Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Landscape performance evaluation in socio-ecological practice: current status and prospects

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Socio-Ecological Practice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past decade, performance evaluation becomes a priority area in research and practice in the landscape architecture profession, with its influence originating from the USA and extending to other countries. The goal is to quantitatively demonstrate the environmental, social, and economic benefits of built landscape projects or, at the planning and design stage, to gauge the project’s level of fulfilment to intended goals. Structurally, the evaluation framework facilitates a healthy partnership of diverse stakeholders, including researchers, designers, clients, users, and policy makers. When adaptive design, design for resilience, and design under the uncertainty of climate change become the new norms in landscape architecture practice, performance metrics will gain interest in the communication of design merits. The author reports the current status of landscape performance evaluation by introducing the major players in this enterprise, including supporting professional organizations, accrediting and regulating agencies, research programs, and leading professional firms. In addition, 102 published landscape performance evaluation case studies are analyzed to demonstrate their contributions at the scholarly, practical, and policy levels. Last, the author suggests that the current scope of performance evaluation be expanded and offers recommendations for future development in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andropogon Associates (2016) Weather-smithing: assessing the role of vegetation, soil, and adaptive management in urban green infrastructure performance, American Society of Landscape Architects 2016 Honor Award. https://www.asla.org/2016awards/170435.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2018

  • ASLA [American Society of Landscape Architects] (2017) Awarded projects in research category. https://www.asla.org/2017awards/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018

  • Brown RD, Corry RC (2011) Evidence-based landscape architecture: the maturing of a profession. Landsc Urban Plan 100(4):327–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke E (2018) Expanding the social performance of food production landscapes: measuring health and well-being benefits. Landsc Res 43(5):587–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton I (1987) Report on reports: our common future—the world commission on environment and development, environment. Sci Policy Sustain Dev 29(5):25–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Calkins M (2011) The sustainable sites handbook: a complete guide to the principles, strategies, and best practices for sustainable landscapes. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Canfield J, Yang B, Whitlow H (2018) Landscape performance guidebook: a guide for metric selection. Landscape Architecture Foundation, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Z, Miller PA, Clements TL, Kim M (2017) Mapping research in landscape architecture: balancing supply of academic knowledge and demand of professional practice. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Edu 13(7):3653–3673

    Google Scholar 

  • CLARB (Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Board) (2017) L.A.R.E. Reference Manual. http://www.clarb.org/docs/default-source/take-the-exam/lareorientationguide.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed 27 Jan 2018

  • Cohen WJ (2019a) Ecohumanism and the ecological culture: the educational legacy of Lewis Mumford and Ian McHarg. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WJ (2019b) The legacy of design with nature: from practice to education. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:339–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Culbertson KD (2011) Research priorities. Landscape Architecture Magazine 101 (November): 235

  • Deming E (2015) Social & cultural metrics: measuring the intangible benefits of designed landscapes. Landsc Archit J 1:99–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Demuzere M, Orru K, Heidrich O, Olazabal E, Geneletti D, Orru H, Faehnle M (2014) Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J Environ Manage 146:107–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Design Workshop (2007) Toward legacy. Grayson Publishing, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Domlesky A (2018) Incubating innovation in practice: research models from architecture, engineering, and landscape architecture. Landsc Archit Front 6(5):121–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenman T (2005) A watershed moment in green infrastructure: on Staten Island, a pioneering stormwater project uses natural systems. Landsc Archit 95(11):56–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Fábos JG (2004) Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landsc Urban Plan 68(2–3):321–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson AJ, Oldfield EE, Bradford MA (2013) Involving ecologists in shaping large-scale green infrastructure projects. Bioscience 63(11):882–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher TD, Shuster W, Hunt WF, Ashley R, Butler D, Arthur S, Mikkelsen PS (2015) SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more—the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J 12(7):525–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali DR, Park BJ (2009) Co-opetition and technological innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: a multilevel conceptual model. J Small Bus Manage 47(3):308–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972

    Google Scholar 

  • Head BW, Xiang WN (2016) Why is an APT approach to wicked problems important? Landsc Urban Plan 154:4–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensel MU (2019) Special Issue “Performance-oriented Integrative Sustainability Approaches to Architecture, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture”. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/architecture_design. Accessed 5 Aug 2019

  • Innes JE (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. J Plan Educ Res 14(3):183–189

    Google Scholar 

  • International Living Future Institute (n.d.) Living Building Challenge. https://living-future.org/lbc/. Accessed 1 Sept 2019

  • International WELL Building Institute (2019) The WELL Performance Verification Guidebook, Q3. https://www.wellcertified.com/resources. Accessed 1 Sept 2019

  • Jiang B, Chang CY, Sullivan WC (2014) A dose of nature: tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landsc Urban Plan 132:26–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen A (2011) Beyond the view: future directions in landscape aesthetics research. Landsc Urban Plan 100(4):353–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost D (2012) The measured response. Landsc Archit 102(3):92–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Juneja N (1974) Medford: performance requirements for the maintenance of social values represented by the natural environment of Medford Township, New Jersey. Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, Center for Ecological Research in Planning and Design. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

  • Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) (2016) Accreditation standards for first-professional programs in landscape architecture. American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington DC. https://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Education/Accreditation/LAAB_ACCREDITATION_PROCEDURES_March2016.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2017

  • Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) (2012) From features to claims to benefits, Case Study Investigation webinar, April 18–19, 2012

  • Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) (2016) LAF news: Landscape performance in LAAB accreditation standards. https://lafoundation.org/news-events/blog/2016/04/04/landscape-performance-in-laab-standards/. Accessed 10 Aug 2017

  • Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) (n.d.) https://lafoundation.org/. Accessed 10 Sept 2011

  • Leonard R (2013) DW Legacy design® work. Archit Worlds 154:88–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberknecht K (2019) Building and innovating upon McHarg’s ecological survey: the Texas Case. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:283–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo Y, Li M-H (2014) Do social, economic and environmental benefits always complement each other? A study of landscape performance. Landsc Archit Front 2(1):42–56

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy E, Braco M, Mandel L (2018) A landscape performance + metrics primer for landscape architects: Measuring landscape performance on the ground. American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • McHarg IL (1996) A quest for life: an autobiography. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijering JV, Tobi H, van den Brink A, Morris F, Bruns D (2015) Exploring research priorities in landscape architecture: an international Delphi study. Landsc Urb Plan 137:85–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendenhall A (2016) Place value: empowering landscape architects to measure the economic benefits of designed landscapes. Land 8: landscape architects network. https://land8.com/place-value-empowering-landscape-architects-to-measure-the-economic-benefits-of-designed-landscapes/. Accessed 10 May 2019

  • Milburn LAS, Brown RD (2016) Research productivity and utilization in landscape architecture. Landsc Urb Plan 147:71–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy MD (2005) Landscape architecture theory: an evolving body of thought. Waveland Press, Long Grove

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers M (2013) Multivalent landscape: the Salvation Army Kroc Community Center case study. Landsc J 32(2):183–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi F (2014) The ecological design and planning reader. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi F (2016) Adaptation and regeneration: a pathway to new urban places. In: Steiner F, Thompson G, Carbonell A (eds) Nature and cities: the ecological imperative in urban design and planning. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, pp 191–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi F, Whitlow H, Deutsch B (2015) Landscape performance: past, present, and future. Landsc Archit J 1:40–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Planning problems are wicked problems. In: Cross N (ed) Developments in design methodology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottle N, Yocom K (2011) Ecological design. Bloomsbury, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Safford H, Brown A (2019) How to bring science into politics: six ways to gain traction with policymakers. Nature 572:681–682

    Google Scholar 

  • Shearer AW, Tierney N (2015) Bagby street reconstruction. Landscape performance series. Landscape Architecture Foundation. https://doi.org/10.31353/cs1000

  • Simo M (1999) 100 years of landscape architecture: some patterns of a century: ASLA celebrating 100 years. ASLA Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh KR, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2012) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Ind 15:281–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner FR (2011) Design for a vulnerable planet. University of Texas Press, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner F, Simmons M, Gallagher M, Ranganathan J, Robertson C (2013) The ecological imperative for environmental design and planning. Front Ecol Environ 11(7):355–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor AF, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC (2001) Coping with ADD: the surprising connection to green play settings. Environ Behav 33(1):54–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson GF, Steiner FR (1997) Ecological design and planning. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224(4647):420–421

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2017) Campus rainworks challenge design competition request for proposal. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/competition_brief.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017

  • U.S. Green Building Council (2009) LEED for new construction. http://www.usgbc.org/leed/nc/ Accessed 5 July 2019

  • Van den Brink A, Bruns D, Tobi H, Bell S (2016) Research in landscape architecture: methods and methodology. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Yang B, Li S-J, Binder C (2016) Economic benefits: metrics and methods for landscape performance assessment. Sustainability 8:424

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiang WN (2013) Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landsc Urb Plan 110:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiang WN (2019a) Socio-ecological practice research (SEPR): what does the journal have to offer? Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiang WN (2019b) History voted many times in Ian McHarg’s favor. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:165–1659

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiang WN (2019c) Why did history vote many times in his favor? Four reasons for McHarg’s achievements in socio-ecological practice research. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:359–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang B (2018) Landscape performance: Ian McHarg’s ecological planning in The Woodlands. Routledge, Texas

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang B, Li S-J (2016) Design with Nature: Ian McHarg’s ecological wisdom as actionable and practical knowledge. Landsc Urb Plan 155:21–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang B, Li S-J (2019) Blending project goals and performance goals in ecological planning: Ian McHarg’s contributions to landscape performance evaluation. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang B, Li S-J, Binder C (2016) A research frontier in landscape architecture: landscape performance and assessment of social benefits. Landsc Res 41(3):314–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuniga-Teran AA, Staddon C, de Vito L, Gerlak AK, Ward S, Schoeman Y (2019) Booth G (2019) Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. J Environ Plan Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank anonymous reviewers for valuable comments which significantly improve this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arizona, 1040 N. Olive Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719, USA

    Bo Yang

Authors
  1. Bo Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bo Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, B. Landscape performance evaluation in socio-ecological practice: current status and prospects. Socio Ecol Pract Res 2, 91–104 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00039-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00039-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation