1 Introduction

Studios are vital learning courses in architecture-related disciplines and are expressively used in architecture-related education (Long 2012; Park 2020). Such disciplines generally focus on real-world problems to find solutions. The key idea is to prepare students for their professional lives and provide more context-based knowledge so that they can apply various critical circumstances, including social, cultural, economic, and environmental scenarios. Such scenarios range from urban design, housing, energy, urban form, and transportation to sustainable environments, public spaces, quality of life, etc.

The development of adaptable and responsive cities increases the relative importance of the urban landscape, a preferred habit for individuals. So, design-related discipline pedagogies need to evolve to develop resilience against environmental and social shocks (Jørgensen et al., 2019). Responding to such concerns within the context of studios is addressing and seeking solutions for natural disasters as they are causing various concerns with increasing damages and frequencies.

Natural disasters surpass natural and built environments at different scales globally. Even though a single factor does not necessarily cause such disasters, they need to be responded from multi-dimensional aspects, and pedagogy might assist in this aim since it establishes students’ awareness and encourages them to create design and planning solutions.

Pedagogy is an active action explaining the circumstances and seeking solutions against social, environmental, and ecological challenges. Such activity allows us to trace the foundations of natural disasters for better understanding so that required solutions might be adopted for the process (Stryker & Gonzalez, 2014; Hebdon et al. 2016).

This study seeks to understand the nexus between pedagogy and natural disasters and attempts to answer the research questions as follows: How can a design and planning discipline contribute to natural disasters from a holistic approach by assessing studio materials, and what are the processes of students’ studio knowledge and critical takeaways of their narratives?

2 Related studies

2.1 Pedagogy and design & planning disciplines

Pedagogy, developed in European monastery schools, is the science and art of teaching children (Akın 2014). It is a branch of science that examines teaching methods and how to achieve these goals accordingly. Pedagogy is based on educational psychology, which encompasses scientific theories of learning, and the philosophy of education, which considers the goals and values of education from a philosophical perspective. It is also based on transferring knowledge and skills directly to the student (Akin 2014). Pedagogy facilitates learning with different information styles (Gunes and Gokcek 2012). Over the years, new pedagogical methods have emerged depending on the teaching area, time, and technological developments.

In design disciplines, such as landscape architecture and architecture, students receive theoretical and studio-oriented training that ensure professional development throughout their education. Landscape architecture is a multi-disciplinary profession that can produce nature-based spatial solutions and assess ecological and social conditions. For this reason, complex and open-ended problems are addressed in landscape architecture education. A broad perspective offers both holistic thinking and terrain/problem-specific thinking. Moreover, students learn unique and real-world solutions with their curriculum. In studios, they rapidly revise design solutions and gain a critical perspective (Kuhn 2001).

Regarding conveying the teaching experience, Walliss et al. (2014) mentioned that digital technologies are insufficient in improving landscape architecture’s design and planning process. So, the authors drew specific attention to the importance of digital technologies in landscape architecture pedagogy and drawing experience of design studios at Harvard University, the University of Virginia, and the University of Melbourne in 2011 and 2014. They also argued that digital technologies provide designers with additional techniques to design forms and systems and offer more effective performance, representation, and design solutions. Lee (2022) has created a novel design studio approach that proceeded through collages and models in which students developed their hand drawings to improve creativity in primary design education.

Tao et al. (2019) developed interdisciplinary teaching and experiential learning to convey multi-disciplinary knowledge in landscape architecture pedagogy. They created a joint studio program with students and academicians from the landscape architecture and urban planning, horticultural sciences, civil, biological, and agricultural engineering departments, enabling them to work collaboratively at each stage to experience the entire studio process.

Jørgensen et al. (2019) focused on teaching approaches in arts, including film, dance, creative writing, freehand drawing, and social sciences and humanities in landscape architecture pedagogy. Pedagogical practices in design professional disciplines include educational processes shaped by the concepts of space and time, including senses, such as vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, in daily life (Acar and Bekar 2017). The study highlighted that perceptual situations affect the learning and design processes, resulting in conceptual design ideas (Combrinck 2018).

In addition to the dynamic pedagogy tools, technology also provides conveniences, such as online education and tutorial uses, open-access libraries, and access to foreign university resources. Although access to resources has become more convenient, students limit themselves to shallow information. Since education in landscape architecture requires intensive and diverse experience, students cannot manage time well (Jorgensen et al. 2022). On the one hand, students are expected to grasp theoretical aspects of research and real-world problems. On the other hand, they need to deal with technical planning and design instruments. Moreover, the universal understanding of physical planning and design is based on knowledge-based approaches (Berberoğlu et al. 2022). The basic principles of this concept have remained the same since Design with Nature by Ian L. McHarg (1969); however, the volume of accessible information and instruments has vastly increased due to advancing technology and the increase in multi-disciplinary studies, including landscape architecture. Therefore, landscape architecture education’s comprehensive teaching and pedagogy approach remains under-explored (Nijhuis and de Vries 2020).

In landscape architecture pedagogy, which is mainly based on perceptual, analytical, and multi-disciplinary experience, universal orientations are needed to solve various environmental and social problems. Landscape planning and design studios must be nourished with up-to-date scientific research and supported by well-established databases (Combrinck 2018). For this reason, research-based design and planning, a method that prioritizes research, collection of data and information, and adaptation for adequate teaching in landscape architecture disciplines that require analytical thinking, imagination, and creativity, is adopted to understand such nexus between pedagogy and landscape architecture.

2.2 Pedagogy and natural disasters

Design and planning studios assessed various critical concerns regarding pedagogy; however, they lack natural disaster context. Alexander (1991) perhaps highlighted one of the pioneering natural disaster pedagogy by reviewing key terms and suggestions. By classifying them accordingly, the author briefly covered all natural and anthropogenic disasters and their duration, precautions, implications, etc. Furthermore, the study includes vital disciplines in various disasters, and architectural disciplines are vital regarding natural disasters’ effects and mitigation contexts. Shaw et al. (2011) highlighted that higher education institutions are significant for teaching disaster education as they overview disaster-related instruments and solutions. Preston (2012) expanded this dialogue by offering several disaster pedagogy methods for societies.

Benadusi (2014) emphasized the importance of disaster education at the community level or educational institutions. According to the author, public institutions are the key to avoiding disaster damage. Kitagawa (2019) assessed disaster preparedness in several categories, including reviewing the international expansion of disaster pedagogy, policy implications of the pedagogy, neighborhood-related disaster pedagogy, and preparedness pedagogy. Based on this, the author visited six neighborhoods in Japan and observed the aspects of disaster pedagogy. Clum et al. (2022) assessed resilient pedagogy terms from COVID-19 within cross-cultural nations, i.e., the U.S., New Zealand, and South Africa. A qualitative study was performed by conducting interviews with students and university faculty. The findings suggest adopting emergency strategies for institutions to understand the resilient pedagogy. Schweisfurth (2023) critically argued the learning environment for disaster pedagogy in low and mid-income countries by assessing several focal and systematic classroom observations to understand the effects of teaching on disaster pedagogy. The author reported that learning aspects of disaster are essential while the teaching methods are not well-structured or organized. So, developing countries should define the vital targets for class activities. Chmutina and von Meding (2022) studied disaster risk reduction teaching in higher education by surveying 21 instructors from several countries. According to the study results, instructors consider natural disasters to be solved with technical explications, while social aspects and personal experience remain under-explored. This also reflects the students’ learning capacities. Sozen (2019) examined the awareness of undergraduate students about earthquakes and surveyed around six hundred students. The findings showed a significant difference in gender and students’ residence, while no significant difference was observed for the students’ grades and the living place on which floor they reside.

Christensen and Worzala (2010) considered teaching disaster-related pedagogy from a design aspect. A mix of architecture and landscape architecture studios concentrated on sustainable residence strategies regarding hurricane-prone sites. The students obtained the design and planning aspects of the studio theme and had a comprehensive view of the requirements and needs of disasters for the local inhabitants and authorities.

Suarmika et al. (2022) performed a study regarding disaster mitigation by obtaining a mix of knowledge for belief, information, and technical solutions in elementary grades. The key aim of the study was to assess the school curriculum on disasters and whether they address such events. The authors utilized a meta-analysis and offered an approach for the locations that do not have disaster education curricula, enhancing the existing ones accordingly.

Choudhury and Wu (2023) conducted a literature review study using the PRISMA method of assessing 76 research pieces over the last decade regarding disaster education and post-secondary schools. The authors obtained four themes: changing trends for teaching disaster education, multi-disciplinary approaches having recently increased, community engagement being an informal and formal knowledge, and disaster education and other pedagogical notions offering a notable understanding of resilience.

3 Methodology

3.1 Studio structure and information

The studio was the sixth studio course comprising planning and design aspects of the junior students. The general theme of the course was adopted from the national catastrophe of the earthquake that occurred on February 6, 2023. This disaster inspired the studio theme by including disaster categories, namely flood, drought and food, climate change, earthquake, and disaster resilient society, to tackle such concerns.

The themes were randomly assigned to students as a framework, with the condition that they were expected to develop their concepts and solutions based on this theme. The studio initially included 22 students; two dropped the course within the first weeks, and the others continued till the end of the semester.

3.2 Project site specifications

Within the research-based studio, one of the general ideas of appropriate site selection is to recognize the main ecological, social, and economic phenomena related to specific design topics and develop relevant solutions through macro and micro-scaled landscape planning. Thus, the students selected their study areas after performing suitability analyses (Fig. 1). The studio only required that it be in the largest neighborhood of Bursa due to data availability, disaster-theme applicability, and site visit opportunity (in case of students’ willingness).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The study areas of student selections (Country, city, and neighborhoods)

Full size image

3.2.1 Studio process

The studio comprised two key phases: selecting the study areas and seeking solutions for their themes. In other words, the studio performed more planning-related utilities during the first half of the semester and used design-based software and techniques. The studio started with the basis of research-based design elements as it was requisite to conduct some pre-research and grasp a better understanding of the studio requirements. After digesting the first weeks’ information, the students immediately initiated some analysis progress for site selection regarding their themes. While some common data, i.e., slope, topography, and some essential climate, were provided for the students, the studio obligated students to collect specific data for performing suitability analyses for their themes and concepts. The classes also host guest speakers and theory-related presentations to clarify the students’ concerns and offer more in-depth information on disasters. After deciding on the project site, the students followed the design process regarding their concepts.

The studio process overall pursued a mix of formative and summative approaches. While the formative approach included student and instructor presentations and briefs along with site selection and design process critiques to feed the students and observe their learning levels, the summative method followed semi-mid, mid, and final juries for students to express and convey their research-based planning and design solutions both in poster and report (Black & William, 2009; Andersson and Palm 2017; Yildirim et al. 2023).

3.2.2 Themes

The studio structure divided the themes into five natural disaster categories: flood, drought and food, climate change, earthquake, and disaster-resilient society. At the beginning of the semester, some core aspects of these themes were theoretically and practically shared with students. Then, the students were randomly assigned to the themes, and various lecture series were organized from different disciplines and sectors, including urban planning, disaster management, etc. The students were asked to research their themes elaborately, and they had a couple of informative presentation sessions. In these sessions, they shared what they searched and found stimulating to seek regarding their design concepts.

Regarding the theme specifics, a total of 20 students were assigned to concepts. Four students designated flood-prone solutions, i.e., biophilic city, biological pond system, blue-green infrastructure, and rain harvesting approaches. Students selected three different neighborhoods after site suitability analyses. In this frame, suitability analysis based on the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach was adopted. MCA approach supports the decision-making process, especially when dealing with more than one conflicting criterion called factors, and allows relative importance to be placed upon each standard by the user (Lai et al. 2008; Berberoğlu et al. 2016; Durmuşoğlu and Akin 2017). MCA analysis is a generic term for all methods that aid decision-makers in formally structuring multi-faceted decisions and evaluating the alternatives (Greene et al. 2011). This structured approach for supporting decision-making, especially when dealing with more than one conflicting criterion (factors), allows relative importance to be placed upon each criterion by the user (Lai et al. 2008). With MCA, complex problems are dealt with by breaking the problems into smaller pieces. After weighing some considerations and making judgments about smaller components, the pieces are reassembled to present an overall picture (i.e. (suitability maps and site selection) to the decision-making. This approach can integrate remotely sensed images, spatial plans, graphical information, or planning decisions inside the spatial modeling tools and can be effectively incorporated into a GIS environment.

The most critical research questions were how to reveal the proper, reliable, and relevant spatial variables with up-to-date spatial information technologies and the appropriate ways of integrating generated information into the planning and research-based design process. So, they integrated several spatial variables into the designing process by considering their scenarios. They performed suitability analyses in terms of MCA that integrates geographic and socio-economic data to analyze information about the site selection. They have used sensed data such as Sentinel 2 A, CORINE land use/land cover classification map, 1/5000 scaled spatial plans of the city, climate data, topographic variables such as elevation, slope and aspect, and transportation network in common remotely. However, descriptive data such as population density, gender and age information, hydrology, soil structure, vegetation, and urban morphology were also included in deciding an appropriate site location according to specific design scenarios.

After preparing relevant spatial data, fundamental quantitative analysis was performed in the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) environment, including land use/land cover classification, visual change analysis by comparing different-timed remotely sensed data, object digitization, object subtraction, geostatistical, and distance analysis. Outputs acquired from the analysis were overlaid to identify specific site locations and equal weighting values assigned to variables. Thus, the project site location was determined according to the scenario requirements, and planning and design decisions were made with a particular understanding. Integrating quantitative analysis and descriptive data helped them apply state-of-the-art approaches to their solutions. Spatial variables, data type acquisition, quantitative methods, and the benefits of outcomes are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Input from the research-based design studio
Full size table

Starting from the student themes (Fig. 2), they created twenty concepts in five key themes.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Main themes and students’ concepts in the studio

Full size image

Flood is one of the core contexts of the study theme, and the students generally concentrated on the biophilic design, creating biological ponds, blue-green infrastructure, and rainwater harvesting ideas (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Examples of students’ work products for the flood

Full size image

Looking at the drought and food context, five students worked on this section, and they developed smart farming (Fig. 3), stormwater management, xeriscape, agroecology, and permaculture approaches, some of which concentrated on using/limiting water use for farming activities. In contrast, the others offered some food alternative options within five different neighborhoods in the city (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Examples of students’ work products for the drought and food

Full size image

The climate change theme was one of the most challenging ideas, as students had difficulty bringing it into landscape architecture regarding the design scales. Two students dropped the course due to the difficulty of this context, and three different solutions emerged, i.e., carbon-neutral life, resilient city, and eco-energy (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Examples of students’ work products for the climate change

Full size image

The earthquake was another trendy and eye-catching theme, and the studio’s reliance upon the shocking experience in Turkey in February 2023 was based on this. Four students developed earthquake-related ideas, including a green corridor, bio-armor, earthquake park, and linear city concepts (Fig. 6). The main idea was to design earthquake-related approaches by foreseeing such areas before, during, and after earthquake scenarios.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Examples of students’ work products for the earthquake

Full size image

The last theme concerns how a disaster-resilient society can be established and prepared with different ideas. Four students developed various ideas, such as social change, regenerative cities, spectral terrain, and protective and supportive city approaches (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Examples of students’ work products for the disaster-resilient society

Full size image

4 Results/discussion

4.1 Student approaches

Within the scope of the study, the study investigated how disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and climate change affect landscape architecture pedagogy. Yet despite many and varied examples of creative recovery in practice, there has been little scientific research of what works best, and why (Jansson and Diedrich 2019). Thus, the study framework developed a way of thinking and designing that will enable students to produce various planning and design solutions within the scope of design discipline considering ongoing debates and research, which has experienced numerous disaster-related cases. The studio required some visions from students, including investigating research-related topical issues regarding their themes and identifying SWOT-related factors to generate solutions. The studio also allowed students to establish more detailed experience, both smaller and larger scales, by analyzing data, selecting study areas, and developing design solutions. In this way, they could learn to reveal the critical associations between dynamic landscape components to produce spatial and rational solutions within the scope of disasters (as main themes were provided for them). Practically, it was challenging for students to establish the relationship between their analyses at the planning (upper) scale and the design (lower) scale. The problems identified at the upper scale were generally helpful in creating design concepts. Moreover, since there is limited research on best practice frameworks for creative recovery in disaster management, acquiring critical information that would help to prevent, recover, and manage natural disasters was determined as another challenging process for students. To overcome this problem, field trips and questionnaire studies would be helpful to analyse the requirements of projects from human to urban scale, where applicable. Besides, enhancing students’ scientific knowledge to use software efficiently and performing scenario-based future simulations through geospatial modeling will increase the reliability of the projects. These will also gain the attention of the students and stimulate their curiosity.

Another difficulty that students need to overcome is integrating academic research into landscape design since there are many different ideas of what should count as ‘design’ and ‘research’, respectively (Jansson and Diedrich 2019). The more they conducted research, the more they were confused about selecting the appropriate methodology and design elements in line with their themes. Since the themes are related to many different areas of knowledge ranging from the natural sciences (e.g., ecology) and the social sciences (e.g., environmental psychology or sociology) to the humanities (e.g., arts, garden history) and management of landscapes (Brown and Corry 2011), some relevant classifications were performed for the selection of the appropriate methodology. They primarily focused on the ecological, environmental, and human-induced contexts that characterize their study areas. They also created design principles and planning themes to overcome disaster-based problems considering future projections. A feedback process was performed during the entire design studio to evaluate all aspects developed by students through additional research and instructors. This process provided an efficient way to focus on a relevant methodology for the study. The studio outcome projects also included project reports and narratives integrated with the current studio practices, i.e., pin-up presentations and desk critiques. These integrations will also help to deal with further methodological issues related to research into design (Nijhuis and Bobbink 2012).

After identifying the problems and field requirements mentioned above in the study area, they examined different aspects of the issues by conducting extra analysis. While the students worked on the same theme, their neighborhood choices and design solutions differed. The design solutions included upper scale - traditional, lower scale – innovative, upper scale - innovative, and lower scale – traditional approaches. For instance, a student suggested smart farming practices in the drought and food theme and created a landscape management plan. In contrast, others implemented stormwater management using site grading and vegetation. In the earthquake theme, one student created open green areas that provided shelter after the earthquake, while another student increased the durability and tolerance of soil by using plant materials. Sharing ideas and realizing the availability of different approaches enlarged the planning perspectives of the students.

Preparedness for disasters may include various formats, including narratives as personal experience (demonstrates witness and to be witnessed) (Chansky 2019). Also, some disasters have catastrophic effects, i.e., the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, which enhanced awareness and disaster education at the idyllic level (Kitagawa 2017). This can occur with a sense of community and readiness as usual (Yamori 2011) approaches. Eventually, the idea makes individuals ready for their everyday life. Our study also aimed to establish such ideas for design- and planning-related discipline from two aspects, particularly after experiencing a recent earthquake in February 2023 that destroyed 13 cities in Turkey. While the students will be ready for the preparedness mentioned above ideas as a part of society, they can also create solutions regarding their professions based on their educational background of such studio learning.

Furthermore, students can integrate their personal experience, including local wisdom (belief and knowledge), with the technical aspects of the studio output to learn actions before, during, and after a disaster experience. It is observed that students had a chance to learn comprehensive theory and mind-opening themes regarding each other’s scenarios in terms of skills and knowledge (Sato et al. 2021). Having such pedagogical habits allows students to consider local wisdom (as some students already experienced the recent earthquake in 2023 or even lost their relatives), trigger novel ideas about disaster management, and combine them with their innovative design and planning wisdom (Lin et al., 2020).

4.2 Observed challenges

The studio process observed some reflections regarding the studio, including the process, students’ assignments, output, and instructors’ self-reports. First and foremost, each student reviewed the relevant literature, obtained the core ideas and theories, researched spatial design ideas, and surveyed the current disaster issues. However, after assessing the assignments, the instructors observed that the students were quite inadequate in disaster knowledge. This could be related to the student’s lack of integration with the context, particularly the lack of disaster, sustainability, and climate change-related curricula (Hurlimann et al. 2021). In addition, due to the intense studio work, the students tend to convey the information as soon as accessing the first and quick ones. So, undergraduate pedagogy for design-related disciplines should also consider including research techniques in the syllabus (Scholz et al. 2021). Such hectic semesters may not give students ample time to develop their creativity and professional knowledge. Therefore, practical and efficient note-taking, easy-to-remember, and other research methods should be included in the early semesters, even their earlier education era (Marchezini and Londe 2020), of their education.

While some disciplines, including engineering and architecture, should follow certain materials and course sequences, i.e., studios, instructors should engage with non-conventional and more praxis between technical aspects and society-related concerns (Chmutina and von Meding 2022). Such approaches should develop more holistic activities for the courses, as our study suggested, rather than concentrating on some specific involvement, i.e., assessment, preparation, before and after scenarios, recovery, or policy (Bosher and Chmutina 2017).

Furthermore, there are sometimes correct and incorrect answers (approaches and solutions) in engineering and architecture disciplines. In studio-type contexts, it can be considered more technical with objective and more flexible with subjective parts of the courses. So, the former should be adapted to the surrounding context of a series of spatial data and analyses, while the latter refers to students’ flexible and idiosyncratic capabilities (Chmutina and von Meding 2022). Notably, such studios’ objective and subjective competencies should engage with various stakeholders to better understand disaster-related solutions (Höppner et al. 2012; Slinger et al. 2023).

Eventually, the core aim of the studio was to reveal that undergraduate students of landscape architecture can address disaster-related concerns as a profession and realize the global importance of the design and planning disciplines in conjunction with the potential multi-disciplinary education regarding disaster education (Campos 2020).

5 Conclusion

Realistic spatial planning and landscape design should include up-to-date, relevant spatial drivers of environmental patterns. They should integrate quantitative techniques with designing studies to ensure practical, functional, ecological, and esthetic project outcomes. Thus, this studio work scheme considered integrating McHarg’s theory with the landscape design process at macro and micro scale planning and designing decisions and using recent developments in geospatial technologies and the quantitative methods and tools enabled identifying the priorities for the planning process for specific site selection and developing the structure of landscape studio scenarios. For instance, GIS-based analysis of tectonic faults and demographic systems, such as population density associated with earthquake scenarios, identified risky areas and policy development related to urban resilience.

As an offset of the integration idea, the primary outcome of the studio was to apply upper-scale spatial analyses to lower-scale design aspects within the scope of the research-based approach. Moreover, the study also aimed to contribute to the landscape architecture discipline by addressing the current needs and concerns and seeking solutions for defined urban problems, i.e., climate change and food security, both at local and regional scales. The study structure also calls attention to delving into spatial and ecological terms through a multi-disciplinary lens to enhance awareness of natural disasters.

Since the studio relied upon research-based scenarios, the process improved the feedback mechanism between instructors and students. The students rapidly revised their deficient assignments to make the design outcomes more reliable and high-quality. Also, students grasped all scientific and theoretical backgrounds by learning how to conduct academic searches regarding their scenarios. Such efforts fostered the studio concepts, minimized unknown or lost concerns of students, and helped clarify the scenario targets effectively. However, adjusting and getting familiar with different scales, difficulties collecting spatial data from several secondary sources, and preparing them for use in each natural disaster scenario are the most challenging concerns during the studio.

In concluding remarks, research-based studios should be integrated into various aspects of the design and planning disciplines. First and foremost, they learn to conduct academic literature using the most common tools, i.e., Google Scholar, Scopus, WoS, etc. Furthermore, assessed studies trigger them to use technological instruments more effectively. For instance, many students were curious about analyses and graphs from other studies and project reports. The only limitation is that the students are unfamiliar with such studio configurations, as this study calls attention to the fact that students had difficulties transferring the information into planning and design through spatial information technologies based on science and literature.