Landscape Performance

Ian McHarg's ecological planning in The Woodlands, Texas

Bo Yang

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138640115
• eBook ISBN: 9781317266181
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

Ian McHarg's ecological planning approach has been influential since the 20th century. However, few empirical studies have been conducted to evaluate the performance of his projects. Using the framework of landscape performance assessment, this book demonstrates the long-term benefits of a renowned McHargarian project (The Woodlands town development) through quantitative and qualitative methods.

Including 44 black and white illustrations, Landscape Performance systematically documents the performance benefits of the environmental, social, and economic aspects of The Woodlands project. It delves into McHarg's planning success in The Woodlands in comparison with adjacent Houston developments, which demonstrated urban resilience after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Lastly, it identifies the ingredients of McHarg's ability to do real and permanent good.

Yang also includes a number of appendices which provide valuable information on the methods of assessing performance in landscape development. This book would be beneficial to academics and students of landscape architecture and planning with a particular interest in Ian McHarg.

Part I
Introduction to landscape performance

1 Overview of landscape performance scholarship

Introduction

It is commonly accepted that the landscape architecture discipline needs original research to support its growth and to improve its scientific rigor. Landscape architecture cannot rely on other disciplines to generate new knowledge, and recent work has critiqued the long-standing tendency to consider ideas generated in other disciplines to be of a higher status (Deming & Swaffield, 2011; Francis, 2001; Murphy, 2005).

Scholars contend that it is imperative to disseminate the theory and expertise of landscape architecture in high-quality venues in order to achieve a sustained growth of the profession, and further, to make meaningful contributions to society (Forman, 2002; Milburn & Brown, 2003). In this sense, scholarly publications, especially by designers and planners, are valuable and impactful. High-quality scholarly works can elevate the stature of the profession. “Long-term monitoring and evaluation of completed projects,” for instance, was suggested by Forman as one promising area that can benefit from high-quality research (Forman, 2002). Similarly, other scholars suggested the importance of post-occupancy evaluation of built works (Brown & Corry, 2011; Preiser, Rabinowitz, & White, 1988). This strategy can help landscape architecture research approach the rigorous research methods utilized in other fields such as medicine, whose high societal impact and reputation are a result of the discipline’s constant reflecting on its success and failure in practice, and more importantly, documenting empirical evidence to support change or suggesting direction (Brown & Corry, 2011).

An important question remains unanswered: “How can the client, designer, and user feel confident that designed landscapes will perform the way they are intended, or at even higher levels in the future?” To put it another way, “How can designers, planners, allied professionals, decision makers, and the general public know, ascertain or validate that a high-performing landscape has been created that will provide the same benefits or even more for future generations?” (Ndubisi, 2013).

This question could be answered through landscape performance – a research frontier proposed by the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) in 2010.¹ Existing sustainability assessment and rating systems, such as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED, U.S. Green Building Council, 2009) and the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES^TM) focus on evaluating design strategies employed before the project is constructed. Landscape performance research complements these systems and further improves the understanding of post-construction performance and subsequent benefits.

The past several years witnessed a strong wave of activities in promoting landscape performance research and evidence-based practice. The following sections review scholarship development, and expectations or requirements of landscape performance by the LAF, Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA), Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Board (CLARB), Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). Ongoing research activities in China and other select undertakings on this topic in North America are also introduced.

Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF)

The Landscape Architecture Foundation is a non-profit organization established in Washington, DC in 1966 by influential leaders in the discipline. Although the concept of performance assessment on landscapes is not new, it was LAF that first put forth the assessment framework, as well as establishing an innovative partnership with academia and industry.

The LAF defines landscape performance as “the measure of efficiency with which designed landscape solutions fulfil their intended purpose and contribute to sustainability” (LAF, n.d.; Ndubisi, Whitlow, & Deutsch, 2015). In 2010, the LAF launched the Landscape Performance Series (LPS) to demonstrate project post-construction performance. Its purpose is to “fill a critical gap in the marketplace and make the concept of landscape performance and its contribution to sustainability as well known as building performance is today.”² LPS is an online platform that provides methods, tools, and resources to quantify landscape benefits and to highlight sustainable design solutions.

The LAF has a premier grant program that supports the LPS, called the Case Study Investigation (CSI). CSI sponsors collaborations between academic researchers and professional firms. Each year, five to ten research teams composed of landscape architecture faculty members, research assistants, and design firms are selected from across the U.S. and abroad. The CSI grant program was officially launched in 2011 and it is expected to continue into the future. More than 50 Research Fellows have participated in the CSI programs from 2011 to 2018 (see Appendix 1). As of this writing, there are approximately 110 case studies published on the LPS website after the peer-review process. In addition to the CSI research grant, the LAF offers Education Grants to university faculty to support curriculum development that integrates landscape performance assessment.³ Appendix 2 presents education grant recipients and their course titles.

The LAF also collaborates with leading landscape architecture firms to provide free distance learning opportunities to practitioners on how to conduct performance assessment in professional practice.⁴ More information about landscape performance can be accessed at (https://landscapeperformance.org/). For additional information regarding LAF’s research and scholarship initiatives, visit https://lafoundation.org/.

Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA)

The Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA) is the international organization that “encourage, support and further education in the field of landscape architecture specifically related to teaching, research, scholarship, and public service” (CELA, n.d.). It currently has more than 130-member schools in the continents of North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia (www.thecela.org).

In 2012, CELA responded to the rapidly growing area of landscape performance through opening a new CELA conference track, Landscape Performance, to document and disseminate scholarship in this area. Figure 1.1 presents landscape performance-centric contributions to the annual CELA conference from 2013 to 2017. A robust growth trend is evident. Since 2013, a number of studies have been published through CELA peer-reviewed venues or other journals, such as Luo and Li’s article on the relationships of the three benefit categories (Luo & Li, 2013), Myers’ case study on multifunctional landscapes (Myers, 2013), Yang and colleagues’ paper on economic benefits of streetscape projects (Yang, Zhang, & Blackmore, 2014), and several other studies, reflective essays, reviews, and books (e.g., Burke, 2017; Canfield & Yang, 2014; Canfield et al., in press; Dai & Li, 2015; Ellis, Kweon, Alward, & Burke, 2015; Li, Dvorak, Luo, & Baumgarten, 2013; Ndubisi et al., 2015; Thoren, 2014; Yang, Li, & Binder, 2016). An additional six articles (Li, Dvorak, Luo, & Manskey, 2014; Luo & Li, 2014; Ozdil, Modi, & Stewart, 2014; Xu, Wu, & Ma, 2014; Yang, Lin, & Zhao, 2016; Yu & Walliss, 2017) have been published in CELA’s peer-reviewed Landscape Research Record. Previous issues of Landscape Research Record are available from (http://thecela.org/landscape-research-record/).

Figure 1.1 Scholarly contributions to the Landscape Performance (LP) track of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA) annual conference 2013–2017.

Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB)

The Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) is the official accrediting body for the first professional programs in landscape architecture in the U.S. There are seven standards that landscape architecture programs shall address in the Self-Evaluation Report submitted to LAAB prior to an accreditation visit. In 2016, in LAAB’s latest Accreditation Standards for First-Professional Programs in Landscape Architecture (LAAB, 2016), landscape performance was specified as a new requirement.

Standard 3 Professional Curriculum requires that program curriculum be guided by the coverage of (but not limited to) nine topic areas (e.g., History, theory, philosophy, principles, and values; Design processes and methodology, etc.). In particular, the topic area of Assessment and Evaluation contains (1) site assessment, (2) pre-design analysis, (3) landscape performance, (4) post-occupancy evaluation, and (5) visual and scenic assessment.

As a result, landscape architecture programs, including all bachelor’s and master’s level programs that are scheduled for accreditation reviews since fall 2017 are subject to this new requirement on “landscape performance.” The expectation is that “Future landscape architects must be able to assess and communicate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of design solutions” (LAF, 2016).

Appendix 3 presents Standard 3 Professional Curriculum. The full version of the 2016 LAAB Accreditation Standards can be accessed at (www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Education/Accreditation/LAAB_ACCREDITATION_PROCEDURES_March2016.pdf).

Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Board (CLARB)

The Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Board (CLARB) administers the Landscape Architect Registration Examination (L.A.R.E.) and has its licensure boards across the U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico. The L.A.R.E. exam accesses candidates’ ability to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. The exam currently includes four sections: Section 1 Project and Construction Management, Section 2 Inventory and Analysis, Section 3 Design, and Section 4 Grading, Drainage, and Construction Documentation.

Performance assessment is a required component communicated throughout. For instance, Section 1 covers the subject areas of (pre-) project management, bidding, contract, maintenance, and other legal aspects of the profession. According to the 2017 L.A.R.E. Reference Manual, “collect and analyze performance metrics” is a subject area listed in Section 1 (CLARB, 2017, p. 7). Likewise, in other sections – Section 4 in particular – prospective licensees are expected to assess multiple aspects of project performance, such as using the Rational Method for stormwater runoff calculation and evaluating grading plan scenarios with respect to cut and fill balance.

The 2017 L.A.R.E. Reference Manual is available at (www.clarb.org/docs/default-source/take-the-exam/lareorientationguide.pdf?sfvrsn=4).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)

Since 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) Office of Water has been managing the annual Campus RainWorks Challenge design competition. Colleges and universities in the U.S. and its territories are eligible to participate. The EPA encourages participation from both undergraduate and graduate students, and favors interdisciplinary team projects. The goal of the competition is to showcase green infrastructure (GI) practices in stormwater management on campus. Projected GI performance benefits are required to be assessed at the environmental, economic, and social categories in the competition submission. This assessment framework resembles that of LAF’s CSI grant program.

There are two submission categories defined by the EPA: Demonstration Project and Master Plan. For both categories, performance assessment is a high-stake evaluation criterion; in fact, it consists of the highest percentage of evaluation points. For instance, in the Demonstration Project category, submissions can obtain a maximum of 100 points, broken down into the 11 criteria: documentation (10 points), performance (20 points), resiliency (5 points), innovation and value to campus (15 points), interdisciplinary collaboration (10 points), likelihood of implementation (5 points), financial viability (5 points), community engagement (5 points), maintenance (5 points), quality of graphics (10 points), and video presentation (10 points) (U.S. EPA, 2017, p. 10).

In the Master Plan category (maximum score of 100), the criterion of performance assessment also contains the highest points (20 points). Description of the “Performance” criterion is the same for both categories, and is listed as follows:

• Performance (20 poin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Half Title
• Series
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part I Introduction to landscape performance
• Part II Recent development of performance assessment
• Part III Performance evaluation: The Woodlands versus Houston
• Part IV The Woodlands performance post-McHarg
• Part V Ecological wisdom and urban resilience
• Appendices
• Index