This comment is directed to all students. I am curious to hear your thoughts and experiences.
Upon further reflection of the CEEP approaches (Just Do It, Practical Tactic, Targeted Dives, Deep and Wide) I am troubled by the somewhat divided nature of them. Why, for example, can’t a ‘Just Do It’ approach use GIS analysis? I understand that GIS analysis can be expensive and thus more intensive approaches are needed. However, I don’t think this needs to be the case.
We’re living in a time where visual communication has become omnipresent. Planners frequently use visual communication (e.g., maps, diagrams, models etc.) to communicate their ideas to the general public, City Council, and other stakeholders who might be trying to understand the merits of one policy option over another. In short, visuals have become central to everything that we do in planning, and I would argue, sustainability work. Therefore, I don’t think that the CEEP approaches of ‘Just Do It’ and ‘Practical Tactic’ need to rule out GIS analysis, for example. I believe there are creative and cost-effective ways to use GIS to communicate an idea. Thus, I would challenge us to think more creatively when either creating a CEEP or revisiting one, in how, with limited municipal dollars, we can use the power of visuals (like GIS) to produce a high quality CEEP.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Jen Grebeldinger.