Mapping Research In Landscape Architecture: Balancing Supply Of .

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Edadopted from Fein's study (1972). The results collected in this study in 2012 were comparedagainst Fein's results in 1970s to verify changes in knowledge-bases in landscape architecturepractice in the past three decades.3) Dimensions of Knowledge:Imbalances of knowledge supply and demand were often found in two dimensions -- thedesign-systems dimension and the intuitive/holistic-analytic/empirical dimension. Therefore, thetwo dimensions were examined in four knowledge groups of 19 knowledge areas based on LABOK(ASLA, CSLA, CELA, CLARB, & LAAB, 2004) and CELA knowledge areas (Powers & Walker,2009). The 19 areas covered both design knowledge and systems knowledge, both intuitive/holisticand analytic/empirical knowledge (Table 1).Table 1. The scope of knowledge-bases of landscape architecture practiceKnowledgeareasDescriptionsJudgmental design knowledge (Intuitive/holistic)Design theoryResearch addressing theories of designand designincluding processes, creative thinking,processaesthetics, and criticism of existing theoriesAestheticsResearch addressing theories aboutaestheticsRepresentationResearch exploring communication orandrepresentation skills, especially e discussing moral standards andethic codesThe professionKnowledge discussing the issues related toof landscapethe well-being and future of LA profession,architecturesuch as practice and knowledgeConstructional design knowledge (Analytic/empirical)Grading andResearch addressing grading design andcirculationcirculation designConstructiontechniquesPlants andmaterialsSiteengineering(lighting,irrigation etc.)Knowledge discussing the constructiontechniques used in landscape designKnowledge addressing the characters ofplants and materials as well as their usagein landscape designKnowledge discussing design elementssuch as water, materials and plants, as wellas general design issues such asconstruction technologiesCELA topics(Powers &Walker, 2009)LABOK knowledge areas(ASLA et al., 2004)Design theoryCreativity and process including designtheory and problem-solving strategiesAesthetic principles of ecture as aprofessionLandscapearchitecture as aprofessionThe roles of visual communication,including photographic and videodocumentationGraphic presentation techniques,systems and symbolsEnvironmental ethicsSocial responsibility in designHistory of landscape architecture andallied professionsGrading, drainage and storm-watertreatmentElements of vehicular and pedestriancirculation systems and their designrequirementsConstruction equipment andtechnologiesUtility systemsIrrigation systemsLighting systems3657

Z. Chen et al. / Academic Knowledge and Demand of Professional PracticeTable 1 (continued). The scope of knowledge-bases of landscape architecture practiceKnowledgeareasDescriptionsCELA topics(Powers &Walker, 2009)Social, cultural, historical systems knowledge (Intuitive/holistic)History andResearch addressing the landscapes, mostlyHistory andcultureman-made, which have a strong culturalculturesignificance developed over time.CommunityKnowledge addressing community planningplanning andand design as well as public participationdesignGarden historyResearch addressing the evolution of builtHistory andlandscapes over time, usually about aculturespecific landscape or in a specific timeframePublic policyKnowledge discussing policy making andpolicy analysis.Environmental systems knowledge (Analytic/empirical)EcologyResearch exploring the managerial,planning and design solutions to modifybuilt environment and human activities towork better with nature systems.EnvironmentalpsychologyResearch explaining how landscapes areperceived by human beings, how thisinformation is processed psychologicallyand responded to externally via behavior.Water resourcemanagementResearch addressing drainage and stormwater management as well as water qualitycontrol.GeospatialtoolsHealth andlandscapeResearch addressing geospatial tools suchas GIS.Research addressing the relationshipbetween designed landscape and humanhealth and well-beingKnowledge addressing sustainable designand its techniques such as green roof andgreen wall.SustainabledesignLABOK knowledge areas(ASLA et al., 2004)Social and cultural influence on designPlanning principles including regionalcommunity and neighborhoodplanningNAGovernment policies and laws thataffect the use and development of landPolitical and regulatory approvalprocessesLandscapeplanning andecologyNatural site condition and ecosystemsNatural factors such as ecologicalrelationshipRelationship between human andnatural systemsConservation of natural resourcesEcological planning principlesVisual resource assessmentHuman factors such as behavior,perception, psychological and sensoryresponseWater resource managementWetland managementFloodplain managementGeographic coordination system andlayout techniques and conventionsTherapeutic aspects of designSustainabilitySustainable construction practicePrincipal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to verify the existence of the twounderlying dimensions based on the frequencies of use in the 19 knowledge areas. PCA hasbeen widely used in studies, such as knowledge mapping (Burley et al., 2009), landscapepreferences (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010) or complex mental constructs (Milburn et al., 2001),for pattern recognition and dimension reduction. PCA components and their loadings wereused to generate a knowledge map of landscape architecture research.Research supply and demand were analyzed in two knowledge dimensions collectedfrom 19 areas. It was assumed in this study that research findings were primarily produced by3658

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ededucators and utilized by practitioners, which was also assumed to be true by earlierresearchers (e.g., Lamba & Graffam, 2011), though questioned by others such as ElizabethMeyer (Jost & Lamba, 2010). Research areas of interests were measured by an open descriptionon research interest provided by CELA educators in response to the question "How do youdescribe the research area(s) you are primarily engaged in?" The descriptions were thenassigned into the 19 knowledge areas based on coding analysis. The demand for research wasmeasured by both satisfied and unsatisfied demands, which were reflected by existingresearch use in practice and expected research need, respectively. To gauge exiting researchuse, ASLA members were asked to provide their current frequencies of research use rated ona five-degree scale (not part of my practice, rarely, occasionally, often and very often) in subquestions separately. To gauge expected research need, ASLA members were asked to checkas much as applied from the 19 knowledge areas in which they "believe additional researchwould help [their] practice." A self-filling option as "others" was provided in both questions incase that the research demand was not fully captured by the knowledge areas measured.Data Collection and SamplingTwo online surveys were conducted for data collection via an online survey softwarecalled Survey Monkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com). Research demand from practicewas collected from sampled American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) members(sample rate 5%). Researchers randomly sampled one of every 20 full or honorary memberswith valid email addresses listed on ASLA online member directory (accessed on January 2,2012). A pretest was conducted among six participants including practitioners, facultymembers, and ASLA staffs to test the clarity, comprehensiveness and organization of thesurvey. Questionnaires were successfully sent to 769 randomly sampled ASLA members(excluding five who contacted the researchers and requested to be removed from the survey)on February 14, 2012. Two follow-up reminders were sent to those had not finished theysurvey on February 23 and March 1. By March 6, 239 responses were collected, which equalsa response rate of 31%. Fourteen incomplete responses were excluded from this final tally.The distribution of participants' age, gender, educational degree, serving organizationand job function suggested that the sample was not heavily skewed on any of the background.The sample demographics were comparable to that of the LABOK survey (Table 2).Academic researchers were identified through data collected from the Council ofEducators in Landscape Architecture (CELA). Their contact information was obtained fromonline CELA directory (accessed on April 11, 2010), and was manually verified with facultylists on university websites and updated to researchers' best knowledge. The questionnairewas successfully sent to 536 CELA educators (excluding six contacting the researchersrequesting to be removed from the survey) on April 25, 2010. Two follow-up reminders weresent to those had not finished they survey on May 25 and August 19. By October 31, 230responses were collected (excluding five incomplete ones), representing a response rate of43%.3659

Z. Chen et al. / Academic Knowledge and Demand of Professional PracticeTable 2. Participants' demographics of ASLA survey compared at that of LABOK survey (ASLA et geUnder 2525 to 3435 to 4445 to 5455 to 65over 65UndesignatedHighest DegreeNo degreeCertificate programBachelor degree (4-5 yrs)Masters degreeDoctoral degreeOthers/ undesignatedTypes of Organization Currently Working inExclusively landscape architecture firmMulti-disciplinary firmGovernmentEducationOthers/ undesignatedJob FunctionSole ownerPartner or stockholderManager/director/department headAssociateEmployeeFaculty memberOthers/ undesignatedASLA Surveycollected in 2012n 239CountPercentLABOK Surveycollected in 2003ASLA member n 8%18%15%7%16%16%9%Although this survey generated a lower response rate and a slightly differentdemographics compared with two earlier mail-based surveys that targeted at the samepopulation (Table 3), there was no significant evidence that suggested a biased sample. Gapsare commonly found between response rates of mail-based survey and those of internet-basedsurveys (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009; Sheehan, 2001). Compared with other internetbased surveys, 43% was considered a suitable rate (Sheehan, 2001). The 2012 survey showed ahigher representation of doctorate holders (35%) compared with that of 1999 (27%), and a3660

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech EdTable 3. Participants' demographics of CELA survey compared at that of two earlier CELA surveys(Chenoweth & Chidister, 1983; Milburn & Brown, 2003)DemographicsHighest DegreeBachelor degreeMasters degreeDoctoral degreeOthers/ undesignatedAcademic rankAssistant professorAssociate professorFull professorEmeritus professor/retiredAdjunct professor/lectureOthers/ undesignatedExperienceYears in teaching (full time & part time)Years in practice (full time & part time)CELA surveycollected in 2010internet-based surveyn 230response rate 8135%6729%167%146%2210%MeanStd. D.19.311.017.712.6CELA surveycollected in 1999mail-based surveyn 297response rate 63%CountPercent00%21673%8127%00%CELA surveycollected in 1981mail-based surveyn 258response rate 58%Count786252NA2323Percent30%24%20%NA9%9%lower representation of assistant professors (13%) compared with that of 1981 (30%). However,these differences are likely due to transitions in landscape architecture faculties, such as anincreasing number of PhDs without full-time practice experience (LaGro, 1999).The demographics of CELA educators slightly differ from those of two earlier surveysthat targeted at the same population (Table 3). More educators who responded to our surveyhold a doctoral degree compared at those who responded to Milburn and Brown's survey(Milburn & Brown, 2003). There were also less assistant and adjunct professors and more fulland associate professors who responded to our survey compared at those to responded toChenoweth and Chidister's survey (Chenoweth & Chidister, 1983). Although studies foundchanging demographics of the CELA educators, such as increasing number of Ph.D.s(Schneider, 1981), without the demographics of the CELA population to compare with, it isdifficult to declare with confidence whether these demographic differences were due tochanging demographics of the CELA educators in general or sampling bias.EVALUATED MEASUREMENTSGeneral Demand and SupplyResearch was widely accepted as important and was perceived by many as not beingconducted in sufficient quantity, which suggested an authentic need for research perceivedfrom practice. It is found in the survey that 94% of ASLA members believed that research isimportant to landscape architecture practice. Despite this belief that research is perceivedimportant to practice by most professionals, a substantial percentage believe that there is notenough research being done in landscape architecture (agreed or strongly agreed by 52%).3661

Z. Chen et al. / Academic Knowledge and Demand of Professional PracticeTable 4. Types of Thinking or Knowledge Sources that Support Decision-Making in Practice Used byASLA Members (2012)Question: How often do you use each of the following types of thinking or sources of knowledge in making decisions inyour practice?No.Sources of knowledge or types of thinkingNot sure or OccararelysionallyOften orvery oftenMean*SD*Types of thinkingA4 3 Logic and reasoning0%2%98%3.760.47A4 1 Intuition3%15%82%3.270.81Sources of knowledgeA4 2 Common sense 1%2%98%3.690.52A4 5 Professional experience 1%1%98%3.840.42A4 10 Client expressed desires1%4%95%3.600.56A4 8 Technical standards1%10%89%3.350.69A4 6 Professional education1%13%86%3.310.73A4 11 Other specialists6%22%70%2.970.79A4 4 Research findings5%28%67%2.890.86A4 9 Historical information4%31%65%2.830.81A4 7 The work of other landscape architects3%34%62%2.820.81Note: * The numerical means and standard deviations were calculated on the following coding: not sure system missing,rarely 1, occasionally 2, often 3, very often 4Compared with 1980s, a substantial increase in the use of the results of research wasfound in this study, which indicates a research need from practicing professionals. Sixty-sevenpercent of landscape architects today use research often or very often to make their decisions(Table 4), compared to only 21% in the 1981's survey (Palmer et al., 1984). However, resultsindicated that professional decisions in landscape architecture are still largely made based on1) traditional professional knowledge including professional experience (98%) technicalstandards (89%), and professional education (86%); and 2) non-professional informationincluding common sense (98%), client expressed desires (95%), and other specialists (70%).Landscape architects cooperate with a wide range of specialists, in particular engineers.Some 69% of ASLA members responding to the survey consulted with engineers to a great orvery great extent). Respondents also consulted with architects and planners (50%), and naturalscientists (16%) frequently for their valuable expertise (Table 5, 6).Results indicated that the scope of landscape architecture practice had expanded fromtraditional focus on aesthetics to more concrete and specific concerns. Compared with practicein 1970s, landscape architecture practice more recently is less based on subjective standards,such as aesthetics (those found it central to practice to a very great extend decreased from 67%to 46%, p .01, see Table 7), but more based on measurable standards -- such as public welfare(increased from 14% to 69%, p .01) and individual comfort (increased from 22% to 42%,p .01).3662

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech EdTable 5. Frequencies of Profession Consulted by ASLA Members (2012)Question: How often do you consult with the following professions? (%)Not at Not tooNo.Professionals consultedallmuchA8 2Engineers0%6%A8 1Architects and planners1%7%A8 4Natural scientists11%28%Systems analysts and computerA8 8specialists26%39%A8 7Liberal artists (e.g. painters)33%41%A8 6Applied artists (e.g. industrial designers)36%39%A8 3Behavioral scientists52%37%A8 5Humanistic academicians60%33%Fairdegree25%32%44%Great or verygreat %1%0%0%0%0%Table 6. Consulting Service Perceived by ASLA Members (2012)Question: If you do seek the knowledge and expertise of other professionals in your work, which of thoseprofessionals provides knowledge and expertise that you consider to be is most important to your practice? Why?Professionals consultedNumberPercentageEngineers8835%-Civil engineers4518%-Structural engineers198%- Geotechnical engineers52%Natural scientists in forestry, botany, biology and etc.4518%Architects3715%Planners146%Building contractors104%Landscape architects94%Artists73%Behavior scientists and other social scientists52%Developer and related economical experts52%Research demand and supply in two dimensionsThe scope of research knowledge, measured by 19 knowledge areas, was reduced intofive PCA components. This explains 61% of the total variation in the use of knowledge in 19topics, resulting in a Cronbach's alpha value ranging from .687 to .841 (Table 8). These fivecomponents -- judgmental design knowledge, constructional design knowledge,environmental systems knowledge, social-cultural systems knowledge, and historical-culturalsystems knowledge -- were generally consistent with the four domains in Table 1g with smalldifferences. These differences may have resulted from technical limitations, since theidentification of later components in PCA was heavily influenced by the results of earlier onesand therefore turned less distinctive (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006). Reliability testindicated a moderate coherence among the areas in social, cultural and historical systemsknowledge (Cronbach's alpha .695), which was split into two components in PCA.3663

Z. Chen et al. / Academic Knowledge and Demand of Professional PracticeTable 7. The Scope of Landscape Architecture Practice (1972, 2012)Question: To what extent is each of the following central to your understanding of what the practice of landscape architectureshould be concerned with?No.ConcernsA3 1AestheticsA3 2Ecological needsA3 3Public welfare andenjoymentA3 4Comfort andpleasure for theindividualUndesignatedor not at all ornot too %45%46%3.380.661972*1%4%28%67%3.620.562012 1%5%33%62%3.570.581972*1%5%

The scope of landscape architecture practice expanded from aesthetical to ecological issues in the 1970s. There was a lack of consensus on what research was and how research may contributed to practice among landscape professionals and educators. A potential gap was observed in landscape architecture knowledge between art and science,