Geodesign: Between Inspiration and Definition

After several days immersed in discussion at the GeoDesign Summit in Redlands, California, I found myself both energized and unsettled. The idea of geodesign carries undeniable appeal. At the same time, I am still working to clarify what distinguishes it from established geospatial and design practices — and whether the emergence of a new term is justified.

What Makes Geodesign Compelling

At its core, geodesign as presented at the summit is framed as a process oriented toward improving the world. It is not simply spatial analysis or map production. Instead of merely placing points, lines, and polygons on a map and interrogating them, the emphasis shifts toward rethinking and reshaping those elements in pursuit of better outcomes.

Tom Fisher, dean of the College of Design at the University of Minnesota, described the effort as one aimed at addressing today’s fragmented and stressed systems. That framing resonated strongly. The concept expands beyond technical mapping into systemic problem-solving.

Equally compelling is the push toward new modes of representation and engagement. Three-dimensional visualization, physical modeling, and tactile forms of ideation — sketching, modeling clay, charcoal drawings — are encouraged alongside digital tools. Geodesign reaches deliberately into the design community, a professional sphere that many geospatial practitioners rarely intersect. The initiative also brings together educators, technologists, researchers, and practitioners in a shared exploration. Participation, rather than isolated expertise, appears foundational to the movement.

Questions That Persist

Despite that enthusiasm, a recurring tension lingered. Many participants asserted that they were already practicing geodesign. Perhaps that is how new intellectual frameworks emerge: practices exist first, terminology follows. Still, the question remains unavoidable — what truly differentiates geodesign from established spatial analysis combined with design thinking?

In discussions, certain characteristics were proposed. One attendee suggested that geodesign is distinguished by the use of three-dimensional modeling and iterative visualization testing. Later conversations expanded that idea. Shannon McElvaney of Pacific GPS introduced the notion of six dimensions: x, y, z, time, cost, and carbon footprint. If 3D representation is essential, perhaps multi-dimensional evaluation is equally central.

Yet beyond dimensionality and visualization, what are the defining traits? Identifying a clear set of distinguishing features may prove more useful than crafting a polished definition. At the summit, progress occurred without a formalized description. However, if the concept is to advance, a working definition will eventually become necessary.

Process, Definition, and the “Cart Before the Horse” Feeling

Throughout the event, I struggled with a persistent sense of sequencing uncertainty. Discussions of funding, curriculum development, and broader adoption surfaced early. But how can a field secure investment without clarity about its scope? How can educational programs be designed without understanding who will employ graduates trained as “geodesigners”? How can the vision spread without well-documented case studies?

Carl Steinitz of Harvard’s Graduate School of Design emphasized that design processes allow for multiple valid pathways. That insight may also apply to the evolution of geodesign itself. Innovation rarely unfolds along a single, orderly trajectory. Instead, ideas coalesce through experimentation, dialogue, and iteration.

Signs of Momentum

There are encouraging indicators. Bran Ferren of Applied Minds noted that the invitation-only summit drew approximately 200 participants — individuals who either persuaded their organizations to support attendance or were sent by leadership. That alone suggests the concept has captured meaningful attention.

Equally important, Jack Dangermond made clear that Esri does not seek to control or monopolize the idea. The future of geodesign, he emphasized, should involve a broad coalition of vendors, professional bodies, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions.

Where Things Stand

At present, geodesign exists in a space between inspiration and formalization. It represents an effort to integrate spatial analysis, design methodology, participatory engagement, and multi-dimensional evaluation into a cohesive process aimed at societal improvement. Whether it ultimately solidifies into a clearly bounded discipline or remains a guiding philosophy will depend on how its advocates articulate its distinguishing features and demonstrate its practical value.

For now, patience may be warranted. The conversations initiated in Redlands suggest that something meaningful is taking shape. The challenge lies not only in refining the terminology but in proving, through use cases and collaborative practice, what geodesign can uniquely contribute.