Vol.:(0123456789)1 3

Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00039-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Bo Yang1

Received: 9 January 2019 / Accepted: 11 November 2019 / Published online: 18 November 2019 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

AbstractIn 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 dem-onstrate 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 part-nership 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.

Keywords Sustainability · Ecological resilience · Planning · Policy · Landscape architecture foundation · Ecosystem services · Green infrastructure · Knowledge implementation and impact research

1 Introduction

Landscape architects play an important role in socio-eco-logical practice through planning, design, and management of the built environment in responsible and artful ways. For more than a century, the landscape architecture profession has made significant contributions to societal sustainability agendas (Simo 1999). Examples include providing human health benefits by offering “nearby nature” (Ulrich 1984; Taylor et al. 2001; Jiang et al. 2014), enhancing flood resil-ience in metropolitan areas during the changing climate (Eisenman 2005; Fletcher et al. 2015), and increasing land-scape aesthetics and ecological resilience (Gobster et al. 2007; Jorgensen 2011; Rottle and Yocom 2011). Frederick Law Olmsted, founder of the profession, for example, pre-sided over several large-scale green infrastructure projects

(many with partner Calvert Vaux) that are doing real and permanent good—Central Park in New York, Emerald Neck-lace in Boston, and park systems and parkways in Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Louisville, Milwaukee, and other cities in the USA.

The level at which landscape projects fulfil their intended purpose and contribute to sustainability can be defined as project performance (Landscape Architecture Foundation [LAF], n.d.). Documenting project performance benefits (environmental, social, and economic) becomes an increas-ingly important topic in socio-ecological practice and research (Xiang 2019a, p. 2; Felson et al. 2013, p. 882). Despite the acknowledged contributions from landscape pro-jects, research in landscape architecture has drawn criticism on the basis that research findings are not always informing practice and, at times, are irrelevant to the needs in practice (Milburn and Brown 2016, p. 75).

There are three important reasons to advocate for “prac-tice-based research” that focuses on landscape performance evaluation. The first is that socio-ecological problems are complex and wicked (Rittel and Webber 1973, p. 136; Xiang

* Bo Yang boyang17@email.arizona.edu

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

92 Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

2013, p. 1). Adaptive design solutions require the integration of new knowledge, such as that generated from empirical research, into the design process. This process should be participatory and transdisciplinary (Head and Xiang 2016, p. 4). In addition, the ability to assemble a transdisciplinary design and research team becomes increasingly important because landscape architects nowadays are tackling more complex, large-scale projects (Domlesky 2018, p. 125).

The second reason is that the process of performance evaluation can build a stronger connection between prac-tice and academy to collectively examine issues emerging in practice. Because the evaluation process requires authentic involvement of all parties (researchers, designers, clients, and users), knowledge co-generated through this process can be readily applied in practice (Innes 1995). The third reason is the imperative to enhance an interdisciplinary culture in the landscape architecture profession. Compared with allied disciplines (e.g., planning, urban design, and architecture), the cultural inertia tends to make landscape architects look inward (Thompson and Steiner 1997, pp. 3–5). When the allied disciplines embrace interdisciplinary practices and contribute to the society at higher levels, landscape archi-tecture becomes marginalized if its cultural deficiency is not addressed (Brown and Corry 2011, p. 329).

The objective of this paper is threefold: (1) to introduce the current major players (e.g., supporting, accrediting, and regulating agencies and programs) in landscape performance evaluation; (2) to analyze a comprehensive database of per-formance evaluation case studies and then synthesize their contributions at the scholarly, practical, and policy levels; and (3) to extend the current scope of performance evalua-tion and offer recommendations for future research.

2 Landscape performance evaluation: context and genesis

There is a widely recognized need for research among land-scape architecture professionals. A survey of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) members showed that 95% of the professionals believe that research is an essential way to improve practice (Chen et al. 2017, p. 3669). At the same time, professionals are concerned with the pos-sible disconnection between research produced in academia and research needs in practice (Chen et al. 2017; Milburn and Brown 2016). A key way to bridge this gap is to collabo-ratively identify research questions and co-generate findings that are useful and impactful.

In the same vein, leaders in the profession called for “practice-based research” and urged that research be con-ducted based on project context and be site specific (Mur-phy 2005; Culbertson 2011). Sometimes, sophisticated clients request that performance evaluation be conducted

to uphold project credibility (Culbertson 2011). Dr. Kurt Culbertson, chairman and CEO of the landscape architecture and planning firm Design Workshop, suggested a framework for collaboration and called for a national research agenda (Culbertson 2011, p. 235). Meijering and colleagues’ Del-phi study further recommended that “umbrella organiza-tions, such as ECLAS [European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools] in Europe, CELA [Council of Edu-cators in Landscape Architecture] in North America, and the world-region subgroups of IFLA [International Federa-tion of Landscape Architects]” take leadership to determine research agendas in different regions of the world (Meijering et al. 2015, p. 86). “Measuring landscape architecture per-formance and impact (indicator construction, visual impact assessment, quantification of costs and benefits)” are listed as research priorities identified by international experts in academic and professional practice (Meijering et al. 2015, p. 94). In addition, Hensel at Vienna University of Tech-nology (Austria) introduced the “integrative sustainability approaches to architecture, urban design, and landscape architecture from a performance-oriented design perspec-tive,” and this emerging field is interdisciplinary in nature and research-by-design focused (Hensel 2019).

“Landscape performance” was proposed because of inherent needs in practice. The concept was first put forth as a research initiative by the Landscape Architecture Foun-dation’s (LAF) Board of Directors (representatives from firm principals, industry partners, and academics). The purpose was to fulfil LAF’s mission of research, through the genera-tion of research funding and building team capacity. LAF thereafter initiated several research programs to support performance evaluation, whose collaboration framework evolves over time through dialogues among diverse stake-holders (Deming 2015; Ndubisi et al. 2015).

An important contribution of performance evaluation is to build a healthy partnership among stakeholders (e.g., design-ers, researchers, clients, users), whereas in conventional practice, this type of partnership is not fully explored, or the post-construction evaluation is conducted in a cursory way. Performance evaluation hence offers an innovative frame-work of co-learning and knowledge co-generation (Xiang 2019a, pp. 1–2). Another contribution of performance evaluation is the quantitative demonstration of a landscape project’s environmental, social, and economic benefits—the three pillar areas supported by sustainability science (Burton 1987; Singh et al. 2012). The past few years witnessed the successful implementation of several programs at the LAF and other agencies, which produced many studies that report project performance benefits and impacts (Myers 2013; Luo and Li 2014; Burke 2018; Yang 2018, pp. 250–255). A com-mon thread is that landscape architects can effectively and confidently convey project merit, supported by tangible evi-dence (LAF 2016).

93Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

3 Current status: major players, requirements, and resources

Although the concept of performance evaluation of land-scapes is not new, it was the LAF that first proposed the evaluation framework that forged the partnership of aca-demia with the professional world. The LAF is a non-profit organization established by influential leaders in Washing-ton, D.C., in 1966 (Yang 2018, p. 4). The aim of landscape performance 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” (Ndubisi et al. 2015, p. 48; LAF, n.d.). The Landscape Performance Series (LPS) is LAF’s flagship research program that demonstrates project post-construction performance, with its pilot version launched in 2010. Currently, LPS provides perhaps the largest data-base of performance evaluation case studies. In addition, LAF offers a repository of online tools for calculation of performance and other data and sources (http://lands capep erfor mance .org/).

LAF’s efforts received widespread support in academia. In 2012, the Council of Educators in Landscape Architec-ture (CELA) responded to this emerging area by open-ing a Landscape Performance Track in the annual CELA conference. CELA is the international organization whose objective is to “encourage, support and further education in the field of landscape architecture specifically related to teaching, research, scholarship, and public service.” From 2013 to 2017, the number of submissions to the landscape performance conference track almost trebled. In addition to this robust growth, many studies have been published in CELA’s peer-reviewed publication Landscape Research Record. CELA also embraces a multitude of dimensions in performance evaluation. Recent efforts include opening another new conference track, Landscape Architecture for Health, which aims at disseminating research on the health benefits of landscape designs.

Likewise, the Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) recognizes the importance of integrating landscape performance into higher education. LAAB is the official accrediting body for first professional programs in landscape architecture in the USA. There are seven stand-ards that landscape architecture programs shall address in the Self-Evaluation Report submitted to LAAB prior to an accreditation visit. “Landscape performance” was added in LAAB’s latest Accreditation Standards for First-Professional Programs in Landscape Architecture (LAAB 2016). Effective in autumn 2017, programs including all bachelor’s- and master’s-level landscape architecture pro-grams that are scheduled for accreditation reviews are sub-ject to this new requirement (LAF 2016).

In professional licensure, 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 USA, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The L.A.R.E. examination assesses candidates’ ability to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. There are four sections in the current examination: Sect. 1 Project and Construction Management, Sect. 2 Inventory and Analysis, Sect. 3 Design, and Sect. 4 Grading, Drainage, and Construction Documentation. The ability of candidates to conduct performance evaluation is assessed; particularly in Sects. 1 and 4 (CLARB 2017, pp. 7–10). For example, in Sect. 4, Rational Method is one of the content areas in which candidates are expected to have working knowledge of calculating stormwater runoff peak discharges before and after project development.

The ASLA works in partnership with CELA and LAF to evaluate submissions to the Research Category of the annual Professional Awards. Several winning projects demonstrated outstanding performance benefits, although “landscape performance” is not required in the evaluation criteria. For instance, in 2017, three of the five awarded projects in the Research Category presented observed performance data (ASLA 2017). Another significant aspect is that design pro-cess has more credibility if it answers research questions on project performance—a comment made by the Awards Jury on Andropogon Associates’ 2016 winning project on the University of Pennsylvania campus (Andropogon Associ-ates 2016).

Since 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-cy’s (EPA) Office of Water has been managing the annual Campus RainWorks Challenge design competition, which highlights the performance benefits and climate resilience of green stormwater infrastructure on university campuses. There are two submission categories: Demonstration Project and Master Plan. For both categories, project submissions are required to report the anticipated performance benefits. In addition, “performance” is a high-stakes evaluation crite-rion. In fact, in 2017, this criterion had the highest percent-age of the total evaluation points (20 of a total of 100 points) (U.S. EPA 2017, p. 10).

In addition to these above key players, several funding agencies actively support landscape performance. Table 1 shows selected agencies and programs in the USA, UK, and China and their respective grant programs that support research on various aspects of performance evaluation. For example, research teams from Australia, Canada, China, Italy, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea have been funded by LAF programs.

In addition, four recent texts provide different perspec-tives and approaches to performance evaluation (Van den Brink et al. 2016; Canfield et al. 2018; McCoy et al. 2018; Yang 2018). Van den Brink and colleagues compiles a

94 Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

comprehensive and timely text, Research in landscape archi-tecture: methods and methodology, that introduces various methods that evaluate the performance of designed land-scapes (Van den Brink et al. 2016), including grand chal-lenges that the society is facing (e.g., urban water, health, and thermal comfort) (Ibid). McCoy and colleagues’ book, A landscape performance + metrics primer for landscape architects: Measuring landscape performance on the ground (McCoy et al. 2018), is part of the ASLA Landscape Archi-tecture Technical Information Series. It offers rich infor-mation on methods and equipment for data collection and analysis that are most pertinent to landscape field work (e.g., measuring soil infiltration rates). Canfield and colleagues’ book, Landscape performance guidebook: A guide for met-ric selection (Canfield et al. 2018), provides a comprehen-sive list of metrics and methods for evaluating benefits in the environmental, social, and economic categories. Illustrated with examples from LAF’s performance case portfolio, this book also suggests a procedure to conduct performance eval-uation with a compilation of resources. Furthermore, Yang’s book Landscape performance: Ian McHarg’s ecological planning in The Woodlands, Texas (Yang 2018) reviews the current state of landscape performance scholarship and further demonstrates the long-term benefits of The Wood-lands town development, using quantitative and qualitative methods. The book strongly supports McHarg’s ecological design theory and demonstrates the importance of perfor-mance evaluation to building urban resilience (Lieberknecht 2019; Xiang 2019b, c).

There are also many international journals that publish scholarship on this topical area, with efforts predating 2010, around when landscape performance started to gain a wider interest. Table 2 lists selected scholarly outlets. Landscape and Urban Planning, and Ecological Engi-neering, for example, have extensively published articles on the performance benefits of parks, greenways, green roofs, wetlands, and functions and services of other natu-ral or designed landscapes. Starting in 2013, Landscape Research Record began to publish papers accepted at the CELA annual conference. Also in 2013, Landscape Archi-tecture Journal published the first special issue on land-scape performance. The newly established international

Table 1 Selected funding agencies and programs that support landscape performance research

Agency Funding program Purpose/description

CLASS Fund, USA California Landscape Architectural Student Scholarship (CLASS)

Fund projects broadly on landscape sustainabil-ity topics in continental USA

Environmental Protection Agency, USA RainWorks Challenge Design, implementation, and performance evaluation of green infrastructure adoption on university campus

Landscape Architecture Foundation, USA Case Study Investigation (CSI) University researchers in partner with industry leaders to examine project performance post-construction

Landscape Architecture Foundation, USA Education Grant Pedagogical innovations in design process for performance evaluation

Landscape Architecture Foundation, USA Fellowships for Innovation and Leadership Support mid-career landscape architects to explore, research, and develop big ideas and initiatives.

Landscape Research Group, UK International research fund and student awards Multidisciplinary landscape approach. Enables landscape research that contributes toward greater justice and sustainability

National Natural Science Foundation, of China

Various divisions Supports landscape performance data collec-tion. Education and outreach activities are encouraged or required

National Science Foundation, USA Various divisions Support landscape performance data collection. Education and outreach activities are encour-aged or required

Table 2 Selected scholarly outlets to disseminate landscape perfor-mance research findings

Journal (peer-reviewed) Publisher

Landscape Architecture Frontiers Higher Education Press, ChinaLandscape Architecture Journal Beijing Forestry University, ChinaLandscape Journal University of Wisconsin Press,

USALandscape Research Taylor & Francis, UKLandscape Research Record Council of Educators in Land-

scape Architecture (CELA), USA

Socio-Ecological Practice Research

Springer, Switzerland

Sustainability MDPI, Switzerland

95Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

journal Socio-Ecological Practice Research (SEPR) seeks to expand the readership from academics to professionals. SEPR’s knowledge implementation and impact research (knowledge I&I research) framework (Xiang 2019a, p. 1) should be particularly useful for landscape performance evaluation research.

4 Current status: insights from LAF’s comprehensive database

4.1 Case study investigation program

SEPR’s knowledge I&I research framework (Xiang 2019a, p. 1) was used to review the contributions of LAF’s comprehensive database of performance evalua-tion—LPS case studies. Case Study Investigation (CSI) is a premier grant program that supports the LPS. Since 2011, the annual CSI program provides funding to 5 to 10 research teams from several countries to conduct evalu-ation of built project performance. With more than 110 peer-reviewed case studies published, LPS is perhaps the most comprehensive and rigorous database of landscape performance research freely available to international audiences (https ://lands capep erfor mance .org/).

Two other aspects of the LPS database make it ideal for the evaluation of the current status of landscape per-formance. The first is the competitive selection process that ensures the competency of research teams. To receive CSI program funding, research teams including research fellows and research assistants from academic institutions and design firms submit proposals based on high-profile built projects. Forty-six research fellows from 33 different academic institutions and 79 landscape architecture firms have participated. The second aspect is the high-quality built projects selected for performance evaluation, toward the end research product of a published LPS case study. Many projects have achieved noteworthy recognitions prior to entering into the CSI program, such as receiv-ing awards from national and state chapters of ASLA, Urban Land Institute, IFLA, and other agencies. LPS case studies undergo a double-blind peer-review process, with reviews provided by university faculty, practitioners, and LAF’s Research Committee members before acceptance for publication. Participation in the CSI program does not guarantee publication of one’s case study. Using the published LPS case studies as dataset, guiding research questions include: (1) How did research outcomes evolve in the past CSI programs? (2) Who were the major con-tributing firms? (3) To what extent did the LPS portfolio impact sustainability policy and practice?

4.2 Analysis

Published LPS case studies followed LAF’s standard pub-lication format, including 24 required sections (Yang et al. 2016, pp. 318–319). The most important section is the detailed Methodology document that provides descrip-tions of the ways project benefits were evaluated. The LAF defines project types and benefit subcategories (http://lands capep erfor mance .org/). There are 18 subcategories of the environmental benefits, including (1) land (land efficiency/preservation; soil creation, preservation/restoration; and shoreline protection); (2) water (stormwater management; water conservation; water quality; flood protection; water body/groundwater recharge; and other water); (3) habitat (habitat creation, preservation/restoration; habitat quality; and populations and species richness); (4) carbon, energy and air quality (energy use; air quality; temperature and urban heat island; and carbon sequestration and avoidance); and (5) materials and waste (reused/recycled materials; and waste reduction).

The social benefits category comprises a total of 11 sub-categories. These include: recreational and social value; cul-tural preservation; health and well-being; safety; educational value; noise mitigation; food production; scenic quality and views; transportation; access and equity; and other social. The economic benefits category has a total of 8 subcatego-ries: property values; operations and maintenance savings; construction cost savings; job creation; visitor spending; increased tax revenue; economic development; and other economic.

After these subcategories, performance benefits are eval-uated quantitatively based on sustainable design features of the project. An example of environmental benefit would be, “Ten new trees (sustainable design feature) trapped 1500 lb of carbon annually in tree biomass (performance benefit).” An example of economic benefit would be, “A new public park (sustainable design feature) increased adjacent prop-erty values by 10% (performance benefit).” An example of social benefit would be, “Five new seating areas (sustainable design feature) increase the social value of space and result in an increase of café patronage by 30% on weekdays and 50% on weekends” (adapted from LAF 2012).

Two sets of analyses were performed. The first set of analysis answers research questions 1 and 2 (see Sect. 4.1), by reviewing published LPS case studies and synthesizing their scholarly and practical contributions. In total, 116 case studies had been published by 2017. Fourteen case studies were produced in LPS’s pilot program prior to 2011. For the purpose of this report, these studies were excluded from the analysis and 102 studies were finally analyzed. Performance benefits are presented by environmental, social, and eco-nomic categories on each LPS case study’s webpage (https ://www.lands capep erfor mance .org/). Each performance

96 Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

benefit statement was reviewed, and the total number of per-formance benefits and the number of benefit items in each benefit category were calculated. Because the number of case studies produced each year differed, to standardize the comparison, the average numbers of performance benefits documented per case study and the percentages of each ben-efit category for each year were calculated. Other typologies and details such as project type, location, size, and climate zone were also retrieved from the LPS webpage. The pub-lished LPS database is compiled in an Excel file, which is retrievable from (https ://www.lands capep erfor mance .org/case-study -brief s).

The second set of analysis examines LPS case studies’ impacts on sustainability policy and practice to answer research question 3 (see Sect. 4.1). This was done through review of the Overview, Methodology, Challenge and Solu-tion, and Lessons Learned sections of the case studies. In particular, in one instance, an urban redesign project in Bagby Street, Houston (USA) influenced future streetscape project development policy and guidelines in the city. It is worth mentioning that the Bagby Street case study estab-lished a new section, Policy Impact. It should be noted that LPS case studies document the impacts on sustainability, which often occurred prior to projects entering the CSI pro-gram. However, in other cases, it was the strong evidence of performance benefits that triggered positive changes or initiatives moving toward institutional changes (Wang et al. 2016; Canfield et al. 2018).

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Overview research outcomes

Each case study highlights several performance benefits in each benefit category (see examples in Sect. 4.2). Results show that the number of benefits documented across the three categories have consistently increased over the past 7 years of the CSI program. Together, the 102 LPS case studies documented a total of 704 benefit items, including 336 items on environmental benefits, 253 items on social benefits, and 115 items on economic benefits. Most case

studies documented benefits covering all three categories. Table 3 shows the overall research outcomes and benefit category breakdowns. The average number of performance benefits per case study has increased 27.5% from 2011 to 2017. From 2011 to 2013, the annual productivity was below the average of overall productivity (6.7 benefit items per case study), whereas from 2014 to 2017, the numbers increased above this average (except in 2015). With minor exceptions, the increase was consistent.

Regarding percentage breakdowns, environmental benefit was the most frequently documented category, with 50% of all named benefits over the survey period. Social benefit list-ings increased over time and were 30–40% of cases in most years. This was partly due to LAF’s stringent requirement starting in 2012, which mandated that all three benefit cat-egories be documented for each case study. This requirement was developed to address the situation in the 2011 cohort of studies that focused mostly on environmental benefits. How-ever, economic benefit remained a relatively weak category, whose percentages stayed at 20% or lower (except in 2015). In 2017, social benefit became the most documented cate-gory, consisting of 53% of the total benefits examined in that year. In addition, there was a steady growth in the number of subcategories of benefit in parallel to the growing research outcomes. The LAF’s subcategory of benefit is a dynamic system that evolves over time when new benefit types are identified. All the 37 subcategories of benefit defined by the LAF have been evaluated in published LPS case studies.

4.3.2 Major contributing firms

In total, 79 firms participated in the CSI program from 2011 to 2017. Among these 79 firms, nine published three or more case studies (Table 4). These firms have been enjoy-ing national/international repute for their sustainable plan-ning and design strategies and artful expressions of design. Several firms already conduct performance evaluation as a reflective critique of their past practices, although the firms’ strategies and approaches may differ, which emanate from different firm cultures and core values.

Table 3 Research outcomes and performance benefit category breakdowns in the Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Case Study Investigation (CSI) program 2011–2017

Year Number of case study projects

Avg. benefit reported per case study

Environmental benefits (%)

Social ben-efits (%)

Economic benefits (%)

2011 4 5.8 74 22 42012 13 6.2 50 36 142013 25 6.6 45 37 182014 21 7.6 49 34 172015 17 6.4 53 32 242016 12 7.1 53 35 122017 10 7.4 32 53 15

97Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

For example, Design Workshop has been using Legacy Design®, the firm’s philosophy and methodological frame-work for performance evaluation, in the recent decades (Design Workshop 2007, p. 10; Jost 2012, pp. 97–99): year 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of Legacy Design. As a comprehensive approach toward sustainability, Legacy Design specifies performance metrics in the four categories of environment, community, economics, and art, to guide the design process and ultimately as a framework to evaluate project outcomes. This process strives to balance environ-mental sensitivity, community connections, artistic beauty, and economic viability (Culbertson 2011, p. 235; Leonard 2013, pp. 92–94; Mendenhall 2016).

Other selected firms on the forefront of performance evaluation are SmithGroup, Conservation Design Forum, TBG Partners, and SWA Group. (1) SmithGroup, as a lead-ing multidisciplinary firm, provides generous resources and support for research. The firm established high benchmarks in striving for sustainability, featuring many high-profile, transdisciplinary projects. (2) Conservation Design Forum is renowned for its integrated ecological design focusing on water. The firm is on the forefront of land use planning, pres-ervation, and restoration. Many of the firm’s projects feature green infrastructure and performance. (3) TBG Partners is a well-established firm based in metropolitan areas in Texas (USA). Excellent design outcomes rely on the five key roles (scientists, artists, designers, futurists, and composers) that design teams play simultaneously in every project. (4) SWA Group’s history of research initiatives can be traced back to 2008. The firm allocates sizable funds annually to support research. SWA’s XL Lab (Experiments in Landscape and Urbanism) is the engine for research and innovation.

Firms that published two LPS case studies include: Michael Vergason Landscape Architects, Mithun, Moriy-ama & Teshima Planners, Perkins + Will, PWP Landscape Architecture, Site Design Group, and Ten Eyck Landscape Architects. Finally, the remaining 63 firms each contributed one case study.

These leading firms exhibit several common traits (see Table 4)—they are well established in the field, known for their high-quality design and delivery and their competency at complex, interdisciplinary projects, and present a commit-ment to sustainability. In general, large firms have a stronger impetus for innovation than small and medium-sized ones and can afford staff time and other resources (Gnyawali and Park 2009).

Currently, a majority of the LPS case studies are based on projects located in the USA (90% +). It is not surprising that contributing firms are also mostly based there, although several firms have branch offices internationally or have an extensive practice overseas (see Table 4). An additional 10 case studies (or 9.8%) are located in five different countries. Within the USA, projects from 27 different states have been recorded (Table 5). California, Texas, and Washington, D.C., are the top contributing states/district, partly reflect-ing the growing market for landscape projects in these areas. LAF also expects to grow its LPS portfolio to attract more projects internationally and have further impacts in other continents.

4.3.3 Implications on sustainability policy and practice

The geographic influence of the LPS project tends to be evident initially in proximity. More than a dozen projects in the LPS portfolio reported a direct impact on adjacent developments or have further influenced municipal codes and ordinances toward a higher level of commitment to sustainability. Table 6 shows five selected projects that have made significant contributions in this area. These projects were chosen based on the criteria that they (1) were completed within the past decade (2008–2017), (2) covered a wide range of typologies (e.g., project loca-tion, type, size), and (3) facilitated or generated tangible changes in policy and/or practice. Facilitating means the design serves as a catalyst for possible policy changes and was used to drive the discussion. Generating policy

Table 4 Leading landscape architecture firms in participating Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Case Study Investigation (CSI) program 2011–2017

Firm Number of CSI case studies

Firm’s website

Design Workshop (USA) 12 http://www.desig nwork shop.com/SmithGroup (USA) 7Conservation Design Forum (USA) 4 https ://www.cdfin c.com/Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates (USA) 4 http://www.mvvai nc.com/Beijing Tsinghua Tongheng Urban Planning and

Design Institute (China)4 http://www.thupd i.com/

Andropogon Associates (USA) 3 https ://www.andro pogon .com/EDSA (USA) 3 https ://www.edsap lan.com/OLIN (USA) 3 https ://www.theol instu dio.comTBG Partners (USA) 3 https ://tbgpa rtner s.com/

98 Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

change means the design directly influenced the revision or updating of sustainability policies. Table 7 presents specific implications from projects presented in Table 6.

Bagby Street reconstruction project in Houston (USA) (Fig. 1) has specifically incorporated a new section—Policy Impact—in the standard format of the LPS case study report (https ://www.lands capep erfor mance .org/case-study -brief s/bagby -stree t-recon struc tion#/polic y-impac t). This link provides a more detailed account of how Bagby Street became a catalyst for Houston’s devel-opment policy change, through proactively engaging gov-ernment officials at various city departments, including the Houston mayor, and eventually converting tensions among different departments into fruitful collaborations (Shearer and Tierney 2015). The explicit reporting of Pol-icy Impact should influence future LPS case studies and widen awareness of such significant outcomes. Focus-ing on the communication of knowledge implementa-tion anchored in impactful research (Xiang 2019a), these changes would help streamline the participation process in design and facilitate dialogues among different stake-holders including policy makers.

5 Discussions and prospects

5.1 Lessons learned

Reviewing published LPS case studies has identified trends and insights applicable to future work. The disparity of percentage breakdowns resonates with the challenges reported by the CSI research teams regarding data and tools availability and the lack of expertise to evaluate cer-tain benefit items (see Table 3). Pedagogical improvements are needed to address these challenges to better incorpo-rate social and economic theories and tools that overlap with landscape performance. Most curricula in landscape architecture programs focus on environmental benefits; few courses introduce methods and roadmaps for evaluat-ing social or economic benefits (Wang et al. 2016, p. 10).

In this sense, the CSI program offers a possible model of pedagogical improvement. A unique aspect of the CSI program is the healthy partnership among researchers (university faculty and students), practitioners (landscape architecture firms), and the sponsor (LAF). The framework

Table 5 Number of projects and project locations in the USA (by state), as reported in the Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Case Study Investigation (CSI) program 2011–2017

Number of case study projects

State (USA)

7–10 California (10 projects), Texas (9), Washington (7)4–6 New York (6), Pennsylvania (6), Washington DC (6), Colorado (5), Illinois (5), Michigan (5), Virginia (5), Arizona (4), Florida

(4)1–3 Missouri (3), Alabama (2), Georgia (2), Indiana (2), Kentucky (2), Massachusetts (2), New Mexico (2), Oregon (2), Wisconsin

(2), Connecticut (1), Iowa (1), New Jersey (1), North Carolina (1), Tennessee (1), and Utah (1)

Table 6 Selected impactful projects from the Landscape Architecture Foundation’s Case Study Investigation (CSI) program 2011–2017

Project name Location (USA) Project size Type Design firm Year completed

TAXI II Denver, Colorado 6 acres Mixed-use development Wenk associates 2008Charles City Permeable

Streetscape Phase 1Charles City, Iowa 5 acres Streetscape and transpor-

tationConservation design

forum2009

Middle Blue River Basin Green Solutions Pilot Project

Kansas City, Missouri 100 acres Community and streetscape

URS corporation/Vireo (east of Troost Avenue) URS Corporation/Talia-ferro & Browne (Troost Avenue and west of Troost Avenue)

2012

Bagby Street Reconstruc-tion

Houston, Texas 7.8 acres Streetscape Design workshop 2013

High Desert Community Albuquerque, New Mexico

1067 acres Community Design workshop 2030 (projected)

99Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

Tabl

e 7

Per

form

ance

ben

efits

hig

hlig

hts

and

impl

icat

ions

in p

olic

y or

pra

ctic

e fro

m s

elec

ted

proj

ects

fro

m th

e La

ndsc

ape

Arc

hite

ctur

e Fo

unda

tion’

s C

ase

Stud

y In

vesti

gatio

n (C

SI)

prog

ram

20

11–2

017

Proj

ect n

ame

Perfo

rman

ce b

enefi

ts h

ighl

ight

sIm

plic

atio

ns in

pol

icy

or p

ract

ice

TAX

I II

Tran

sfor

med

the

old

taxi

dis

patc

h ce

nter

into

a m

ultif

unct

iona

l lig

ht in

dustr

ial

com

mun

ity. D

esig

n hi

ghlig

hts s

torm

wat

er m

anag

emen

t and

inno

vativ

e cr

ea-

tion

of p

ublic

spac

es. I

nter

cept

s, in

filtra

tes,

and

evap

orat

es 8

0% o

f ann

ual

rain

fall

thro

ugh

dete

ntio

n ga

rden

s, su

rface

swal

es, a

nd p

re-e

xisti

ng sh

allo

w

pond

s

Func

tions

of S

torm

wat

er C

ontro

lled

Land

scap

es re

cogn

ized

by

Den

ver’s

sto

rmw

ater

cod

es. T

he fi

rst i

n M

etro

-Den

ver t

o us

e po

rous

land

scap

e de

tent

ion

gard

ens t

o m

eet r

equi

rem

ents

for s

torm

wat

er q

ualit

y

Cha

rles C

ity P

erm

eabl

e St

reet

scap

e Ph

ase

1O

ne o

f the

larg

est p

erm

eabl

e pa

vem

ent p

roje

cts i

n th

e U

S St

orm

wat

er p

eak

flow

redu

ced

75%

for 1

0-ye

ar e

vent

s and

40%

for 1

00-y

ear e

vent

s. M

ost

impa

ssab

le st

reet

s reg

ain

thei

r fun

ctio

ns in

nor

mal

stor

m e

vent

s

Inno

vativ

e de

sign

secu

red

fede

ral f

undi

ng fo

r Pha

se I.

Due

to P

hase

I’s s

ucce

ss,

an a

dditi

onal

$73

1,00

0 fe

dera

l fun

ding

gra

nted

for P

hase

II. S

purr

ed a

dditi

onal

ph

ases

in a

n ad

jace

nt n

eigh

borh

ood

Mid

dle

Blu

e R

iver

Bas

in

Gre

en S

olut

ions

Pilo

t Pr

ojec

t

Firs

t lar

ge-s

cale

gre

en in

fras

truct

ure

proj

ect (

GI)

for K

ansa

s City

’s O

verfl

ow

Con

trol P

rogr

am. R

educ

ed st

orm

wat

er ru

noff

volu

me

and

peak

runo

ff vo

lum

e by

80%

and

76%

, res

pect

ivel

y. M

eet E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y’s

wat

er q

ualit

y st

anda

rds i

n ta

cklin

g C

ombi

ned

Sew

er O

verfl

ows (

CSO

s)

The

first

“Kan

sas C

ity G

reen

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d.”

Prov

ided

the

city

with

con

fiden

ce

to u

se G

I as a

n eff

ectiv

e an

d ec

onom

ical

ly v

iabl

e al

tern

ativ

e. G

ener

ated

app

li-ca

tions

in o

ther

retro

fits a

nd n

ew d

evel

opm

ents

. Am

elio

rate

d C

SOs i

ssue

s in

Kan

sas C

ity, a

goo

d ex

ampl

e fo

r oth

er U

S ci

ties t

hat f

ace

CSO

sB

agby

Stre

et R

econ

struc

tion

Firs

t Gre

enro

ads c

ertifi

ed p

roje

ct in

Tex

as. I

ncre

ased

safe

ty c

ompa

red

to si

tu-

atio

ns b

efor

e re

cons

truct

ion.

Con

tribu

ted

to a

$53

mill

ion

(or 2

6%) i

ncre

ase

in p

rope

rty v

alue

s of s

urro

undi

ng b

uild

ings

(201

3–20

15).

Dev

oted

4%

(com

-pa

red

with

typi

cal 1

%) o

f con

struc

tion

budg

et to

aes

thet

ic im

prov

emen

ts,

gave

Hou

ston

Mid

tow

n a

uniq

ue lo

ok

Form

ed th

e ba

sis o

f des

ign

for n

umer

ous a

ctiv

e re

cons

truct

ion

proj

ects

in M

id-

tow

n H

ousto

n. B

ecam

e a

cata

lyst

for a

pol

icy-

leve

l cha

nge:

city

of H

ousto

n M

ayor

’s C

ompl

ete

Stre

et E

xecu

tive

Ord

er (2

013)

man

date

d th

e Pl

anni

ng a

nd

Publ

ic W

orks

Dep

artm

ents

wor

k to

geth

er o

n al

l new

tran

spor

tatio

n de

velo

p-m

ents

, and

requ

ired

a C

ompl

ete

Stre

ets a

naly

sis a

nd a

n an

nual

repo

rt. P

ro-

mot

ed fu

ture

inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l col

labo

ratio

ns o

n pu

blic

pro

ject

sH

igh

Des

ert C

omm

unity

Low

-impa

ct d

esig

n pr

actic

es (e

.g.,

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion,

wild

life

habi

tat r

esto

ra-

tion,

mat

eria

l rec

yclin

g, a

nd c

ultu

ral e

ndow

men

t) to

redu

ce e

colo

gica

l foo

t-pr

int.

Con

serv

ed n

atur

al a

rroy

os a

nd p

lace

d de

velo

pmen

t out

of p

re-e

xisti

ng

hydr

aulic

pat

hs. U

ses o

nly

20%

of c

ity’s

ann

ual w

ater

allo

wan

ce in

land

scap

e ar

eas,

savi

ng a

s muc

h as

28.

7 m

illio

n ga

llons

or $

300,

000

each

yea

r

Prom

pted

city

of A

lbuq

uerq

ue a

nd st

ate

of N

ew M

exic

o up

date

d w

ater

con

serv

a-tio

n an

d la

ndsc

ape

plan

ting

ordi

nanc

es. I

nflue

nced

Alb

uque

rque

’s D

esig

n an

d C

onstr

uctio

n Re

gula

tions

by

prov

idin

g its

dro

ught

tole

rant

pla

nt li

st to

th

e C

ity P

lann

ing

Dep

artm

ent.

Spur

red

regi

onal

nur

sery

sale

s of n

ativ

e pl

ants

by

requ

iring

larg

e or

ders

of n

ativ

e sto

ck fo

r bot

h op

en sp

aces

and

resi

dent

ial

land

scap

e co

nstru

ctio

n

100 Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

for collaboration ensures collective learning and knowl-edge co-generation. This process provides an excellent training opportunity for next-generation designers and professional leaders. During the CSI program, various means are provided to ensure meaningful communication and knowledge dissemination. LAF facilitates constant contact throughout the case study research, including the research report preparation and publication phases. In most cases, research teams visit design firms in collabo-ration and conduct field work to collect data. Follow-up phone calls and meetings are typical and frequent. LAF also hosts a final presentation webinar, which is open to all and especially of interest to current and past CSI program participating firms, university faculty and students, LAF Board of Directors, and other project stakeholders.

For the LAF to further increase its impact, it is expected that performance-centric research programs go beyond doc-umenting performance benefits to proactively influence sus-tainable policies and practices, such as by taking advantage of the existing partnerships with the professional world and

municipalities. In a nutshell, better landscape performance evaluation would enhance the rigor and validity of profes-sional practice, and contribute to the theoretical framework of sustainability.

Landscape performance also complements the current applications of sustainability rating systems, such as Lead-ership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (U.S. Green Building Council 2009) and its pathway toward per-formance evaluation, Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES™) (Calkins 2011; Steiner et al. 2013), the WELL Building Standard (International WELL Building Institute 2019), and the Living Building Challenge (International Living Future Institute, n.d.). These rating systems generally evaluate the levels of “greenness” of project sustainability before con-struction. For the purpose of this report, it is suggested that landscape performance expands the scope of evaluation, as elaborated next.

5.2 Expanding the scope of performance evaluation

LAF’s definition of performance evaluation focuses on observed benefits of built projects. It is suggested that the current scope be expanded to encompass the assessment of design goals and scenarios at the planning and design phase, as well as that of observed outcomes post-project construction and occupancy. Both are important dimensions of landscape performance evaluation (Yang and Li 2019, p. 210). There is a distinction between performance goals and performance evaluation. Figure 2 shows a pathway of per-formance evaluation for projects at the planning and design phase, with performance goals articulated at this phase. For built projects, Fig. 3 shows the combined project goals, per-formance objectives, design intent, expected outcomes, and unanticipated outcomes that help the evaluator determine what to evaluate and how to gauge success.

For performance evaluation of built projects, it is impor-tant to clarify research goals, incentives, and expected outcomes early in the process for all parties involved (see Fig. 3). There may be achieved intentions, failed intentions,

Fig. 1 Bagby Street in Houston, Texas, an exemplary streetscape pro-ject assessed in the Landscape Architecture Foundation Case Study Investigation (CSI) program. a Colored pavers give a vibrancy to the street; b lighting design for the streetscape. Image courtesy: D. A. Horchner/Design Workshop, Inc

Fig. 2 Conceptual diagram of performance evaluation process for project at the planning and design phase

101Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

and unexpected outcomes (positive or negative). Clarify-ing design intent, project goals, and expected outcomes will assist with performance evaluation. In fact, several afore-mentioned programs and endeavors at the LAF, CELA, and U.S. EPA are tackling forecasted performance benefits at the

planning and design phase. Evaluating design performance at this phase has become a required component in landscape architecture curriculum and a common practice in design studio instruction (see Sect. 3 in LAAB).

Figure 4 provides an example of landscape performance evaluation within the ecosystem services framework. This conceptual diagram shows the interrelationships and the feedback loop between project goals and landscape design parameters for the environmental, social, and economic ben-efits. Figure 5 expands on components in Fig. 4 to illustrate performance evaluation of urban green infrastructure in a climate change mitigation and adaption framework.

5.3 Inspirational examples and prospects

Design for urban resilience facing climate change is an important consideration in future community developments or design retrofits (Calkins 2011; Zuniga-Teran et al. 2019). “Specifically, attention should be given to … how resilient landscapes can fulfil their intended goals” (Ndubisi 2016, p. 199). This statement is central to the question that landscape performance research aims to answer (Yang and Li 2019, pp. 211–212). Inspirational examples can be found in the works of forerunner Ian McHarg and his team members at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1970s. Featured studies include Medford, New Jersey (spearheaded perfor-mance zoning) (Cohen 2019a), The Woodlands, Texas (per-formance of ecological planning) (Yang and Li 2016; Cohen 2019b, p. 343), and complex river basins of the Potomac and Delaware (Juneja 1974; McHarg 1996, pp. 273–285). In particular, The Woodlands project demonstrates “how well a design of plan has performed in reaching its targeted goals” (Ndubisi 2014, p. 433). It is also a fine example of how adap-tive, participatory, and transdisciplinary approaches (Head and Xiang 2016, p. 4) were applicable in a major develop-ment in an evolving socio-ecological context (Steiner 2011,

Fig. 3 Conceptual diagram of performance evaluation process for project post-construction and occupancy

Fig. 4 Conceptual diagram of performance evaluation in the ecosys-tem services framework

Fig. 5 Performance evalua-tion in the ecosystem services framework: an example of urban green infrastructure performance for climate change mitigation and adaption (adapted from Demuzere et al. 2014, p. 108)

102 Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

pp. 77–85; Yang 2018). Julius Fabos, Ervin Zube, and other colleagues at University of Massachusetts Amherst were also active and conducted similar works from 1970 to 2000 (Fabos 2004, p. 327).

Design Workshop is a contemporary example that actively pursues “research in design” through the firm’s research pro-gram that tackles emerging topics, including performance aspects of green infrastructure (designworkshop.com/research.html). In the same vein, CELA compiles research needs submitted by professionals and academic researchers to CELA’s Research Problem Statement, which is expected to become a central portal for knowledge exchange and capacity building for landscape architecture research.

Incremental changes that integrate education and prac-tice are also occurring in other countries. One example is provided by LAF research fellow Jie Hu, a professor at Tsinghua University (China) and director of Beijing Tsin-ghua Tongheng Urban Planning and Design Institute (Bei-jing, China). Hu’s team, which includes university students and designers, have participated twice in the CSI program. Most team members believed that performance evaluation has resulted in a more credible and rewarding design process for them, and the evaluation process allows them to deliver stronger projects in the future (pers. comm. from Jie Hu, 21 October 2018).

There are other signs of progress. In particular, improv-ing the policy impacts on sustainability would be one of the focus areas of performance evaluation research and out-reach. In their recent article in Nature, Safford and Brown (2019) offer recommendations to gain traction with pol-icy makers, with two suggestions of particular relevance. “Repackage your work” (Ibid, p. 682) is a suggestion to change the format of communication from peer-reviewed article (status quo in academia) to a synthesis of key findings and recommendations such as in the format of a two-page policy summary. Another suggestion, “sustain and amplify your engagement” (Ibid, p. 682), focuses on the collective action of researchers with similar interests and on sustaining a decent level of engagement with key players such as policy makers (Ibid, p. 682). As a case in point, the aforementioned Bagby Street LPS case study is a good example that strives to influence policy changes. The newly created section of Policy Impact will shed light on how future LPS case studies are prepared and inspire other performance-centric research and outreach efforts. In a similar vein, supported by efforts at LAF, CELA, IFLA, ASLA, U.S. EPA, and other organi-zations and agencies, researchers in this enterprise can take advantage of the existing partnerships in the industry and with municipalities. Collectively, performance evaluation research would seek further commitment by research fund-ing agencies and private foundations, and increase the level of engagement with the process of decision making on sus-tainability policies.

6 Conclusions

This paper introduces the current status of performance evaluation through a review of the major players and associated programs and initiatives, as well as by review-ing a comprehensive database of performance evaluation case studies. In addition, the findings extend the current scope of performance evaluation that focuses on empirical examination post-project implementation, to encompass forecasted performance benefits at the planning and design phase. The process of performance evaluation, as exempli-fied in LAF’s CSI programs, demonstrates the benefits of an interdisciplinary collaborative approach that can pro-duce innovative and original solutions to the management of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape performance evaluation, therefore, augments the compelling portfolio of the landscape architecture profession through the articu-lation of project values and their essential contributions to society.

In conclusion, performance evaluation offers an excit-ing opportunity for collaboration between academics and professionals and contributes to socio-ecological practice research. As a research and practice front, landscape per-formance evaluation enhances the rigor and validity of landscape architecture practice and contributes to theoreti-cal sustainability framework and the practical application of that framework.

Acknowledgements I thank anonymous reviewers for valuable com-ments which significantly improve this manuscript.

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/2016a wards /17043 5.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2018

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

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

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

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

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

103Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

Canfield J, Yang B, Whitlow H (2018) Landscape performance guide-book: a guide for metric selection. Landscape Architecture Foun-dation, Washington DC

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

CLARB (Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Board) (2017) L.A.R.E. Reference Manual. http://www.clarb .org/docs/defau lt-sourc e/take-the-exam/lareo rient ation guide .pdf?sfvrs n=4. Accessed 27 Jan 2018

Cohen WJ (2019a) Ecohumanism and the ecological culture: the edu-cational legacy of Lewis Mumford and Ian McHarg. Temple Uni-versity Press, Philadelphia

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

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

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 infra-structure. J Environ Manage 146:107–115

Design Workshop (2007) Toward legacy. Grayson Publishing, Wash-ington DC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hensel MU (2019) Special Issue “Performance-oriented Integrative Sustainability Approaches to Architecture, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture”. https ://www.mdpi.com/journ al/susta inabi lity/speci al_issue s/archi tectu re_desig n. 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

International Living Future Institute (n.d.) Living Building Challenge. https ://livin g-futur e.org/lbc/. Accessed 1 Sept 2019

International WELL Building Institute (2019) The WELL Performance Verification Guidebook, Q3. https ://www.wellc ertifi ed.com/resou rces. 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

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

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

Juneja N (1974) Medford: performance requirements for the main-tenance 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) Accredi-tation standards for first-professional programs in landscape archi-tecture. American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington DC. https ://www.asla.org/uploa dedFi les/CMS/Educa tion/Accre ditat ion/LAAB_ACCRE DITAT ION_PROCE DURES _March 2016.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: Land-scape performance in LAAB accreditation standards. https ://lafou ndati on.org/news-event s/blog/2016/04/04/lands cape-perfo rmanc e-in-laab-stand ards/. Accessed 10 Aug 2017

Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) (n.d.) https ://lafou ndati on.org/. Accessed 10 Sept 2011

Leonard R (2013) DW Legacy design® work. Archit Worlds 154:88–95Lieberknecht K (2019) Building and innovating upon McHarg’s eco-

logical survey: the Texas Case. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:283–296Luo Y, Li M-H (2014) Do social, economic and environmental ben-

efits always complement each other? A study of landscape per-formance. Landsc Archit Front 2(1):42–56

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

McHarg IL (1996) A quest for life: an autobiography. Wiley, New YorkMeijering JV, Tobi H, van den Brink A, Morris F, Bruns D (2015)

Exploring research priorities in landscape architecture: an inter-national Delphi study. Landsc Urb Plan 137:85–94

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 -empow ering -lands cape-archi tects -to-measu re-the-econo mic-benefi ts-of-desig ned-lands capes /. Accessed 10 May 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rottle N, Yocom K (2011) Ecological design. Bloomsbury, SwitzerlandSafford H, Brown A (2019) How to bring science into politics: six ways

to gain traction with policymakers. Nature 572:681–682Shearer AW, Tierney N (2015) Bagby street reconstruction. Landscape

performance series. Landscape Architecture Foundation. https ://doi.org/10.31353 /cs100 0

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

104 Socio-Ecological Practice Research (2020) 2:91–104

1 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2017) Campus rainworks challenge design competition request for proposal. https ://www.epa.gov/sites /produ ction /files /2018-01/docum ents/compe titio n_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 land-scape architecture: methods and methodology. Routledge, Abingdon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zuniga-Teran AA, Staddon C, de Vito L, Gerlak AK, Ward S, Schoe-man Y (2019) Booth G (2019) Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. J Environ Plan Manag. https ://doi.org/10.1080/09640 568.2019.16058 90

Bo Yang is an Associate Professor in the School of Landscape Architecture and Planning at the University of Arizona. His areas of interest are green infrastruc-ture design and landscape per-formance evaluation. He is a licensed landscape architect. He is author of Landscape Perfor-mance: Ian McHarg’s ecological planning in The Woodlands, Texas (Routledge).