IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i8p2757-d161930.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Methodological Approach to Using Geodesign in Transmission Line Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Javier Moreno Marimbaldo

    (Red Eléctrica de España (REE), Calle Anabel Segura 11, Edificio Albatros B, 4ª Planta, Alcobendas, Madrid 28108, Spain)

  • Miguel-Ángel Manso-Callejo

    (ETSI en Topografía, Geodesia y Cartografía, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Calle Mercator 2, Madrid 28031, Spain)

  • Ramon Alcarria

    (ETSI en Topografía, Geodesia y Cartografía, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Calle Mercator 2, Madrid 28031, Spain)

Abstract

Numerous constraints affect the design of long linear infrastructures such as high-voltage transmission lines (HVTL): terrain slope, distances to urban centers or protected areas, stakeholders, administration, etc. These constraints must be studied as a whole to make the most appropriate decisions. In HVTL project development, a large volume of geodata is generated and analyzed in the project lifecycle. Each geodata scale is associated with a phase of the project and scale transitions correspond to changes in involved technical teams. Geodesign provides design frameworks and supporting technologies, so that professionals can share data and find designs suitable to the sustainability characteristics of each territory. This article proposes a geodesign workflow for developing HVTL projects, supported by methodologies and by automated model executions that guarantee the traceability of its development through the lifecycle stages. The aim is to minimize environmental, social, and local impacts, while providing stakeholders with tools for planning and decision-making. The workflow helps to integrate the geodesign’s principles, harmonizing corporate procedures throughout the project phases, taking into consideration constraints notified by stakeholders, through a design process guided by feedback-iteration- consensus mechanisms. As a result, it produces a transparent, visible, and improved participative workflow for developing new electric infrastructures.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Javier Moreno Marimbaldo & Miguel-Ángel Manso-Callejo & Ramon Alcarria, 2018. "A Methodological Approach to Using Geodesign in Transmission Line Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-30, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2757-:d:161930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2757/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2757/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2005. "Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 909-924, May.
    2. Daniele Trogu & Michele Campagna, 2018. "Towards Spatial Composite Indicators: A Case Study on Sardinian Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kwak, Yoonshin & Deal, Brian & Heavisides, Tom, 2021. "A large scale multi criteria suitability analysis for identifying solar development potential: A decision support approach for the state of Illinois, USA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 554-567.
    2. Yoonshin Kwak & Brian Deal & Grant Mosey, 2021. "Landscape Design toward Urban Resilience: Bridging Science and Physical Design Coupling Sociohydrological Modeling and Design Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Yaoxue Li & Youngmin Kim, 2022. "Analysis of Effects of Sponge City Projects Applying the Geodesign Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    3. Sofia Eckersten & Berit Balfors & Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling, 2021. "Challenges and Opportunities in Early Stage Planning of Transport Infrastructure Projects: Environmental Aspects in the Strategic Choice of Measures Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Chiara Cocco & Piotr Jankowski & Michele Campagna, 2019. "An Analytic Approach to Understanding Process Dynamics in Geodesign Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    6. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    7. Tessa Eikelboom & Ron Janssen, 2015. "Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1065-1087, November.
    8. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    9. Haozhi Pan & Stan Geertman & Brian Deal, 2020. "What does urban informatics add to planning support technology?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1317-1325, October.
    10. Pelzer, Peter, 2017. "Usefulness of planning support systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical illustration," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 84-95.
    11. Annalina Sarra & Eugenia Nissi, 2020. "A Spatial Composite Indicator for Human and Ecosystem Well-Being in the Italian Urban Areas," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 353-377, April.
    12. Papa, Enrica & Coppola, Pierluigi & Angiello, Gennaro & Carpentieri, Gerardo, 2017. "The learning process of accessibility instrument developers: Testing the tools in planning practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 108-120.
    13. Silva, Cecília & Patatas, Tiago & Amante, Ana, 2017. "Evaluating the usefulness of the structural accessibility layer for planning practice – Planning practitioners’ perception," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 137-149.
    14. Britz, Wolfgang & Pérez-Dominguez, Ignacio & Narayanan, Gopalakrishnan Badri, 2015. "Analyzing Results from Agricultural Large-scale Economic Simulation Models: Recent Progress and the Way Ahead," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(02), June.
    15. Yoonshin Kwak & Brian Deal & Grant Mosey, 2021. "Landscape Design toward Urban Resilience: Bridging Science and Physical Design Coupling Sociohydrological Modeling and Design Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Ying Li & Yani Lai & Yanliu Lin, 2024. "The Role of Diversified Geo-Information Technologies in Urban Governance: A Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, September.
    17. Pilvi Nummi & Viktorija Prilenska & Kristi Grisakov & Henna Fabritius & Laugren Ilves & Petri Kangassalo & Aija Staffans & Xunran Tan, 2022. "Narrowing the Implementation Gap: User-Centered Design of New E-Planning Tools," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.
    18. Frank van Kouwen & Carel Dieperink & Paul P. Schot & Martin J. Wassen, 2007. "Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders," Working Papers 2007.52, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Gerber, Pierre J. & Carsjens, Gerrit J. & Pak-uthai, Thanee & Robinson, Timothy P., 2008. "Decision support for spatially targeted livestock policies: Diverse examples from Uganda and Thailand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 37-51, March.
    20. Moshe Givoni & Eda Beyazit & Yoram Shiftan, 2016. "The use of state-of-the-art transport models by policymakers – beauty in simplicity?," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 385-404, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2757-:d:161930. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.