Chapter 4 Research in landscape architecture and ...

167 downloads 0 Views 283KB Size Report
relationship of landscape architectural design and academic research. In this chapter we discuss the nature of this 'sound relationship'. We focus on three ...
Chapter 4 Research in landscape architecture and the special role of designing

Sanda Lenzholzer, Ingrid Duchhart and Adri van den Brink

The context of research -design relationships in landscape architecture In a societal context of ‘scientification’ (Bayazit, 2004; Cross, 2006), landscape architecture research faces new perspectives: scope and scale of research studies is growing (Cushing & Renata, 2015; Hewitt, 2014; Weber, 2015) and so is the involvement of other disciplines and citizens (Jonas, 2007; Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2001; Findeli, 2001). The complexities arising from these developments, coupled with an increasing necessity to deal with uncertainty (Prominski, 2005), call for a sound relationship of landscape architectural design and academic research. In this chapter we discuss the nature of this ‘sound relationship’. We focus on three relationships between research and design – i.e. research on design, research for design, and research through design/ing – within landscape architecture. It is from these perspectives that landscape architecture can make significant contributions to scholarly design research in general and more specifically to the 21st century’s intra-scalar landscape transitions, e.g. from the design of outdoor objects to designing within regional development, as addressed by, among others Kempenaar et al. (2016). Our aim is to reflect on these different relationships, while referring to literature from both landscape architecture and neighbouring design disciplines together with examples drawn from other chapters in this book. We pay particular attention to ‘research through designing’, its evolution to date, its current state and future potential. The subsequent methods may perhaps represent the most intimate relationship between research and design – the act of designing as an intrinsic part of research.

Some definitions and basic concepts Although there are many different definitions of both research and design, we will use the terms as described within the general design disciplines’ discourse. Glanville (2015) concluded from this discourse that research in the academic sense means a rigorous and in-depth search for answers to research questions and to find new insights. He also makes a clear distinction between ‘design’ as a noun and as a verb (see also Steinitz, 1995). ‘Design’ as a noun is described as the outcome of the design process in which a product, i.e. the design, has been drawn and given shape, and, in the case of a positive outcome of decision-making, may be implemented. In landscape architecture we talk about ‘design’ in the sense of giving three-dimensional form and function to, for example, the direct external living environment, be it urban, peri-urban or rural. Limiting the definition of ‘design’ to spatial dimensions is important in this context because many other definitions of ‘design’ exist that have no relation to shaping space in any sense (e.g. IT, policy sciences, mechanical engineering, bioprocess technology and many other disciplines). Drawing, mapping, visualising, representing, and giving shape, are the unique activities that constitute the act of designing. Lenzholzer et al. (2013)

1

proposed to use the gerund form – designing – to more clearly distinguish the verb from the noun. Both – verb and noun – can be the subject of research. Designs (as a noun) can be studied after their implementation (post hoc), whereas design/ing (as a verb) can be studied during the design process. Important for this chapter is the role of designing as a part of a research process. Basically, all design disciplines connect design and research and there has been a growing body of literature since major figures such as Herbert Simon sparked the discussion in the 1970s (Simon, 1975). Various architecture research theorists who built upon his insights had a strong focus on the engineering disciplines (Eder, 1995; Hubka & Eder, 1987; Simon, 1996), but were also concerned with the artistic aspect of design. Subsequently, other design disciplines that represent artistic approaches also entered the discussion. In 1993 the art and design theorist Christopher Frayling published a seminal paper suggesting that there are three models of design research: research into design, research for design and research by design (Frayling, 1993). This categorization presented a widely used framework to describe the relationship between research and design. Although later on extended with other pronouns (see Archer, 1995; Jonas, 2014; Jong & Voordt, 2002) that denominate similar relations between research and design, the categorization essentially remained the same and was also recently used in landscape architecture publications on the topic (Lenzholzer, 2010: 19, Deming & Swaffield, 2011: 37). In the following section we give hints on the meaning of these categories within landscape architecture. Research into, for and through design(ing) The first category described by Frayling is research into design, sometimes also referred to as research on or about design. Here, design is used as a noun, so studies in this field concern the design product (post hoc). Very typical for such research is a reflection on design products. In landscape architecture this can concern studies on garden, urban and landscape designs that can be interpreted from different points of view, i.e. historical (Treib, 1993; Nijhuis, 2014) or technological (Salingaros, 2005), but also philosophical or aesthetical (van Etteger, et al., 2016). Other typical research of this category are comparative case studies, plan analyses or design criticism (e.g.Brinkhuijsen, 2008; Francis, 2001). Additionally, empirical methods from the natural and social sciences can be used to assess designs after realization, such as Post Occupancy Evaluation of buildings or public spaces (Meir, et al., 2009; Sherman, et al., 2005). This kind of research has already been conducted for a long time – also for the design products of landscape architecture. A wide range of examples can be found in Deming & Swaffield (2011). Remarkably, however, much of the research presented there was not conducted by landscape architects but by historians, geographers, environmental psychologists and social scientists. The second category pertains to research for design. This category covers all types of research that support the design product or design process. Here, both product and process benefit from research activities in the sense that the research outcomes inform the design process. Since design in landscape architecture is a highly complex undertaking, this research for design consequently requires a very wide knowledge base, ranging from the natural sciences and social sciences to the arts and humanities . Research for design can be conceived of as the creation of substantive knowledge through the generation of scientific data for application in ‘evidence based’ design (Brown & Corry, 2011) (examples in Deming & Swaffield, 2011; Groat & Wang, 2002). In this context we can think of examples such as material studies, e.g. for green roofs (Blanusa et al., 2013; Susca et

2

al., 2011) or for soil bioengineering in nature development projects (Simon & Steinemann, 2000). It can also concern the generation of design guidelines for a user-friendly environment by translating knowledge from social sciences or environmental psychology (e.g. Groenewegen, et al., 2006; Herzog, 1992; Teel et al., 2010). When ‘design’ is addressed as a verb, the creation of knowledge for design can also be procedural, being knowledge that aids the structuring of design processes (e.g. Dorst, 1997; Schön, 1987). In this category too, the actual research part is not always conducted by landscape architects. However, the translation of the data into meaningful design guidelines is usually done by designers. The third category is research through design(ing), covering all the research processes that actively employ designing. Research through designing (RTD) is at the heart of all design disciplines. Its methods have been widely discussed and amongst design theorists there is no doubt that designing can be a valid research method (e.g. Rodgers & Yee, 2015). Within landscape architecture, however, such ideas were regarded with reservation (see e.g. Milburn & Brown, 2003, Deming & Swaffield, 2011). It was correctly stated that for design to qualify as research it would need to meet certain methodological criteria, such as a clear research question, a theoretical framework and appropriate methods. Nonetheless, how to apply such criteria was not self-evident. This might be a result of the novelty of the discourse on research methods within landscape architecture (one of the major reasons for creating this book). The lack of methodological criteria might also result from historical applications of design/ing as a so-called research method within landscape architecture and related fields that would not always qualify as an established academic research method. In the next section we give a brief overview and discussion of these historical applications.

The evolution of research through designing There are various developments within landscape architecture and neighbouring disciplines that led to the evolution of designing as a research method. We can observe three major strands occurring in this evolution. The first strand consisted of the developments in architecture, urbanism and landscape architecture on ‘rationalizing’ design and planning processes. The second strand was the evolution of ‘research by design’ that occurred in the Netherlands. The third strand highlights the renewed international attention to research in landscape architecture design processes. In this section we discuss these strands in more depth and how a slow development took place from practice-oriented design towards RTD as a sound research method that generates new designrelevant knowledge. The first strand in the evolution of design as research dates back to the 1930s. There had been a tradition of a rational, science-oriented approach in architecture since the advent of Modernism. Many architects, amongst them prominent figures like Le Corbusier, proposed architecture as a science (Le Corbusier, in Cross et al. 1981) and, for instance, in his version of The Athens Charter of the International Congress of Modern Architecture , Le Corbusier described urbanism as a “threedimensional … science” (CIAM, 1943: section 82). Alexander, in the earlier years of his career, also pursued a strictly rational, mathematically inspired approach to design in his ‘Notes on the Synthesis of Form’ (1964), whereas in the 1970s Hillier et al. (1972) suggested bringing a scientific empirical method into design (Hillier, et al., 1972). However, many architects also denied the possibility that design can be scientific or ‘research’. Jones (1970: 10) posited that “designing should not be confused

3

with … science, or with mathematics”. He emphasized that “when they [designers – the authors] deal with the future itself, as opposed to the present, scientific doubt is of no use” (p. 11). Lang (1987: 19) asserted that “by definition, design cannot be scientific”, even though design should be based on scientific knowledge. In 1984 John Zeisel took the debate further and suggested that an architectural design can be a hypothesis or conjecture and that these hypotheses or conjectures can be tested (Zeisel, 2006: 1925). His ideas inspired many colleagues. For instance Ungers (1997, in: Steenbergen et al., 2002: 24) posed: “… first there is the hypothesis, the idea, the image. Then there will be strategies of refutation – in fact. The real job”. Especially at Delft Technical University in the Netherlands these methods were taken further during a major conference in 2001. Research by design was understood “as the development of knowledge by designing, studying the effects of this design, changing the design itself or its context, and studying the effects of the transformations” (de Jong and van der Voordt, 2002: 455). Other scholars in Delft came up with similar models and claimed that research by design is literally the same procedure as used in the ‘classical’ empirical sciences: “From a general scientific point of view, there appears to be, on closer examination, no essential difference between the steps in the empirical research cycle (statement of problem – analysis – generation of possible testable answers – formulation of hypotheses) and those of design research (task – analysis – generation of schematic … models – design)” (Steenbergen et al., 2002: 25). Since then, the debate in architecture has grown towards full acceptance of design(ing) as a sound scientific research method. In landscape architecture the debate about the relationship between design and research was sparked off during the 1960s by McHarg (1968) and Steinitz and Rogers (1970). They argued that landscape architecture had to respond to the increasing complexity and the scale of issues of unprecedented growth through the adoption of ecological and rational planning and design methodologies. In 1969, McHarg published his seminal book Design with Nature in which he presented new analysis tools by depicting various abiotic, biotic and human characteristics of the landscape as separate layers. This approach found many followers across the globe, but also received hefty critique for (apparently) denying the artistic aspect of designing, its weak academic qualities and lack of inclusiveness of the design process (e.g. Litton and Krieger, 1971). Steinitz and Rogers (1970) responded by proposing a design methodology that included an iterative process of designing spatial configurations and testing them for their impact on e.g. hydrology, biodiversity and land use. Although the iterative nature and the testing process pointed towards basic principles of RTD, it was not coined as such; rather it reinforced a perceived antagonism between research and design (Milburn et al., 2003; Steiner, 2006). In spite of the many experiments that were conducted at universities around the world, most of these experiments were actually typical research for design approaches that ran aground not only because of methodological complexities but also because landscape analyses dominating the design process left little room for creative and normative prospective designing. Moreover, in those early days digital data were scarce and GIS technology still had little capacity - the powerful analytical tools we now take for granted were still primitive. In an attempt to solve the complexities outlined above a new design process evolved, one that brought designing to the forefront of the designing process, at least in the Netherlands. In this second strand of thinking about the relationship between design and research Meto Vroom, from 1966 to 1994 professor of landscape architecture at Wageningen University, the Netherlands, played a prominent role. As a former student of McHarg he and his students experimented with McHargian

4

design procedures, but soon they realized that for innovative solutions, designing had to be brought play a central role in the research process. In the mid-1970s, this resulted in the tandem ‘researchbased-design/design-based-research’ (ontwerpend onderzoeken/onderzoekend ontwerpen), a method explicitly aiming at connecting scientific research and designing without prioritizing the one over the other. Te Boekhorst (2006) narrates how foresters, ecologists, agricultural scientists, and landscape architects came together in a design charrette and co-designed a first conceptual design for a pilot case study area. This conceptual design generated various questions that were rephrased as research questions for each discipline involved. The outcomes of the subsequent (disciplinary) research were brought into the design process in a second design charrette. Several cycles of codesign activities and disciplinary research took place, slowly generating new knowledge and applying it in designs. This approach in which research and design are linked by co-design sessions, can be best described as taking intermediate steps to explore and test evolving design alternatives. Unfortunately this ‘research-based-design/design-based-research’ discourse was not taken further in the years to follow (te Boekhorst, 2006). However, the idea of research-by-design charrette is still widely practiced as a means of facilitating community participation (e.g. Bouwmeester et al., 2009) or in solving multi-disciplinary problems through design (e.g. in forests, see Bell and Apostol, 2008). It should be noted, however, that the actual research component of these charrettes neither meets the criteria of proper academic research, nor is designing appropriately elucidated as (part of) sound academic landscape architecture research. Next to the developments in landscape architecture practice in the Netherlands, a renewed interest – the third strand of thinking – for research in landscape architecture design processes occurred internationally (e.g. Kapper & Chenoweth, 2000; Milburn & Brown, 2003; Milburn, et al., 2003; Milburn, et al., 2001). Milburn and Brown, for example, defined five different model relationships between research and design: artistic, intuitive, adaptive, analytical, and systematic. Each model is inclusive of both planning and design, but with a greater or lesser focus on aesthetics (2003: 47-49). Opdam and Nassauer (2008) encouraged interdisciplinary collaboration with landscape designers to increase the usability of the results of academic research, arguing that jointly produced designs would enhance social acceptance and increase innovation. While acknowledging designing as part of doing research, they still suggested a sequential process, i.e. first research, then designing. Steinitz, however, in his recent book ‘A Framework for Geodesign’ (2012), gives designing in research and in inter- and trans-disciplinary interactions a much more prominent role. Nonetheless, the role of designing and its intrinsic values for the research process were still left obscure. Or as Deming and Swaffield (2011: 205) observed, “design as an investigative strategy remains poorly understood and inconsistently applied, even if frequently invoked”. They used the term ‘projective design’ to emphasize “the unique quality of design process for research outcomes”, and explain how “[d]esign only becomes an autonomous research strategy when it produces new generalizable knowledge about the world through its purposes, protocols, and outcome” (p. 206). In their view research-bydesign is neither inductive (something must be: insights emerge from the design setting or context) nor deductive (something is actually operative: insights emerge from the testing and challenging of established concepts), but rather an approach in which “researchers move back and forth between inductive and deductive perspectives, modifying their theoretical propositions in the light of the evidence, revising their understanding of the evidence (its categories, and its meaning and significance) in light of theoretical concepts and exploring new possibilities of understanding and new

5

ways of knowing”. This ‘reflexive approach’ is called abduction, i.e. “an investigation of what might be” (pp. 8, 209) and is a hitherto overlooked approach to research in landscape architecture. This overview of the evolution of designing as a research method in landscape architecture shows that design(ing) as a research approach has gradually developed over more than four decades. We can observe that design(ing) as research was described using different and often multi-interpretable names. In all approaches, landscape and urban design remained the predominant focus of attention. However, the notion of designing as a part of soundly-based research, following acknowledged criteria for research quality (e.g. Deming and Swaffield, 2011: 206; Milburn et al., 2003), was still not well addressed.

Current meaning of research through designing in landscape architecture Lenzholzer, et al. proposed that designing can be research provided it complies with the procedures, protocols and values of academic research (2013). They suggested a framework of research criteria for design based on the widely used criteria set by Creswell (2014). Creswell describes three different types of research strategies: qualitative, quantitative and mixed. He further distinguishes four substantially different worldviews within which these approaches can be applied: (post)positivist, constructivist, transformative and pragmatic. Regardless of the worldview, the choice of the appropriate research strategy and subsequent research methods is always guided by the research question(s). Based on this categorisation and on Lenzholzer et al., (2013) we propose four different types of RTD in landscape architecture (see Table 4.1). For each type of RTD the overview addresses the kind of questions that can be answered, the kind of (new) knowledge that can be produced, the methods that can be employed and appropriate types of evaluation. The output of RTD should be new knowledge that is applicable in design practice or in further research. Typical outcomes can be generic design prototypes or design guidelines, but also ‘thick descriptions’ of lessons learnt in transformative RTD. The outcomes thus fundamentally differ from design products arising from ‘nonacademic’, practical design processes that are site-specific and not created with the aim of broadening the disciplinary knowledge base.

6

Figure 4.1 Overview of types of research through designing (based on: Lenzholzer et al., 2013). RTD methods within a (post)positivist approach are applied in many engineering-oriented landscape architectural projects. If, for instance, dike systems have to be improved, designs will usually be tested with computer simulations or mock- ups, evaluated, tested again in a range of predominantly quantitative feedback loops until an optimized solution is found. Typical constructivist RTD methods entail the generation of designs that are assessed according to their cultural, aesthetic, ethical or other socially ‘constructed’ values – either by expert groups or through citizens and are also brought to a satisficing (as opposed to optimal) result through predominantly qualitative feedback loops. The inclusion of citizens can lead to transformative RTD. Such research is oriented on co-creation and coownership of knowledge and process. The researcher uses a combination of participatory and ‘designerly’ research techniques. This RTD often concerns the development of a commonly shared vision on the endeavoured (future) quality of the living environment and an action plan to achieving and maintaining it. However, we would like to stress that the fourth category – the ‘pragmatist’ RTD – might have the highest significance amongst the RTD methods. The pragmatic worldview is concerned with the

7

research problem and uses pluralistic approaches to derive at new knowledge about the problem and its solution. Landscape architectural design also deals with complex tasks and the smart integration of many interests to solve and/or identify a design problem and, accordingly, the new to generate knowledge has to address such complexities too. Therefore, when research methods only follow one of the approaches, for instance, a positivist one, the new knowledge that is generated can only partially address the problem due to the reductionism inherent in this approach. In case transformative methods are used exclusively, the use of certain research techniques or questions that are culturally unacceptable may also render the new knowledge inadequate. Design guidelines, spatial prototypes or other generalizable design knowledge will have to include various aspects in order to make it usable, design-relevant knowledge. For instance, aesthetics or social aspects need to be considered and these would have to be studied with a constructivist RTD approach. The pragmatic researchers “look to the what and how to research … where they want to go with it. Mixed methods researchers need to establish a purpose for their mixing, a rationale for the reasons why quantitative and qualitative data need to be mixed in the first place.”(Creswell, 2014, p. 11). These characteristics for pragmatic research show strong similarities with legitimate design processes. Thus, we suggest to use the strength of the landscape architect’s integrative and ‘designerly’ thinking and employ a pragmatic RTD, mixing approaches and methods when complex design-relevant knowledge is needed. The categorization presented in Table 4.1 should, therefore, not only be understood as a dissection of RTD approaches but rather as an overview of different types of RTD and their potentials to address the research questions at hand in the most suitable way. We assume that in most cases this will involve a combination of different RTD methods we portrayed.

Future potentials The discussion so far has indicated that RTD, as long as it is conducted according to academic standards, can yield reliable and valuable design-relevant knowledge. We hope that the RTD approaches we described above will be employed and developed further in future landscape architecture research. Where the pioneers of RTD had technological problems in handling large amounts of data, we believe that new perspectives may be induced by rapid developments in the IT sector, such as big data and virtual reality (e.g. Portman, et al., 2015). For (post)positivist RTD methods new possibilities arise due to the growing capacity of computers because simulations of design hypotheses and proposals can be done much quicker and tested by prospective users. The software that enables such simulations is becoming increasingly sophisticated. Coupled to more computing capacity and more sophisticated simulation methods is ‘parametric design’. Parametric design is based on algorithms that express parameters and rules that define the eventual design responses (e.g. Gerber & Lin, 2014). So actually, parts of the evaluation of the design to be tested in a (post)positivist RTD can be built into the algorithm. This can reduce feedback loops for certain parameters that would otherwise have to be tested with other means. Constructivistic and transformative RTD will possibly profit from new representation techniques, such as virtual reality, that enable immersion of people into new spatial environments that do not yet exist. Virtual reality offers increasingly realistic simulations of visual, auditory and sensory environments and even the olfactory realm can be included. The potential for people to undergo ‘total immersion’ can be used to give their subjective evaluations of (aesthetic) experiences.

8

Transformative RTD methods will also profit from these new possibilities. People will have easier access to new design proposals that need to be assessed, for instance via smartphone apps or other digital platforms. They have exciting opportunities to communicate more efficiently through new media and to vote for design proposals or to upload their own research data. The great amounts of data supports the validity of the collected data. This will further advance community empowerment through transformative RTD processes. Generally speaking, we see many possibilities for the existing RTD methods and even more for the future RTD methods to generate new knowledge relevant for shaping the spatial environment. Since our world is changing ever faster, the ‘transformative’ sciences that deal with the potential future states of our environment are likely to become increasingly important. RTD is expected to play an increasingly significant role in landscape architecture and in shaping landscape architecture as one of the ‘transformative’ sciences of the future.

References ( Bayazit, N. (2004) Investigating design: A review of forty years of design research. Design Issues 20(1): 16-29. Bell, S. and Apostol, D. (2008) Designing sustainable forest landscapes. Taylor and Francis, London. Bouwmeester, H., Elsinga, J., Hendrich, M., Lagendijk, O., der Nederlanden, H. (Eds.) (2009) Ontwerpen op de grens van water en ruimte – Handreiking en voorbeelden. Actieprogramma Ruimte en Cultuur. Den Haag: Ministerie van VROM. Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, & Mixed Methods Approaches. International Student Edition (4th Edition), Sage. Cross, N. (2006) Forty years of design research. Design Research Quarterly 1(2): 3-5. Harvey, F. (1997) From Geographic Holism to Geographic Information System. Professional Geographer 49(1): 77-85. Kempenaar, A., Westerink, J., van Lierop, M., Brinkhuijsen, M., van den Brink, A. (2016) “Design makes you understand” – Mapping the contributions of designing to regional planning and development. Landscape and Urban Planning 149: 20-30. Opdam, P., Nassauer, J.I. (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23:633-644. Mc Harg, Ian (1968) in Steiner, F.R. (Ed.) (2006) The Essential Ian McHarg, Writings on Design and Nature. Washington: Island Press. Steinitz, C. (1995) Design is a verb; design is a noun. Landscape Journal 14(2): 188-200. -Krieger, M., Litton B."Design with Nature by Ian McHarg.(book review). Journal of the American Institute of Planners 37 (1971): 50-52. - McHarg, I. 1967. An Ecological Method for Landscape Architecture (1967) (Landscape Architecture Magazine) in Ian McHarg and Frederick R. Steiner (1998) To Heal the Earth, Selected Writings of Ian L. McHarg, Island Press, Washinton DC. pp. 212-218 Steinitz, C., Rogers, P. (1970) A systems analysis model of urbanization and change; An experiment in interdisciplinary education. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

9

te Boekhorst, J. (2006) Landschapsarchitectuur en onderzoek. Een korte geschiedenis van de landschapsarchitectuur binnen DLO. Wageningen, ESG-Alterra. Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 2(11), 6-13. Blanusa, T., Monteiro, M. M. V., Fantozzi, F., Vysini, E., Li, Y., & Cameron, R. W. (2013). Alternatives to Sedum on green roofs: can broad leaf perennial plants offer better ‘cooling service’? Building and Environment, 59, 99-106. Brinkhuijsen, M. (2008). Landscape 1:1 : a study of designs for leisure in the Dutch countryside. (Proefschrift Wageningen Brown, R. D., & Corry, R. C. (2011). Evidence-based landscape architecture: The maturing of a profession. [Landscape and Urban Planning at 100]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 327-329. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.017 Cushing, D. F., & Renata, A. (2015). Themes in Landscape Architecture Publishing: Past Trends, Future Needs. Landscape Journal, 34(1), 15-36. Deming, E. M., & Swaffield, S. (2011). Landscape Architecture Research, Inquiry, Strategy, Design. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. . Dorst, C. H. (1997). Describing design : a comparison of paradigms. Eindhoven: TU Eindhoven Eder, W. E. (1995). Viewpoint Engineering design - art, science and relationships. Design Studies, 16(1), 117-127. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/10.1016/0142-694X(95)90650-5 Francis, M. (2001). A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture. Landscape Journal, 20(1), 15-29. doi: 10.3368/lj.20.1.15 Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 5. Gerber, D. J., & Lin, S.-H. E. (2014). Designing in complexity: Simulation, integration, and multidisciplinary design optimization for architecture. Simulation, 90(8), 936-959. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural Research Methods. New York: Wiley & Sons Groenewegen, P. P., Van den Berg, A. E., De Vries, S., & Verheij, R. A. (2006). Vitamin G: effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC public health, 6(1), 149. Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 237-248. Hillier, B., Musgrove, J., & O'Sullivan, P. (1972). Knowledge and Design. Paper presented at the EDRA 3/AR 8, Los Angeles. Hubka, V., & Eder, E. W. (1987). A scientific approach to engineering design. Design Studies, 8(3), 123137. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(87)90035 Jonas, W. (2007). Research through DESIGN through research: A cybernetic model of designing design foundations. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1362-1380. Jonas, W. (2014). The strengths/limits of Systems Thinking denote the strengths/limits of Practice-Based Design Research. FORMakademisk, 7(4). Jong, d., T.M., & Voordt, v. d., D.J.M. . (2002). Criteria for scientific study and design. In T. M. de Jong & D. J. M. Van der Voordt (Eds.), Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design (pp. 19-30). Delft: Delft University Press. Kapper, T., & Chenoweth, R. (2000). Landscape architecture and societal values: Evidence from the literature. Landscape Journal, 19(1-2), 149-155.

10

Lenzholzer, S. (2010). Designing atmospheres: research and design for thermal comfort in Dutch urban squares. (PhD Proefschrift Wageningen), Wageningen University, Wageningen. Retrieved from http://edepot.wur.nl/139053 Lenzholzer, S., Duchhart, I., & Koh, J. (2013). ‘Research through designing’ in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113(0), 120-127. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.003 Meir, I. A., Garb, Y., Jiao, D., & Cicelsky, A. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation: an inevitable step toward sustainability. Advances in building energy research, 3(1), 189-219. Milburn, L.-A. S., & Brown, R. D. (2003). The relationship between research and design in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1-2), 47-66. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00200-1 Milburn, L.-A. S., Brown, R. D., Mulley, S. J., & Hilts, S. G. (2003). Assessing academic contributions in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(3), 119-129. doi: 10.1016/S01692046(02)00204-9 Milburn, L. A. S., Brown, R. D., & Paine, C. (2001). "...Research on research": research attitudes and behaviors of landscape architecture faculty in North America. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 57-67. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00188-8 Nijhuis, S. (2014). GIS-based Landscape Design Research: Exploring Aspects of Visibility in Landscape Architectonic Compositions Geodesign by Integrating Design and Geospatial Sciences (pp. 193-217): Springer. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science : knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge [etc.]: Polity. Portman, M., Natapov, A., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2015). To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. Prominski, M. (2005). designing landscapes as evolutionary systems. The Design Journal, 8(3), 25-34. Rodgers, P., & Yee, J. (2015). The Routledge Companion to Design Research: Routledge. Salingaros, N. (2005). Principles of urban structure. Amsterdam: Techne Press. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/ Wiley & Sons. Sherman, S. A., Varni, J. W., Ulrich, R. S., & Malcarne, V. L. (2005). Post-occupancy evaluation of healing gardens in a pediatric cancer center. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(2), 167-183. Simon, H. A. (1975). Style in design. Spatial synthesis in computer-aided building design, 9, 287-309. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA [etc.]: The MIT Press. Simon, K., & Steinemann, A. (2000). Soil bioengineering: challenges for planning and engineering. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 126(2), 89-102. Susca, T., Gaffin, S., & Dell’Osso, G. (2011). Positive effects of vegetation: Urban heat island and green roofs. Environmental Pollution, 159(8), 2119-2126. Teel, T. L., Manfredo, M. J., Jensen, F. S., Buijs, A. E., Fischer, A., Riepe, C., . . . Jacobs, M. H. (2010). Understanding the cognitive basis for human-wildlife relationships as a key to successful protected-area management. International Journal of Sociology, 40(3), 104-123. Treib, M. (1993). Modern landscape architecture : a critical review. Cambridge [etc.]: MIT. van Etteger, R., Thompson, I. H., & Vicenzotti, V. (2016). Aesthetic creation theory and landscape architecture. Journal of landscape Architecture, 11(1), 80-91.

11

Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. CIAM. (1943). The Athens Charter. In D. Watson, A. J. Plattus, & R. G. Shibley (Eds.), Time-Saver Standards for urban design (pp. 2.5-1- 2.5-16). New York: Mc GrawHill. Cross, N., Naughton, J., & Walker, D. (1981). Design method and scientific method. Design Studies, 2(4), 195-201. Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design issues, 17(1), 5-17. Glanville, R. (2015). The sometimes uncomfortable marriages of design and research. In P. Rodgers & J. Yee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Design Research (pp. 9): Routledge. Jones, J. C. (1970). Design methods : seeds of human futures. London [etc.]: Wiley. Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: the role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature. Garden City, New York: John Wiley & Sons Steenbergen, C., Mihl, H., & Reh, W. (2002). Introduction; Research, Research by Design. In C. Steenbergen, H. Mihl, W. Reh, & F. Aerts (Eds.), Architectural Design and Composition (pp. 25). Bussum/ Delft: Thoth publishers/ Faculty of architecture TU Delft. Steinitz, C. (2012). A framework for geodesign: Changing geography by design: esri. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design : environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. New York [etc.]: W.W. Norton & Company. s

12