Evidence-based design: structured approaches in leading landscape architecture practice

Abstract

Landscape architecture is embarking on a new design frontier, one where its practitioners are increasingly being asked by clients to design using credible evidence and to ensure design performance. As design disciplines follow in the footsteps of other evidence-based practices, like medicine and engineering, landscape architecture is poised to become a more scholarly profession – a profession of evidence-based landscape architecture. Evidence-based landscape architecture was first coined and defined in 2011 by Brown and Corry as “the deliberate and explicit use of scholarly evidence in making decisions about the use and shaping of land” (Brown and Corry 2011, 328). Current literature explains the benefits of practicing evidence-based design (EBD). These include ensuring design performance, justifying client investment, quantifying the value of design, systematically managing complex projects, marketing the firm to clients, attracting the most innovative designers to the firm, and adding to the knowledge base of the landscape architecture field. However, little is known about how landscape architecture firms are engaging evidence-based design in daily practice. This thesis examines how four leading landscape architecture firms (Design Workshop, Mithun, Sasaki Associates, and OLIN) have developed unique EBD approaches to integrate, apply, and propagate evidence-based design in professional practice. In order to study and analyze the four firms’ EBD approaches, individual comprehensive case studies were conducted. Qualitative data was collected through: focused interviews with directors and leaders of evidence-based design at each firm; casual observations made during office visits; and, a review of firm literature. A case study framework for EBD approaches in professional practice was developed based on discussion topics that consistently emerged from the interviews. The framework was used to organize, analyze, and present the findings into four major themes. A cross-case analysis was conducted to compare the development, implementation, and effects of EBD approaches at each firm. Findings reveal that each firm has developed an EBD approach to meet the need for engaging complex problems and meeting increasing client expectations for performance. While each firm’s EBD approach is unique, similarities and characteristics emerged between the case studies. The most consistent factors identified across cases include: having academic founders of the firm; the implementation of EBD- or research-specific roles and responsibilities; the creation of tools to organize and understand data; cultivating design cultures to support the EBD approach vision; the communication and transparency of relationships with clients and consultants; and, the reporting of findings for the advancement of the profession. Although any landscape architecture firm is likely to employ at least one of these concepts, the developed integration, application, and propagation of a majority of these concepts is what makes these firms unique and successful in applying EBD in professional practice. It was also found that the design processes themselves vary dramatically across the firms. EBD in practice is therefore not prescriptive and does not always look the same. The findings and case study framework developed in the study are useful primarily for landscape architecture firms looking to develop, integrate, apply, and propagate their own EBD approach.