| |
|
|
||||
![]() |
||||||
| |
||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Both UFORE and CITYgreen are geared towards planners and advocacy organizations, with an interest in influencing planning and development policy. However, CITYgreen is the more accessible of the two. This of this is due to its GIS (ArcGis) compatibility. As discussed in the development section, the original UFORE prototype is a SAS based model that does not allow users to work independently of the NFS (data has to be sent to the Forest Service). The new Windows/GIS based version is likely to improve accessibility, but is far less comprehensive than the SAS based prototype. CITYgreen, on the other hand, operates as an ArcView extension (which is where UFORE is headed). Although it requires ArcView software, this software is widespread among the agencies and consultants who might run such analyses. Furthermore, by using ArcView, CITYgreen builds on the current methods of data collection, mapping, and landscape visioning used by many planning agencies and organizations. For an accurate analysis, UFORE and CITYgreen both require some expertise (although CITYgreen does promote itself to schoolchildren as an educational tool [more] and is probably the easier of the two to learn and use, again, due to its GIS interface). Expertise is needed especially for collecting and inputting field data, and less so for mapping (in the case of CITYgreen), and running analyses. However, the results of the analyses are meant to be interpretable by and useful to many. As American Forest states about CITYgreen: Who
Uses CITYgreen:
|
|||||
| |
||||||
| |
||||||
| |
||||||
| |
||||||
| |
||||||
| |
||||||
| |
||||||
![]() |
||||||