups. The way in which the tool and the work proposal were used by each group was not something previously planned but came into being as a spontaneous demand from participants. However, it was only possible because the work proposal and the Brazilian Geodesign Platform, GISColab, made it possible. The first Brazilian platform for the Geodesign method, GISColab, was structured after several experiments in which the coordinators measured the interoperability between users and the tools, the time spent on each step, and, mainly, the maintaining engagement and interest during tasks. For now, it can be said that it was a cultural adaptation to traditional Geodesign processes, because the platform has not yet been tested in other countries. It is believed that the use of the Brazilian framework and the way of working for Geodesign are fully compatible for similar studies in other countries, for the following reasons: (a) the platform is web-based and can be accessed virtually from anywhere in the world, because it is deposited in a robust geographic data server; (b) the platform and its applications follow the international standards of geospatial data, the OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium) and, for this reason, it is fully compatible for consumption and interoperability in other countries; (c) the platform is prepared, in its configurations, for changing languages; (d) the technological resources used today are discussed and accepted worldwide, such as integration to SDI (Spatial Data Infrastructure) for data consumption by WMS (Web Map Service) or WFS (Web Feature Service), navigation on maps by the WebGIS standard, and registration of information by the VGI standard (Volunteered Geographic Information). Finally, it should be noted that the platform and the work framework were tested in 13 quite different realities, as Brazil has continental dimensions and great geographical, climatic, cultural, social, and economic variability. In this sense, by testing in Brazil, one is testing in diversity and preparing to expand to different countries.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.C.M.M.; methodology, A.C.M.M.; software, C.R.F.; validation, A.C.M.M. and C.R.F.; formal analysis, A.C.M.M.; investigation, A.C.M.M. and C.R.F.; resources, A.C.M.M. and C.R.F.; data curation, A.C.M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.M.M.; writing—review and editing, A.C.M.M. and C.R.F.; visualization, A.C.M.M.; supervision, A.C.M.M.; project administration, A.C.M.M.; funding acquisition, A.C.M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development), grant number 401066/2016-9 and FAPEMIG (Minas Gerais Research Funding Foun- dation) grant number PPM-00368-18. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References 1. McHarg, I. Design with Nature; Natiral Hostory Press: New York, NY, USA, 1969. 2. Dangermond, J. GIS: Designing Our Future. 2009. Available online: https://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer09articles/ gis-designing-our-future.html (accessed on 11 May 2018). 3. Ervin, S. A System for Geodesign; Anhalt University of Applied Sciences: Bernburg, Germany, 2011; pp. 158–167. 4. Miller, W.R. Introducing Geodesign: The Concept; Esri Press: Redlands, CA, USA, 2012. 5. Steinitz, C. A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design; ESRI Press: Redlands, CA, USA, 2012. 6. Khakee, A. Evaluation and planning: Inseparable concepts. Town Plan. Rev. 1998, 69, 359–374. [CrossRef] 7. Pressman, J.; Wildavsky, A. Implementation; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1973. 8. Kinyashi, G.F. Towards Genuine Participation for the Poor: Critical analysis of Village Travel and Transport Project (VTTP); Eldis Document Store: Morogoro, Tanzania, 2006. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6508 18 of 18

9. Oliveira, J.A.P. Desafios do planejamento em políticas públicas: Diferentes visões e práticas. Rev. Adm. Pública 2006, 40, 273–287. [CrossRef] 10. Stumptener, A. E-Learning-Module: The basics of Watershed Management; Freie Universität: Berlin, Germany, 2020; Avail- able online: https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/v/geolearning/watershed_management/introduction_wm/natural_resource_ management_planning/how_to_plan/planning_models/index.html (accessed on 17 May 2019). 11. Forester, J. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. 12. Ana Clara Mourão, M.; Christian Rezende, F. Brazilian Geodesign Platform: WebGis & SDI & Geodesign as Co-creation and Geo-Collaboration. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 12252, pp. 332–348. [CrossRef] 13. Crowther, T.W.; Glick, H.B.; Covey, K.R.; Bettigole, C.; Maynard, D.S.; Thomas, S.M.; Smith, J.R.; Hintler, G.; Duguid, M.C.; Amatulli, G.; et al. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature 2015, 525, 201–205. [CrossRef][PubMed] 14. Spawn, S.A.; Gibbs, H.K. Global Aboveground and Belowground Biomass Carbon Density Maps for the Year 2010; ORNL DAAC: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2020.