Landscape Architecture Theory

~O'E

;~~

:~:TDy

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE (

THEORY An Evolving Body of Thought

ii==== ====== ~ ~

Michael

D. Murphy

TexasA&M University

WAVELAND

PRESS, INC. Long Grove, Illinois

(

J

Robert ~ White

For information about this book, contact: Waveland Press, Inc. 4180 IL Route 83, Suite 101 Long Grove, IL 60047-9580 (847) 634-0081 [email protected] www.waveland.com

Contents

~ ~

--.).. ..•..••.

Foreword v Acknowledgments \

vii

1

Introduction

>.;

Landscape Architecture Values 3 Commodity 7 Landscape 11 Architecture 13 Design 16 Education 19 Professions 22

2

25

Substantive Theory Design Philosophy 26 Sustainable Development 28 Environment-Behavior Studies Systems Theory 38 Copyright © 2005 by Waveland Press, Inc.

'l'

.

3

.~

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

Printed in the United States of America 7

6

543

2

1

49

ProceduralTheory Design Programming 53 Design Process 62 Landscape Planning 75 Landscape Suitability Analysis

ISBN 1-57766-357-8

system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher.

34

4

79

The Biophysical Environment Geophysical Conditions 84 Ecosystems 87 Goods, Services, and Processes Hi

99

83

iv

Contents Ecosystem Health 104 Urban Development 108 Site Analysis Factors 109

5 The HumanEnvironment

115

Cultural Diversity 117 Human Needs 118 Urban Development 124 Access and Movement 129 Site Analysis Factors 134

6 Design Form

139

Natural Form 144 Designed Form 147 Aesthetics 153

Forevvord

7 Design Purpose

159

Design Intent 160 Quality of Life 166

8 Design Practice Design Technologies 172 Organizational Values 174 Changing Characteristics of Professions Professional Services 184

9 Design Collaboration

171 176

189

Design Teams 190 Team Learning 192 Authority and Collaboration 196 The Team Environment 197 Shared Vision 199 Team Leadership 200 Team Size 201 Team Participation 201 Team Member Responsibilities 203 Rules of Engagement 204 Interdisciplinary Process 209

10 Conclusion Critical Thinking 214 Creative Thinking 218 Summary 221 Glossary 227 References 233 Index 245

213

Although we visualize the landscape as a place, it is better understood if we think of it as a process. The landscape is best described as a complex of biological, physical, and cultural systems engaged in a process of perpetual becoming. Over time the landscape takes different forms, each one expressing the state of these interacting systems at a . particulaI: moment and stage of development. As the landscape and society coevolve, we find that some conditions of the environment conflict with our activities and interests. In conceptual terms, design is. our way of intervening in the process of landscape evolution to eliminate conflicts and improve the human condition. Design is our way of managing the continuing process of change to enhance quality of life and create meaningful and compelling places as settings for human activity. Throughout history, modifying the landscape to improve our lives and express our humanity has been a continuing occupation. Today, as we gain increasing power to change the landscape we also increase our responsibility to do so wisely, to protect the landscape as a critical resource and invest the built environment with enhanced value and meaning now and into the foreseeable future. To ensure that our designs lead to durable improvements in the human/landscape condition rather than temporary alterations to its visual form or style, we need to consider all the salient factors of the landscape, including human interactions and the new activities to be accommodated, before deciding what a transformed landscape will become. But the environments we act to transform are not only

v

vi

Preface

dynamic but also complex. To design effectively requires a comprehensive approach to the identification, acquisition, and integration of the knowledge needed to support sound design recommendations. This enables designers to provide guidance based on a broad understanding of people's interrelationships with the environment. But our lack of expertise in some areas poorly equips us to take advantage of all the knowledge required to form a holistic understanding of people and the landscape. Sometimes the more committed we become to a particular kind of understanding the less able we are to accommodate other points of view-as expressed in the apparent dichotomies between art and science or between the so called "hard" and "soft" sciences. This creates a dilemma for the designer: what knowledge should be used to guide design change and how do we synthesize it to create better informed designs for better formed landscapes? While the intuitive aspects of designing-creating ideas with compelling form and spatial qualities-may be an unknowable mystery of the human mind, the rational aspects, that is, deciding what criteria designs should meet and why, are not. This is particularly evident in landscape designs responsive to a wide variety of requirements, such as those that improve the comfort, convenience, and functional relationships among people and their activities; enhance social interaction and aesthetic experience; and maintain the ecological integrity and vitality of the environment. This examination of theory focuses on the body of knowledge required to inform design thinking and on ways to apply that knowledge to improve the human/landscape condition and enhance quality of life through design performance.

Acknovvledgtnents In addition to those whose work is cited here, there are others to whom I owe special recognition for their individual contributions. First I thank my wife Doreen for her patience and support during the lengthy period of research and writing. I am deeply indebted to Chris Mulder for the time and energy we invested in developing and testing ,the design. process and interdisciplinary collaboration guidelines, and for his dedication to refining them through application. I also am indebted to Laurie Prossnitz for her skillful editing of the manuscript into a readable text. I thank John Motloch for our many discussions about the direction of the profession over the last twenty years. His critical insights into a comprehensive body of knowledge for the discipline have been a major influence on my own thinking. I thank Dieter Holm for his encouragement to write and for his comments on early drafts of the text. I also acknowledge the late Jot Carpenter for reading an early version of the manuscript and guiding me toward productive sources in the literature. I am particularly pleased to acknowledge Laurence Jacobs and Elizabeth Larkin for their assistance in preparing the illustrations. Mostly, I am indebted to the students for whom this text is intended. It would be difficult to imagine this book coming to fruition without the challenging inquiries of many generations of insightful and enthusiastic students.

vii

1 Introduction Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which make him unique among animals: so that, unlike them, he is not a figure in the landscape-he is a shaper of the landscape. In body and in mind he is the explorerof nature, the ubiquitous animal, who did not find but made his home in everycontinent. -Jacob Bronowski,The Ascent of Man The rise of civilization has been traced as the intellectual evolution of a species with the ability to understand nature, and as a result, the capacity to control rather than to be controlled by the environment. Humankind, through its invention of tools and knowledge, has developed the capacity to mold both its environment and its future (Bronowski 1973:19). By accident as well as intent, human society has become the primary agent of change in the landscape. Design of the landscape is our way of guiding change to improve the human condition. Theory forms the basis for determining how to design well, to bring about successful change in the landscape. This examination of landscape architecture theory will focus on our efforts to change the landscape as a professional pursuit and on the body of knowledge we require to do so successfully. But landscape architecture theory is in an evolutionary state. What is presented here is a brief introduction to some of the seminal writings and ideas that have informed landscape architecture over the last fifty years. Some of

1

2

Chapter One

the writers are landscape architects, but many more are thinkers from a wide variety of fields whose ideas have illuminated the search for a theory of landscape architecture. This text attempts to bring the ideas of some of the most important of these writers together to present a broad view of a critical but still developing body of knowledge. The treatment of the material is introductory. Ideas are summarized to describe their essential characteristics and reveal their relationships to one another. For a more comprehensive treatment, readers are encouraged to return to the original sources and to read the rapidly expanding contemporary literature for a more complete understanding. To begin this introduction to theory we need a few definitions to clarify some of the principle issues. These issues are discussed to introduce you to the body of knowledge and to describe some of the major influences on its central themes. The themes described here are confined to the distinct knowledge areas-and their underlying values-that inspire the changes we impose on the landscape, inform our reasons for doing so, and guide us in reaching these decisions. 1Wocritical areas of knowledge are not addressed in this examination of theory: history and technology. History of landscape architecture has been well documented for many years and is not necessarily germane to the future form of the landscape. Neither building technology nor information technology will be covered, primarily because these are complex topics that are covered adequately elsewhere. The first consideration here is to provide a general definition of landscape architecture.

Landscape Architecture There are many ways to describe landscape architecture. The description used here is intended to be inclusive of a broad range of practice and research areas and provide a definition that most practitioners and academicians share. Landscape architecture is the discipline devoted to understanding and shaping the landscape and, as a profession, provides site planning, design, and management advice to improve the landscape for human benefit. The purpose of landscape planning and design is twofold: to guide change in the character of the landscape that will create and sustain useful, healthful, and enjoyable urban, suburban, and regional environments; and to protect and enhance their intrinsic physical, cultural, and ecological qualities. Professional practitioners provide advice in the form of planning and design services to individuals and groups actively engaged in modifying the landscape to improve its utility and value. Landscape architecture as a service profession is called upon to advise on the disposition and management of society's most valuable resource: the landscape. To do this effectively practitioners need to be

3

Introduction

well educated to understand the landscape and the ways people interact with it, and well trained to apply design process and implementation technology. They also need a sound theoretical base to structure and inform professional education and training and to guide their application in ways that are effective, useful, and valued by society. The overarching goal of the profession is to create order and harmony in our relationships with the environment. These relationships are expressed by the ecological, functional, and aesthetic characteristics of the places we create to facilitate human activity and to improve our use, experience, and understanding of the landscape. We alter physical conditions and processes in response to society's dynamic growth, development, and extension into the landscape. Attending the dynamics of human development is the challenge to continually reform the landscape in ways that better accommodate people's evolving requirements. These requirements include the provision of economic support, physical space for activities, improved satisfaction with and appreciation of the physical setting, enhancement and sustentation of environmental and human health, and expression of culturally and environmentally specific sense of place and community. To achieve these multiple objectives designers need a clear understanding of human and environmental processes and the ways in which they mutually interact to shape the landscape. To understand these processes designers also need to be aware of some of the factors that influence the way we comprehend and interpret the world around us. To better understand how we understand, we need to consider the influence of culture and values. Our cultural values have an important influence on the way we define the landscape and the actions we take to change or protect it.

Values Our values are the ideals and principles we consider important in our lives, the ideas that give purpose and meaning to our thoughts and actions. Although some value judgments are considered universal, different people and cultures differ in the way they comprehend events and assign meaning to them. In general, the values of landscape architecture fall into three broad categories: aesthetic, ecological, and social (Thompson 2000:7). Landscape architecture is deeply committed to enhancing the quality of human experience; establishing social equity; maintaining a supportive, conflict-free functional organization within the landscape; and sustaining environmental quality. The values we hold as a society significantly influence the way we understand reality and serve as the primary filter through which we perceive and interpret events and phenomena. This includes

4

Chapter One

our understanding of professional values, which may be broadly conceived as the values of a design subculture. To help separate reality from our perceptions of it, this investigation of design theory begins with an inquiry into our core beliefs about the nature of the world. A number of provocative questions may be asked: What are the fundamental values of our society and how do they influence our individual and collective perceptions and behavior? Do we, for example, believe in the principle of democracy, by which the most correct decisions are those supported by the largest number of people (as expressed by politicians)? Or, do we believe in the correctness of informed opinion as expressed by a well-educated elite (such as landscape architects) as the most appropriate determinants of action? Are we, as we believe, a free people and if so, do we have the freedom to think or act independently of the way prominent social and political leaders think and act? Do we value freedom of thought and action to the extent that we are tolerant of others if they do not think and act as we do? Do we grant ourselves the freedom to think thoughts others might not understand or approve? If we value freedom, do we believe that it comes with responsibilities? If so, to whom and for what are we responsible? Do we value social progress? If so, what do we mean by social progress? Does it mean that conditions progressively improve for the welfare of individuals and society at large? Or, is improvement only appropriate for those (such as the well educated) who control resources? At what levels and in what areas do we intend and measure improvement? Do we measure improvement by the accumulation of wealth and goods, or by the quality of our interrelationships with one another and the environment, or the opportunities we provide for our children-the inheritors of our society? These questions may be diffictilt to answer, but they deserve examination. Some historical perspective may be helpful as a point of departure. In the development of the United States, Americans advanced from a frontier society where survival was a daily struggle to a stage where enough control was established over the environment and its resources to assure survival on a predictable basis. We eventually reached the stage we enjoy today, where our needs have been satisfied in abundance. We are able to take from the environment enough not only for survival, but for the accumulation of sufficient reserves to increase control over our lives as well as the environment. Once surpluses were assured, the values of society began to change from those based on the satisfaction of daily needs to the accumulation of wealth. This shift affected all aspects of society, including political, economic, and technological power and prestige, to the extent that today our regulation of untapped resources, in the form of potential wealth, dominates our attitudes about and relationships with the landscape (Rodiek 1978). The landscape is more valued for its potential as future

Introduction

5

wealth than as an existing condition. For many years social commentators have remarked on our attitudes about natural wealth: A Great Promise of Unlimited Progress-the promise of domination of nature, of material abundance, of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and of unimpeded personal freedom-has sustained the hopes and faith of the generations since the beginning of the industrial age. (Fromm 1976:1)

One of the defining characteristics of Western society, and indeed of modern societies everywhere, is the concept of ownership. Accompanying the promise of industrialism's increasing control over nature (as the repository of wealth-generating resources) has been the parallel notion of possessing it. As such, nature is defined as a commodity that we consume in exchange for increased wealth and an improved standard of living. Over half a century ago Aldo Leopold, regarded as one of the founders of the environmental movement in the United States, observed that "we face the question whether a still higher ,standard of living' is worth its cost in things natural, wild, and free" (Leopold 1949:xvii). The question remains relevant today. Control of resources for survival and prosperity is a universal concept. The concept of territoriality and the domination of space and resources is widely observed in nature and well documented for all forms of animal life (Ardrey 1966; Hall 1966:51), although it is not clear that territorial behavior is necessarily related to resources. Territorial behavior may be as important as a way of defining the individual and organizing the group as it is a way to assure their survival (Ardrey 1966: 170). There seems to be a consistent link between territ()riality and reproductive success. Nevertheless, the idea of owning nature or parts of it for personal benefit and enrichment appears to have developed as a natural evolution of human thought. It was a relatively short time ago that we abandoned the concept of owning people, and only then after a struggle. The concept of women as chattel is no longer legally sanctioned, but women's ability to exercise independent authority over family property without the consent of their husbands is relatively new in U.S. legal history. We are only slowly moving away from the concept of possessing others, not only as a means of controlling resources but also as an important way of defining ourselves. It is apparent that some of these more contemporary ideas regarding possession and ownership have not advanced to the same extent in all parts of the world, or even in the United States regarding our relationships with the landscape. In contemporary society our status is established to a large extent by what we possess-particularly the possession of things that increase or display autonomy and power over others. Territory and artifacts serve as symbolic representations of power. For over a century, owning

6

Chapter One

symbols of power has been referred to as "conspicuous consumption" (Veblen1899). A place or an object has value and symbolic significance only if others are aware of and impressed by our possession of it. Significantly, these symbolic possessions tend to be highly consistent with those things possessed by other people we wish to associate ourselves with. Not all groups use the same symbols: to use vehicles as an example, one group may use Harley-Davidson motorcycles, another may use Chevrolet Suburbans, and another Mercedes Benz. Those in one group are rarely impressed by the symbols of those in another. Within social groups, however, the advertising communications system has been highly successful at defining for us what to prefer and purchase to achieve and denote status within the community of our choice. In addition to the ownership of property, another of our most cherished values is individual liberty. We feel strongly that individualism and the protection of individual rights are among the most noble of human endeavors and that the protection of collective social values should be secondary to that of individuals. At times we make connections between behavior and individuality that may be difficult to understand upon careful examination, but seem quite reasonable when viewed through the filter of our social values. On the one-hundredth anniversary of the Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Company, George F. Will, editorial writer for Newsweek magazine, reported that sales for the year accounted for $3.3 billion with earnings of $435 million for 261,000 motorcycles. In addition, 650,000 Americans paid $40 annual dues to be members of the Harley owners group and 300,000 of them rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, every August. In 2002 bikers and enthusiasts spent more than $1 billion on Harley gear with the company label on it. Will quotes Jeffrey Bluestein, the CEO of Harley-Davidson, as saying that motorcycling means "freedom, adventure, individual expression." To which Will added, '1\8 does America" (Will 2002). Exactly how adventuresome, individualistic, or liberating it is to purchase vehicles and accoutrements identical to those purchased by hundreds of thousands of like-minded people was not explained. What may be more clearly revealed is our underlying value for shared experience, what Thorsten Veblen called a "propensity for emulation," even if we have to purchase it. Perhaps it is because we have purchased it, or because we are able to, that we value the experience so highly. Will noted that the average Harley purchaser earned $78,000 per year and paid, on average, $15,000 for "his machine." The exclusivity of the experience, as might be presumed from the purchase price, seems to increase its value and meaning because most Americans cannot afford to participate. This value on the purchase of individual status may also account for our reluctance to spend even modest amounts on an individual

7

Introduction

basis for the benefit of society collectively. We have persistent problems in affording the expense of good schools for example, or universal health care, or environmental protection, or public recreation facilities that are equally available to all members of the community. Our values seem to be inclined toward the individual rather than the community. There is a perception that little individual status accrues from the improved quality of community life. But in reality we are motivated to act on both individual and communal values. It is society that provides the opportunities we require to function as individuals. We must exist as an individual if we are to function as a thoughtful member of society. The survival of an open, democratic society requires thoughtful individual participation from its members. Both these motivations need to be understood and accommodated in the way we organize society and the shared landscape.

Commodity The fundamental structure of free enterprise, capitalistic society is based on the continuing production and consumption of goods-production beyond the level required for a comfortable life. We are constantly encouraged to buy things, not because they are particularly necessary in a utilitarian way and not because of their benefits to the environment or community, but because they are new and available for sale as a means of creating wealth. Just as the Communists defined themselves as workers, we happily define ourselves as consumers, consumers of resources as well as "products." The process of production and consumption must be continuous if our national economy is to grow and maintain the ability to support society and improve our standard of living-which seems to mean the accumulation of goods. This is one way the value structure of corporate capitalism shapes our concepts of ourselves, our relationships to one another, and our relationship with the environment. This is important to an investigation of design theory because it helps us understand how we as a society value the landscape. The landscape is important primarily because it is a commodity that can be exchanged in the marketplace, and as the source of raw materials from which products can be manufactured. The influence of these perceptions may be seen in our actions. Weabuse land becausewe regard it as a commoditybelongingto us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may beginto use it with loveand respect.(Leopold1949:xviii) Many educated people understand the concept of ecological community as a group of mutually interdependent organisms interacting

8

Chapter One

in a shared physical setting. Most people, however, do not regard humans as a component of an ecological community. We tend to see ourselves as set apart, above this level of ecological organization. We reserve a special status for humans and define ourselves in rather different terms. The ecosystem is considered to be an environment we control, not one we are a part of. We do not, as a general rule, define ourselves as being at all, but as having (Fromm 1976). We do not say that we work, but that we "have" a job. We do not say that we are educated, but that we "have" a college degree. These "possessions" have symbolic currency for the purchase of status in the social marketplace. On the basis of education and employment we are able to "have" wealth. In spite of our ability to enjoy a lifestyle unknown to even the most wealthy only a few generations ago, there is increasing evidence that our "way" of life is not only unsustainable in the long term, but also fails to meet our most fundamental human needs today. For over a quarter of a century many have believed, as Eric Fromm noted: • Unrestricted satisfaction of all desires is not conducive to wellbeing, nor is it the way to happiness or even to maximum pleasure. • The dream of being independent masters of our lives ended when we began awakening to the fact that we have all become cogs in the bureaucratic machine, with our thoughts, feelings, and tastes manipulated by government and industry and the mass communications that they control. • Economic progress has remained restricted to the rich nations, and the gap between rich and poor nations has widened. • Technical progress itself has related ecological dangers and the dangers of nuclear war, either or both of which may put an end to all civilizations and possibly to all life. (1976:2)

It is virtually impossible to hold the view that we possess land and at the same time to conceive ourselves as part of it. It is almost unthinkable that we would belong to the land rather than the other way around. A few, in reaction, have said that they do not own the land but that they have borrowed it from their children. The fundamental values we hold, the paradigmatic filter through which we view reality, denies to many in our society (although not to all) the opportunity to achieve a sense of belonging or wholeness with the environment. The intellectual structure of our relationship to the world is better characterized as ownership and domination than stewardship. We define land as a commodity belonging to individuals (Lahde 1982:9). Land defined as "property" has "value." Fromm believed that the industrial system had failure built into its two main psychological premises:

Introduction

9

That the aim of life is happiness, that is, maximum pleasure, defined as the satisfaction of any desire or subjective need a person may feel; and that egotism, selfishness, and greed, as the system needs to generate them in order to function, lead to harmony and peace. (Fromm 1976:5)

There is room for serious debate about the incompatibility of greed and peace. Or even that greed is the real motivator behind capitalism, even though it may often appear so. The acquisitive nature of capitalism may be better explained as a process of continual challenge and achievement rather than greed. It may simply be that acquiring wealth is the most universally accepted means of measuring success. But there can be little dispute that the satisfaction of unlimited acquisition requires immediate and often reckless exploitation of resources, irrespective of the consequence to those "downstream" in regard to their position in the economic order, the physical order of the landscape, or as future generations. Under the production and consumption paradigm, even people are considered a "resource" for industry-rather than the other way around. We do not even consider it odd that Texas A&M University, like most large corporations, has a Department of Human Resources. In fact, there is a national Society of Human Resource Management with offices in Alexandria, Virginia, that provides services to those in the business of managing humans as a resource. Some contend that we have so commodified our relationships with the environment and one another that even the most sanctified aspects of life derive their primary value from the marketplace. Consider the home. Home is that place where the family, the most important institution in human society, collectively and spiritually resides. The home is the sheltered setting for an array of interpersonal relationships. It is a place that provides the basic source of nurturing for the individual and the nuclear or extended family-the ultimate refuge from the uncertainties of the outside world. It is the place where you are loved and protected. As Robert Frost said, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in" (1915). In our society we think of the home as being in a building, a dwelling. Some people think of it as the building. It is well understood that developers build and real estate agents sell "homes," not houses, and the public recorder transfers deeds for the sale of "property," not land. These issues raise fundamental questions: Where does the landscape fit in this paradigm? Does it have value to us in any context other than economic? If it has value, can we enhance and protect the value of the landscape through design? Do we as designers-as shapers of the landscape-have a responsibility to the landscape, or only to its owner and those who are to occupy it, those we call "users"? These are the questions you will either answer over the

10

Chapter One

course of your professional life, or they are questions you will let society answer for you. It is important to note that the answers society provides will be useful for the way society is currently organized and not necessarily for any other purpose. That is to say, the definition is framed to reinforce the status quo rather than design change. Each society will answer these questions in a different way. Over time societies will change their answers as understanding and social values evolve. For now there is the question of how this relates to an understanding of landscape architecture theory. Theory of landscape architecture addresses fundamental questions regarding the meaning and purpose of our activities to impose design change on the landscape: What is it that we do? Why do we do it? How do we do it? How do we determine when it has been done well? While the questions are simple enough, the answers tend to be both complex and elusive. These are the kind of questions that have perplexed philosophers of all societies in all ages and we are unlikely to answer them definitively here. But that does not mean we should not try. To become educated means that we have assumed the responsibility to try to answer questions that will accompany us throughout our life. Likewise, in the search for design theory, it may not be the destination but the journey that is most important to understanding. Because our world (physically, ecologically, culturally, aesthetically, and intellectually) is in a process of perpetual becoming, the landscape is continually changing and evolving in response to ongoing natural and human processes. As a consequence, the considerations for intervening in that process of change are likewise in a continual state of flux. In the search for understanding, meaning comes not just from the discovery of definitive answers to the questions but primarily from our individual and collective search for them. The future of the design disciplines and the quality of our professional lives will be defined by our examination of the issues and the conclusions we reach. In a service profession, it is always important to understand how our society perceives the need for the services we provide and how it values the advice it receives. If we understand the world to be in a process of perpetual change, and if our questions therefore cannot be answered definitively, it is reasonable to ask whether it is valuable to pursue these questions at all. Can we provide enduring answers to evolving questions? Almost certainly we cannot. It is not the answers but the principles that issue from them that may be more enduring. If we seek continuing improvement through design, our theories about why and how we design may need to change as rapidly as conditions if they are to remain relevant. The main questions may be: What is the condition of the landscape today? How does that compare to what we knew, or thought we knew, about the past and what does it mean regarding

11

Introduction

how we gain and apply knowledge to improve the quality of the landscape of the future? We live in a society and in a time when knowledge has become the primary motivator and determinant of thought and action. We trust knowledge and technology, sometimes even when we should question it the most. And since knowledge is not static, the process of understanding will require that we ask these questions continuously. Like the landscape, knowing is a process of continual change and improvement. The questions remain the same. It is only the answers that change. We will only know what the acceptable answers are if we continually pose the questions.

Landscape Another important consideration is to define what we mean by landscape. The traditional definition of landscape is an area of the earth's land surface that has been modified by human activity (Jackson 1984:5). This is from the Germanic root landschajt, as "a small collection of buildings as a human concentration in a circle of pasture or cultivated space surrounded by wilderness" (Motloch 2001 :3), and its English transliteration. Some expand the definition to include natural areas, such as wilderness, that do not evidence human modification. This seems appropriate since, in reality, there is virtually no place on earth that has not been influenced by human activity of some typethrough direct settlement, husbandry, deforestation, or by inadvertent actions such as acid rain, air pollution, or chemical contamination of the earth's soil and waters (Berleant 1992:3). Consequently the traditional definition is inclusive, encompassing all contiguous land areas of a definable character. The traditional definition is applied here since the designed landscape is, by definition, subject to human influence even though the physical evidence of that influence might not be obvious. Landscape is a broad term encompassing the totality of our physical surroundings: environment, place, region, and geography to name a few. The landscape is observed, visualized, and perceived differently by people in different situations and from different landscapes, conveying a different meaning to each of them. The landscape is an entity that is defined by our senses and interpreted by our intellect. It reflects prevailing cultural, social, and economic values and expresses the character of a society as it has developed over an extended period of time. When understood, the landscape may be comprehended as one of the most accurate indicators of a society, its values, its technology, and its aspirations. But because it is constantly changing, the landscape requires constant attention if we are to decode its fundamental meanings and gain a clear understanding of who we are and where we are going as a society (Meinig 1979:1).

12 Chapter One People have always altered the landscape to make it more responsive to their needs. Today we provide guidance for those anticipating landscape change as a specialized design profession: landscape architecture. Until very recently designs to transform the landscape as an entity were inadvertent, in response to actions to meet people's spe- ' cific needs, such as clearing a forest for agriculture or to build a town, flooding a valley for water supply or creating spaces for recreation. Contemporary design requirements are more complex. We now understand that there are indirect as well as direct needs to be addressed by design: maintaining the health and diversity of ecosystems; sustaining the landscape's intrinsic character, function, and productivity; and satisfying statutorily mandated codes and development standards. The complexity of contemporary design requirements continually increases as expanding knowledge advances our understanding of the landscape and human influences on it. Our efforts to design in ways that respond to this complexity and satisfy growing performance requirements accentuate one of contemporary society's most difficult problems: our inability to fully comprehend and manage increasingly complex technical, cultural, and biophysical systems (Senge 1990; Hutchins 1996). Because landscape or environmental issues exist primarily as a vast network of interacting features and processes, they belong to a class of problems that resist purely scientific or technological understanding and solution (Soule and Press 1998). Our continuing requirement to change the landscape to meet new needs and respond to new opportunities creates a situation where, as Albert Einstein noted, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He may have overstated to make the point, but it should be clear that the two are complementary and equally important. Either in the absence of the other is of limited value, and as will be described below, potentially dangerous when it comes to changing the landscape. Contemporary approaches to landscape design are intended to address this complexity: to maintain balance in the environment as we alter its form and use, to provide for people's immediate needs while simultaneously maintaining the richness and vitality of ecological and cultural systems. It is in response to these interrelated processes of landscape change that the environmental design disciplines have evolved. Each discipline-architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, planning-addresses a different kind of process and employs a different theory, knowledge base, and technology. Each discipline provides answers for a different type of development problem, such as buildings, infrastructure, or landscape. One of our most important avenues of inquiry is to determine the areas of responsibility of these different disciplines so that we can better manage success-

13

Introduction

ful interaction and synergy among them. One of the disciplines most closely allied to landscape architecture is architecture.

Architecture No discussion of landscape architecture theory would be complete without reference to architecture. In the past a great deal of the theory of landscape architecture was borrowed from our older sister (perhaps mother) profession. In landscape architecture the term architecture is used in its generic sense as the process of applying design thinking to determine a desired future outcome. Originally, not only the process but also the principles of architecture were applied to the design of the landscape. But architecture as a discipline or profession is principally about the design of buildings. Landscape architecture on the other hand is principally about place making and only occasionally concerned with buildings. While it is useful to understand and respect the values and theory of a closely allied discipline, it is also important to know where to draw distinctions. Although architecture and landscape architecture address the world through a common design paradigm, and both fields approach design in a similar way, what these two disciplines design, the knowledge bases they apply, and the values they hold are quite different. There are many ways to define architecture. One of the classic definitions is from the Swiss architect known as Le Corbusier: 'J\rchitecture is the masterly, correct and magnificent play of masses brought together in light." This definition is both poetic and profound. Unfortunately, this kind of definition, which is not uncommon, casts little light on the subject. The uninitiated need a more concrete definition for fundamental understanding. Unless we can define, in a comprehensible way, what architecture is, there is no reason to suppose that we know what it is or, for that matter, whether it is being taught at the university. The same, of course, is true for landscape architecture. Architecture is a design discipline concerned with the creation of physical structures to shape, shelter, and facilitate specific, and usually concentrated, human activities. Landscape architecture is also concerned with facilitating human activities, often different kinds at different times in the same place. In addition, landscape architecture is equally concerned with the celebration and conservation of the environment where those activities take place. Architecture is likewise concerned with the celebration of building. Architecture also is concerned with expressing itself and its context, referential to both itself and its culture in space and in time. In architecture it is almost unthinkable that the structure, as the tangible manifestation of human influence, is not a conspicuous and distinctive physical expression. In landscape architecture, on the

14 Chapter One other hand, it is not uncommon that the touch of the designer is so restrained and the expression of design so subtle that the place appears almost untouched, as if in a "natural" state. Indeed, since the seamless integration of new activities into the larger framework of the landscape is one of the landscape designer's most difficult challenges, imposition of a subdued or naturalistic expression, consistent with the character of the existing landscape, is a common design strategy. The need for design change develops in response to society's dynamic growth and expansion into the landscape and to address our constantly evolving patterns of activity and technology. As society grows and changes we need more building and a revised landscape in which it occurs. Architectural responses tend to reveal the interplay of contemporary technology and style as a physical design expression. Landscape architecture, on the other hand, serves to make connections: between buildings and human activities. The landscape, because it is more enduring, also serves as a bridge over time, from our past to the present and eventually into the future. The basic role of landscape architecture is to continually reform the normally slowly evolving landscape to better accommodate these rapidly changing requirements for economic support, to provide space for new activities and, as a cumulative result, express a culturally specific sense of place. Unlike the architect, who can begin with designs for a new building with each commission, the landscape architect must return to the same material and, in a sense, the same place for each project. Each project is, in a broad sense, a refinement to the same common .place. Through the conscious imposition of ideas to shape the form of the environment and its elements, the design disciplines collectively seek to arrange the features, processes, and character of the urban and regional landscape to improve their overall utility and value and reflect the underlying social and ecological order. This process of change reveals an important consideration regarding Fromm's distinction between "being" and "having" as a way to define ourselves and our relationships with one another and with the environment. An intrinsic characteristic of the concept "to be" is the aspect of "becoming" (Fromm 1976:25). If we shift our focus from having to being, the next step is the concept of becoming. This is a critical consideration in design. Design is often described as creating form, with the very clear assumption that this is a formal change; that the form created is to be permanent and unchanging. This traditional architectural assumption is fundamentally· inconsistent with the reality of the landscape. All aspects of nature are in a state of perpetual evolution. They are constantly changing in both form and substance. Ecosystems tend to become increasingly complex, trapping and passing along more energy as a result of that complexity. The same is true for the landscape of urban systems.

Introduction

15

Cities constantly grow and change, breaking down old roads and buildings to make way for new. Likewise, each day we as individuals change; we become older, more experienced and, we may hope, more happy and wise. Each day also brings us nearer to our death, to dust and eventual reincorporation through the recycling of elements into the ecosystem via another generation of plants and animals; the process of which, coincidently, is the basic activity of the landscape. In effect we are becoming, at least in our elemental constituents, what we originally were-a part of the landscape. In a physical sense we come from and are becoming landscape. In a spiritual sense, however, we remain individual and distinctive. And for the moment, we are content to hold on to our distinctive existence. Architecture is much more reflective of that spiritual aspect of individual distinctiveness, and as such is quite different from landscape architecture, which is more reflective of dynamic process and becoming. Each day we are, a little more perfectly, whatever it is we are capable of becoming as a person. The same may be said of the landscape. The landscape we see is a point-in-time expression of interacting ecological, physical, and cultural processes, a momentary snapshot of what exists today. And, if we conceive human society as a system supported by many individuals maintaining and passing along the spark of life, our individual lives may be understood as part of a continuum of human life, sustained over time by successive generations. If we conceive of the world as constantly becoming, rather than being, .our understanding of the landscape and our responsibilities to intervene in the process of changing it will respond to and perhaps more closely approximate the reality of our evolving world. Architecture, however, tends to remain in its original form, particularly if it is architecture that we consider valuable as an expression of who we are, or who we would like to be. Our past concepts and theories of design have been inherited from the arts and architecture, which are oriented primarily toward the creation of formal, and static, artifacts. Classic examples of Western art and design have included such enduring physical artifacts as Egyptian pyramids, Greek temples, and Roman coliseums. We have inherited the formal design paradigm where the designer strives not just to create but sustain form over time. But the world is not static. To understand landscape design we need to begin with the concept of landscape as perpetual change within dynamic systems-process-and see the role of the designer as that of intentionally intervening in that process to effect improved systemic relationships. To achieve improvement through design we need to change the landscape in ways that are demonstrably beneficial. One of those benefits is to preserve the health and working order of the landscape, which implies an ability to continue the process of change and improvement, not to arrest it.

16

Chapter One

If we fail to understand that landscape is process, our designs will fail to integrate with reality in continuing and meaningful ways; they will fail to become an integral part of the landscape as a process. Without this temporal/conceptual integration our design ideas will remain rooted in the static concepts of discrete architectural artifacts, and we' lose the opportunity to contribute to continuing change and improvement, to the evolution of the built landscape as a systemic process. In architecture the product of design is not just a shelter, it is also a cultural artifact. In landscape architecture the product is not so much an artifact as it is an interactive environment. In landscape architecture the product is a process. Although architecture and landscape architecture may employ the same design process of determining change, the changes they determine do not result in the same kind of product. The landscape expresses itself as place. But this expression is not always a representation in the architectural sense, in that it may be documented and recorded with the expectation that the form of the place will remain static, recognizably the same, after an extended period of time. There should be every expectation that a well-designed-that is, living-landscape, in addition to its ability to promote enhanced human activity and experience, will also retain its capacity to evolve in response to changing demands from the environment or from those who use it over time. A living landscape is a growing and changing landscape, in part because we ourselves are changing and constantly placing new demands on it. . Within this dynamic environmental matrix, some landscapes express the moment just as is the case in architecture. Architecture is a temporal expression of what we as a society believe and how we build at a given moment. Some landscapes also express society and the environment in this way. But not all landscapes follow the temporal architectural model. Each form of expression is equally important. In a society such as ours, it is important that both temporal and dynamic designs are created. The icon is important as a statement of who we are and where we have come from. Design of the landscape as a dynamic system is important to provide a setting, or place, in which the icon exists. Architecture, with its paradigm of the artifact, provides one of the critical models and a basic underpinning for an important aspect of landscape architectural practice and landscape architecture theory. But there are also other models of design to be considered.

Design The artist Josef Albers said, "To design is to plan and organize, to order, to relate and to control. In short it embraces all means opposing

Introduction

17

disorder and accident. Therefore it signifies a human need and qualifies man(kind)' s thinking and doing" (1977: 75). Design is the process of forming things or places to bring about improvement-to make them more useful, economical, or beautiful, for example. Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence that the quality of the environments we collectively create, as well as those left unaltered, is declining rather than improving; in part because they have been conceived, executed, and maintained as static features embedded in the dynamic matrix of a fluid environment. But there is another consideration. All too often the design disciplines address problems of the landscape's subsystems, not problems of the landscape as a whole system. Our design solutions are only partial while the problems of the environment present themselves as interrelated wholes. The way we change the landscape negatively impacts many of its natural systems simply because we do not understand what these systems are or how they function. On a broad scale our designs are bringing about disorder in many aspects of the landscape. For example, our farming and forestry practices have almost eliminated many species because the complexity of these environments, and their habitat, is being lost. The relationships between what we create by design and all other interrelated aspects of the environment determine the overall quality of the landscape, and by extension, the quality of our lives. One of the clearest examples of these relationships may be seen regarding our ability to increase the human population (Kohnke and Franzmeier.1995:145). Through improvements in medicine and sanitation we have seen significant improvements in survival rates among the world's populations. These increased numbers of people have, in turn, had a significant impact on the quality of the environment: In the six secondsit takes you to read this sentence,eighteenmore peoplewill be added.Eachhour there are 11,000 more mouths to feed;eachyear more than 95 million.yet the world has hundreds of billionsfewer tons of topsoil and hundreds of trillions fewer gallons of groundwater with which to grow food crops than it had in 1968. (Ehrlichand Ehrlich1990:9) As the population increases, demands on the landscape grow. Both our population and our lifestyle are rising. A rising lifestyle means we have more resources at our disposal. Each day we require more from the landscape. And although these demands are growing, the landscape is not. We constantly extend and change the way we use and manage the environment to increase our ability to extract needed resources. The basic challenge in designing the landscape is to synergize biophysical and cultural processes to accommodate the dynamic requirements of both without critically compromising either. The way we define design and how we apply that definition to changing the

18

Chapter One

landscape is directly related to whether our efforts result in improvement or merely bring about change for its own sake. Design has been defined in a number of ways, typically as an activity: • To initiate change that will transform existing conditions into preferred ones (Jones 1966) • To envision "a desirable future and invent ways to bring it about" (Ackoff 1981 :62) • To determine a safe path to a desired future condition (Weisbord 1992)

19

Introduction

• access to resources shelter from elements functional organization comfort and convenience • social interaction human health and safety

• ecological sustainability • economy of construction • ease of maintenance • comprehension

and wayfinding

• aesthetic experience • sense-of-place expression

• "The conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningful order" (Papanek 1984:4) The fundamental meaning of the order imposed is the improved utility, comprehension, satisfaction, and sustainability with the designed object or place. The principal characteristics of design action are purposeful change and improvement. Change may be imposed on an existing condition or it may address the process of change itself, sometimes to alter conditions in the environment, sometimes to preserve them. For example, New York's Central Park was originally a derelict wasteland that was transformed by design into a beautiful wooded park. On the other hand, at Yosemite National Park the original setting was so magnificent that the national government set about to preserve it. The image we see today is intended to be the same as that found by riders entering the valley on horseback in the early 1900s-the process of change has been arrested by design to preserve the desired form. For some, design includes the act of shaping the product, such as in pottery where the designer shapes the vessel directly. For others, and this includes most work by landscape architects, the act of shaping the product is indirect. Designers determine what the new form will be and others (contractors) execute the work on the basis of instructions from the designer. Design, then, is the process of determining the future form of the object or place, directly or indirectly. Design is defined here as the process we employ to guide intentional change in the environment to improve its value and fitness. Through design we act to improve the landscape in many ways, to transform the conditions we find lacking into those we desire. Some of the more important of these areas of change include those listed in box 1.1. Although these conditions describe the goals of design, they are not the "things" we design, the physical changes we impose to alter the social, ecological, functional, and spatial systems we seek to influence. What we design is different from why we design. We impose change in the composition, arrangement, and form of things to create improved relationships among them, relationships we

hope will result in benefits that do not presently exist. It is interesting that among the common purposes of design we do not typically include the need to ensure a capacity for future change. Even though we know that change is the only constant in the environment, we continue in our tendency toward the creation of fixed or static form of the landscape. To create conditions of comprehensive environmental improvement, design change needs to protect the critical characteristics of the present condition as well as to bring about improvement in as many of these categories of design intention as necessary. To do this successfully we need to institute systemic change in the environment whereby each of these aspects will be improved and also bear a beneficial influence on all the others (Mitroff and Linstone 1993). By investing environments with value and meaning on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels, designs increase their functional and perceptual significance for the people who occupy and use them. Consequently, it is in the broad range of categories in which improvement is sought that designs may be evaluated to assess their quality (Churchman 1982). Thus, designs can only bring genuine improvement when they favorably influence the entire range of conditions in which improvement is needed. If significant areas of concern are ignored, no matter how well we design those that have been addressed, the overall result will be deficient. The quality of a design, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link.

Education To prepare landscape architects for careers to address these complex issues as practitioners or disciplinary researchers, the profession requires that they receive a comprehensive education. Universities playa number of integrated roles in the process of professional prep-

20 Chapter One aration. They assume three primary responsibilities: teaching, research, and service to the community. In landscape architecture, the greatest amount of time among these is allocated to teaching, which is primarily studio based. Studio-format education is based on a process of learning by doing. As Aristotle said, "For the things we. have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them" (Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, chap. 1). The most important factor to solving design problems, and learning from the process, is critical thinking. Design is essentially a process of relating all the operational factors into a comprehensive whole (Sasaki 1950:159). The development of independent, critical thinking is the primary goal of studio education. The secondary goal is to provide experience in addressing certain types of problems. Essentially all design schools are based on this approach to design education. Students learn by trial and error how to harness their individual creative potential by working under the constant eye of the design tutor whose role is to guide the development of the individual student's skill and insight. To a large extent design education is focused not on what we design, or why, but how-on the process of examining, making, and defending sound design decisions. For instruction to remain relevant, however, it must be continuously nourished by contemporary knowledge and technology. While the creative energy is individual, it is expressed in relation to the context in which it is applied. Since the context is evolving, we must continually bring our understanding of the design context-the technology, the landscape processes, and the human processes that take place within them-up to date with current knowledge. This is achieved through ongoing research. The teaching faculty engage in research to create new knowledge and integrate it into the learning experiences of students through subject courses and studio exercises.In addition to the acquisition of knowledge, professional education is organized to provide three kinds oflearning opportunities (Steinitz 1988:136): 1. To build competence in changing or conserving the landscape 2. Tobuild experience and confidence in doing so 3. To build theory as the foundation for the first two Accredited university programs in the United States provide the content mandated by the Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB)under the auspices of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).Curriculum requirements include: • landscape planning, design, and management • design implementation • landscape architecture history • professional practice

Introduction

21

Accreditation standards also require instruction in areas related to landscape architecture. These areas of instruction are intended to supplement and enrich the educational experience and ensure wellrounded preparation for professional practitioners. They include: • history, art, and communication • natural, cultural, and social systems • landscape planning, design, and management theories and processes • plants as design materials and their applications • construction materials and techniques • professional practice methods and ethics • public and private office practice procedures and methods • computer systems and advanced technology • contact with allied disciplines such as architecture and planning The content of professional education is intended to provide students with the necessary and comprehensive background preparatory to entering the public or private practice of landscape architecture. This preparation is intended not so much to provide education as to prepare for it. Education is a lifelong process. Regarding theory, professional education does not provide a design theory for students to adopt, but rather provides individual students with the tools to create and develop their own philosophy to guide their education and organize their professional activities. Theories about what you should do and how you should practice, it is hoped, will flow from the intellectual processes of learning, experience, and reflection. These processes will be stimulated by the challenge of ideas-some familiar, some unfamiliar, and a few unwelcome. By confronting these ideas, it is believed that you will be better able to form your individual theory of the life of design and better able to enrich the meaning and purpose of your professional life. One of the most satisfying aspects of design practice, or any endeavor, is in knowing that the quality of what we have achieved is high. Education and theory provide a basis for measuring design quality. The educational content of curricula investigates some of the major factors to be considered in evaluating the quality of the design changes we impose on the landscape. In addition, it describes considerations relevant to the process of developing and examining ideas and imposing change in ways that are based on sound scientific and technological evidence; evidence to improve the likelihood that the changes we propose will yield the benefits we intend.

22

Chapter One

Professions An examination of landscape architecture theory must include a discussion of how its practitioners are organized into a professional body. A profession is an organizational entity that has as its purpose the delivery of a service to society for which its members are compensated to derive their livelihood. A profession is a social entity structured around a value system its members hold in common. As in any social organization, the behavior of its members is monitored by the group and policed to maintain consistency with their commonly held values. This means that, to its members, an important indicator of the success of design activity is judgment by the internal values and standards of the profession. The benefit of this is that the profession sets and maintains standards of performance that society may rely on. The disadvantage is that standard performance is not exceptional. Exceptional performance must come in spite of the profession's requirement for standard performance. The profession of landscape architecture, as with other professions, exhibits typical characteristics. • It possesses a knowledge base as the foundation of its commonly held values and the services it provides. • It employs established procedures and techniques to apply its knowledge base. • The knowledge and procedures (sometimes referred to as the science and art) it employs can be learned and are taught to initiates. • The knowledge and procedures it employs are rendered in the form of services to clients and users. • The services are rendered to provide a practical and useful purpose, to satisfy the needs and desires of those served. • The services are rendered to promote the general health, safety, and welfare of society. • The services rendered are typically provided for a fee as the basis of compensation. • The standards of education and performance of the members are established by consensus of the professional body. • The professional behavior of members is self-regulated by the professional body. From this it should be evident that the character of the profession has a profound influence on the nature of both theory and practice. The education the professional organization requires for applicants and the values that emanate from it provide the basic paradigm

Introduction

23

through which we view the world, and as a consequence, shape the conclusions we reach. Our commonly shared knowledge base, values, and experiences create a unique perspective for comprehending reality. Although we believe that our point of view is correct and makes valuable contributions to society, it is important to remember that this is not an objective view, nor is it a view that is widely shared. We need to be constantly vigilant if we are to maintain a sense of objectivity about what we learn and what we do as designers. The ability to limit the influence of prejudice on our perceptions is one of our most difficult tasks. The influence of prejudice on design can be highly destructive. Design may be described as a process of inventing new and more effective ways of doing things. Prejudging the outcome of actions may result in our discounting other possible courses of action before they have been openly investigated, with the result that some courses of action-perhaps the most effective ones-may not be considered at all. These other possibilities are then beyond our reach since we will never really consider them if we prejudge their suitability and focus our attention elsewhere. When we judge the success of our designs only by our preestablished (conventional) internal standards, we limit the influence of knowledge or values other than our own and thus eliminate the possibility that our designs will satisfy broadly inclusive performance criteria: criteria that are used by others (who may include clients and users) to evaluate design performance and success. Finally, it should be noted that professional practice is licensed by state registration. Licensure of landscape architects, as for practitioners in all professions, is legally mandated by state law for one purpose: to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state. Our theory must include consideration of this important social responsibility.

~~

,,(4~-r: -f'

I

2

~•

,~.11tt.,.

,.~

J'......

.,

\~''

;l

t,···,r ,~ "

•...

~ .•

~~/

Substantive Theory Theory: The body of generalizations and principles developed in association with the practice of a field of activity and forming its content as an intellectual discipline. The coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual and pragmatic principles forming a general frame of reference for a field of inquiry. -Merriam-Webster's

Third New International Dictionary

Theory of landscape architecture is based on the premise that quality of life for individuals and society benefits from the creation of harmonious and mutually supportive relationships between people and the environment. Given the speed and complexity of contemporary development, it is widely believed that such relationships may best be achieved through holistic, rather than single-purpose, intervention in the continuing process of landscape evolution. Theory of landscape architecture is becoming increasingly diversified to encompass the environment as a totality, but it is a work in progress. A half century ago Garrett Eckbo remarked: The great problem and the great opportunity of our times is to rebuild, on an infinitely higher plane, the unity and solidarity between man and nature which existed and still exists in primitive communal societies, and which was broken and shattered by the great sweep of history through slavery and feudalism to capitalism. This we can work toward every day on every job and

25

26 Chapter Two every (1950:58) project, no matter how small or inconsequential it may seem.

The significance of his comment is greater today than it was in 1950. During the last half century we have witnessed unparalleled, and mostly unanticipated, change to the landscape; much of it detri~ mental to human and environmental health. If theory is to playa useful role in our professional lives, it must influence what we do to improve the human condition and how we do it each day and with each project we undertake. To guide our work toward an increasingly valuable, and increasingly valued, contribution to the built environment, theory must enrich our understanding and use of the landscape and lead to designed places that improve the quality and character of our collective lives. To build a theory that operates on the most routine level in addressing the most ordinary of problems may well be one of our most important goals as practitioners. That we have been unable to make greater progress to address the needs revealed by the insightful minds of the past is an unfortunate but common attribute of history. In an enlightened age, the charge to each generation as the inheritors of the profession and the environment is to pass it on to the next generation in a better condition than it was received. But progress is a slow process. The visions of great minds are often motivated by insights for which no immediate verification exists. Fortunately, we now have information that did not exist a generation ago. The question now becomes one of how best to gain access to it and integrate this evolving knowledge into design decision making.

Design Philosophy Over the past thirty years two opposing philosophical positions have developed in landscape architecture, each related to the concept that quality of life is inextricably related to people's relationship with their surrounding environment. One position, expressed by Eckbo, describes landscape architecture as a design discipline (not a science) in which the appropriate role for the profession is to create new and innovative ways for people to relate to the physical environment (Gerhard 1992:8). The proponents of a concept that may be described as landscape architecture as art have been the primary adherents to this point of view. An alternative position describes landscape architecture as functioning principally as a profession of stewardship, identifying and preserving for improved human utility the intrinsic qualities found in nature through research and ecologically sound land planning and

27 design (McHarg 1969). The proponents of what might be described as landscape architecture as science have been the primary adherents to this view of the profession. Both of these positions have been instrumental in informing theory of the discipline and bringing us to the more holistic and integrated perspective now developing. To borrow a phrase from George Bernard Shaw, the scientist looks at the world and asks "Why?" The designer looks at the world and asks "Why not?" The important question is whether we must choose between them. It should be clear that an understanding of why things are the way they are will not lead automatically to a vision about how they should be in the future. Conversely, any speculation about what the future should be that ignores what we know about the present and our experience of the past places us at considerable risk of repeating past mistakes. The role of the designer, however, is to facilitate creative and innovative relationships by imposing alterations to the form of the environment. But change alone is not enough. It must be change that corrects past mistakes and takes advantage of new opportunities. The profession has now matured to the extent that both these approaches (landscape architecture as art and landscape architecture as science) are accommodated by a more holistic design theory. We now understand that both positions are equally appropriate and important to our understanding of landscape design. These positions are now understood as mutually reinforcing, complementary rather .than competitive. The theories to address these philosophical considerations fall into two broad categories. The two types of theories applicable to landscape architecture are substantive and procedural (Ndubisi 1997:37). The substantive theories promote better understanding of the landscape as the interface between human and natural process and are descriptive and predictive. Substantive theories originate from the natural and social sciences and the humanities, and are employed to inform our understanding of the environment. Procedural theories address methodological issues: ideology, process, purpose, and principles of design. These theories describe functional and procedural relationships concerning the application of knowledge to resolve human use and conflict in the landscape. They originate from design practice and the academic development and technical application of knowledge in a social setting. Substantive theory describes the knowledge used to inform decisions, procedural theory describes the methods of its application to guide the planning and design of landscape environments. Regarding land planning, Ian McHarg (1981) articulated a theory of human ecological planning that he summarized as follows: All systems aspire to survival and success. This state can be described as syntropic-fitness-health. Its antithesis is entropic-

28 Chapter Two misfitness-morbidity.Toachievethe first state requiressystems to find the fittest environment,adapt it and themselves.Fitnessof an environment for a system is definedas that requiring the minimum work of adaptation. Fitnessand fitting are indications of health and the processof fitting is health giving.The quest for fitness is entitledadaptation. Of all the instrumentalitiesavailableto man(kind)for successfuladaption, cultural adaptation in general and planning in particular appear to be the most directand efficacious for maintaining and enhancing human health and wellbeing. (1981:12) As with living systems, it is the underlying quest for survival, fitness, and health (individual, social, and ecological) that motivates reasoned planning and design activity, although it is usually expressed as a desire to meet some short-term (often economic) goal. It is for the purpose defining and satisfying these goals that the procedural theories are of formulated. Substantive theories are developed to help us understand the interrelationships that are influenced by designs to satisfy the goals we pursue when we impose change on the landscape. To a considerable extent, the substantive theories provide the basis for design goalsthat designs should be sustainable or that they should promote harmonious relationships between human activity and the environment. There are exceptions to this, such as goals related to facilitating specific activities (e.g., improving access or functional convenience) or resolving specific conflicts (e.g., reducing the risk of incompatible activities such as the intersection of pedestrian and vehicular traffic). The design goals establish what we hope to achieve by design. Procedural theories, on the other hand, address how we design; that is, the strategies we employ for achieving the design goals. This section reviews the substantive theories of landscape architecture: theories that address the understanding of landscapes and the motives underlying their modification and management to improve mutual fitness between natural and human systems.

Sustainable Development Although the idea of sustainable development first emerged in the global arena at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm, it took more than a quarter century to become firmly entrenched in our collective thinking. The concept had been around since the 1950s, but usually related to carrying capacity for wildlife or livestock (Stoddart and Smith 1955) and timber production. It was called long-term sustained yield by ecologists concerned with production from heavily managed natural systems such as grasslands and

substantive Theory

29

forests. By mid-twentieth century our ability to use technology to impose change on the ecosystem was developing much faster than our ability to understand its implications. Some visionary ecologists began to recognize a growing problem with regard to sustaining human development, but few others noticed this looming crisis before the mid-1960s (Ordway 1955; Eisely 1957; Brown, Bonner, and Weir 1957; Sears 1959). In 1959 Paul Sears wrote: What other peopleshave accomplishedwithout the benefitsof science suggestswhat we might do oncewe learn to make technology our servant rather than our master. To that end I propose a question whose answer liesbeyond the reach of science,however much sciencemay illuminate the search. If we care what the future may bring forth, what do we desireit to be?Oncewe know what kind of world we want, sciencegivesus abundant means to shape it. (p. 17) Today we are beginning to get a clearer understanding of what kind of world we want and the connection between choices in the landscape. At least there is growing consensus about what we do not want from the environment: habitat destruction, ecosystem fragmentation, soil erosion, species extinction, atmospheric and aquatic pollution, diminished quantity and quality of food and water. Sustainable development has become an internationally accepted goal. We are slowly coming to the realization that we have a responsibility to protect as well as the power to change the landscape. Sustainable development is defined broadly as the wise development and conservation of the earth's resources. The most common definition was formulated in 1987 by the UN World Committee on Environment and Development, which declared that sustainable development meets the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability "means simply that in a global context any economic or social development should improve, not harm, the environment" (Newman and Kenworthy 1999:1). Sustainability is a global concern since most problems in the environment respect no political or geographic boundaries: climate change, soil erosion, air pollution, water pollution, and chemical contamination recognize no political borders. It now seems unlikely that compounds such as DDT or PCB, or radioactive isotopes can be released anywhere on earth without their influence being felt everywhere (Newman and Kenworthy 1999:1). A key concept of sustainable development is to think globally and act locally-to consider a proposed development's global consequences as well as the local benefits on the landscape before acting to realize it. Contemporary theory in landscape architecture attempts to fuse the apparently polar positions of innovative change and stewardship,

30

Chapter Two

and focuses on the development of holistic design strategies to improve the human condition and sustain environmental health and productivity. Stewardship without innovation would not be possible in a rapidly changing world. The world currently operates under nonsustainable paradigms (Capra 1983, 1996:3; Watt 1973:142; Lyle· 1994:20; Wynberg 1993:30). There are currently 1.7 billion people, one quarter of the human population, who occupy what has been described as the "consumer class"-those who have adopted diets, transport systems, and lifestyles of excessive consumption that lead directly to a degradation of the environment (Gardner and Assadourian 2004). Amid this great abundance enjoyed by the consumer class, 3 billion people-nearly two out of every five-are barely surviving on less than two dollars per day. Sustainable development, if it is to be achieved, will radically change the way we design and build in the landscape. Innovation will be required to change profoundly what we now do if we are to become stewards of the environment. Consider, for example, that all contemporary urban transportation systems in the United States are based primarily on the privatevehicle mode, which is designed to operate on expensive fossil fuel that will be exhausted in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the most popular style of vehicle in the U.S. is one that greatly exceeds our need for power, size, and mobility in off-road conditions, and consumes more resources to build, maintain, and operate than popular models in almost every other country. The American system also requires enormous consumption of land and resources for the provision of basic freeway and street infrastructure (half of the land area in U.S. cities is dedicated not to human activity but to automobile movement and storage) because so many individual vehicles must use the system simultaneously. If fuel supplies were significantly interrupted, almost all of our cities would become immediately dysfunctional due to the extremely low density of contemporary suburban development and the consequent distances between origins and destinations that make routine transportation without private cars virtually impossible for the vast majority of people. Since most goods are transported by truck for at least part of their journey, food, fuel, and supplies would also become quickly exhausted. Another basic and even more critical component of life is food production. Like transportation, modern mechanized agriculture is only possible through the importation of nonrenewable fossil fuel into the production system to subsidize ecosystem control and increase energy extraction in the form of food or fiber. Over the past century, all societies have built behavior patterns into their relationship with the landscape that derive from what have been termed "naive attitudes" about the nature of the earth and human relationships to it. Examples include the continuing destruction of rainforests through-

Substantive Theory

31

out the tropics and reduction of biodiversity by the imposition of agricultural monocultures throughout the temperate regions of the globe. Each case reflects our failure to understand the critical role of complex ecosystems in sustaining viable agricultural production. These behavior patterns are based on concepts that are not just outmoded, but dangerous considering the systemic vulnerabilities and long-term implications of our actions. These concepts, expanded and driven by exploding population in concert with the ready (although temporary) availability of fossil fuel, have become unsustainable in the short term and potentially catastrophic in the long term (Lyle 1994:4). Sustainable development proponents maintain that "we must begin to rethink and restructure the processes and procedures of decision-making, including the underlying ideas and methods that shape our definition of problems that predetermine approaches to dealing with them" (Jacobs and Sadler 1990:3). For human environments to become sustainable will require both improved understanding of the ecosystem and radically changed patterns of consumption behavior (Papanek 1984). Contrary to widespread faith that new technology will solve our problems, there is no evidence to support the notion that there can be unlimited growth in population and economic development within a fixed-resource environment. And, unfortunately, if technology does not provide an answer, the food production and distribution systems will be unable to cope with any sudden and unexpected interruption. Sustainable. development focuses on knowledge-based decisionmaking processes whereby the interrelated structure and function of the environment are well understood and thus facilitate reasoned, systemic change. The criteria for success are the perceived advantages to be derived and retained for the benefit of present and future generations. The criteria are holistic and include ecological, economic, and community sustainability based on policy and institutional integration (Jacobs and Sadler 1990: 170). These criteria must be based on objective, quantifiable evidence (Le., science), particularly systems science that deals with integrated wholes and patterns of network interrelationships. Ecosystem management, a central concept of sustainable development, is becoming recognized as an important tool for protecting the productive capacity of the environment. Ecosystem management is based on the integration of ecological, economic, and social principles to manage biological and physical systems in ways that safeguard sustainability, biological and landscape diversity, and ecosystem productivity (Wood 1994:612). Ecosystem management is implemented to regulate internal ecosystem structure and function and, as a consequence, system inputs and outputs to achieve socially desirable conditions (Agee and Johnson 1988:237). Unlike historical landmanagement approaches, ecosystem management does not focus pri-

32

Chapter Two

marily on the delivery of necessary resource "goods" and "services" to society, but rather on sustaining the ecosystemic structures and processes necessary for the delivery of goods and services (Franklin 1993: 10). This is a radical departure from the position of most individual or collective actions, and significantly different from that of. most design professionals and their clients, who tend to be project (object) oriented rather than system (process) oriented, with the benefits of their enterprise deriving from immediate singular success of the individual venture (recreation, food production, wealth creation) rather than from bringing about collective long-term benefits to the quality of societal/environmental relationships. One of the most important aspects of sustaining a healthy environment is recognition of the interrelated systems in which life is embedded. The soils, water, and atmosphere at the surface of the earth have evolved over hundreds of millions of years to their present condition by the interrelated activities of the biosphere. It is this web of interrelationships that makes life both possible and sustainable. This complex of living organisms and their inorganic environment continues to develop. The system is not in equilibrium (Wilson 2002). It continues to evolve and respond in reaction to change. When we introduce change in a system in disequilibrium, we cannot know what the results will be. When we destroy ecosystems and drive species into extinction, we accelerate the process of change to a new but completely unpredictable future. Ultimately, degradation of theecosystem threatens our own existence. Contemporary political, economic, and industrial paradigms almost universally fail to take into account the value of the environment as a critical asset. Rather, it is thought of as a repository of useful resources. As a consequence, we fail to respond appropriately to our need to protect it for the benefit of future, as well as current, generations. The wealth of the environment is being systematically degraded through the wasteful exploitation of resources by methods that degrade the landscape through the processes of extraction. There are several areas of critical concern for future sustainability. Among these are the need to assure the diversity of biotic and cultural resources, increased reliance on renewable resources, and the management of urban/industrial/agricultural landscapes in ways that achieve more than production alone. To redress the inequities between these targets and current practice, a series of interrelated principles have been proposed as ways to increase resource productivity andThese sustain it into the future (Hawken, Lovings, and Lovings 2000). include: 1. Reestablish agriculture, industry, and urbanism on ecological models with closed loop systems and movement toward zero waste.

Substantive Theory

33

2. Shift the primary focus of agriculture and industry from the production and sale of goods (light bulbs) to the provision of services (light) for greater integration and efficiency. 3. Reinvest in the environment and its natural capital as the basis of all future prosperity. At present we utilize systems of development that do not fit into the structure and function of the landscape in ways that sustain viability. These development systems are, in effect, the antithesis of health maintenance. We have not developed ways of using the landscape without using it up. We do not understand how to use materials that can also be reused elsewhere in the system in other ways. Recycling is still a goal. Integration is not yet understood. We have not yet begun to design landscapes as regenerative systems. Our concepts of development remain as fixed as our concepts of design: we construct new landfill sites on which to dispose of urban waste rather than establish urban life support systems that eliminate waste as a byproduct to be disposed of (Lyle 1994). If we are to begin designing sustainable landscapes we must focus on optimizing functions and processes on many levels rather than maximizing for any. To maximize for some systems, such as urban systems, invariably means minimizing for others, such as natural systems, many of which (such as drainage) the urban systems rely upon. We are only beginning to recognize the advantages of designing for the benefit of both existing and introduced systems; conceiving design as the creation of a new and integrated complex of mutually supportive natural and human systems with the capacity to regenerate themselves over time. Rather than learning how to use less of our resource base with advanced technology, our tendency is to employ it to extract and use more, leaving less for the systems on which we rely to support and maintain themselves. In our quest to maximize extraction and reduce the burden of maintenance, we have introduced new "low-maintenance" materials into the ecosystem that are toxic to people and the ecosystem. We prefer to apply herbicides rather than to plow weeds or use defoliants to strip the leaves from plants prior to harvest. Unfortunately, these chemicals rarely stay where we put them, finding their way into streams and rivers and eventually into the oceans where they work their way back into our own food chain. And yet, we feel little obligation to take responsibility for these poisons in our air and water and food. We believe that maintenance is a process to be avoided, when, in reality, it is only through sustained and intimate contact that we come to know and understand these systems in the depth required to use and manage them sustainably. It is questionable whether societies, given the inherent power and privilege vested in the stability of current economic and political

34

Chapter Two

structures, are prepared to undertake a new social and economic order without compelling reason. The actual collapse of current systems might supply such a reason, but the possibility of a future collapse has not yet compelled action. Our patterns of behavior are based as much on habit as on the application of reason and knowledge to chart a sustainable future course for life. But the day may come, and perhaps soon, when the question put to designers will no longer be whether we are to change, but how. If such a time comes it will be useful if landscape architecture has considered its response.

Environment-Behavior Studies One of the most serious criticisms of contemporary design professions (architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and planning) has been their lack of a knowledge base from which to propose changes to the environment. Design professions are defined primarily as problem-solving professions. But before problems can be solved, they must be identified and understood (Zube 1987:425; Rapoport 1990:97). Although engineering has quantified the structural aspects of building, design problems are not primarily structural in nature. The purpose of design is not to employ technology, but through its application to provide shelter, sustenance, and services for human activities. For designers to understand the problems they intend to solve, they must possess not only technological competence but also knowledge of the physical, ecological, sociological, and psychological dimensions of the people they serve and the context in which they exist. Environment-behavior research has been an emerging area of intellectual focus within the design professions for the last thirty years, but only in the last fifteen or so has it begun to significantly impact design thinking and assume a prominent position in theory (Zube 1986). To some extent, contemporary design theory is more focused on how to design, with emphasis on the style of the resulting form, than on why-the proposed impact of design change on improving quality of life. Rapoport argues that contemporary design decisions are based primarily on what designers "prefer" from an aesthetic perspective, rather than on established knowledge or predictable performance outcomes. By the 1970s it was becoming apparent that under rapidly changing conditions, with designers becoming physically and socially separated from clients and especially users, they needed information to support design decisions that was unavailable. Research flourished in many disciplines (such as engineering and planning), and theory was becoming respected (and respectable) because of its power to provide insight into the future. However, the design fields were being left

Substantive Theory

35

out because they lacked a disciplinary knowledge base (Zube 1973:130; Rapoport 1977:4). At the same time, research and theory were becoming increasingly necessary due to the growing complexity of the design milieu and demands to satisfy specific performance requirements. Thus, predictive theories, concepts, and principles based on an expanding knowledge base have been unavailable at a time when they have been most needed. In a knowledge- and technologydriven society, the design disciplines are being marginalized and edged out of the dialogue about the future of the environment. Having an opinion about what the future should be is not considered as valuable as having predictable evidence about the advantages or disadvantages of a proposed course of action. Many schools of design are conducted today essentially as they were twenty-five or even fifty years ago, with many hours devoted to studio time and the students' search for their ideas. In most programs, design takes up as much as a third of course hours and the time actually spent in the studio may be much more (Bunch 1993). However, little or no time is being directed toward acquiring knowledge or research methods to determine what or how best to design, or what relationships provide the most desirable conditions in the environment (Papanek 1984). A definable body of knowledge for landscape architecture, on which there is consensus, does not yet exist. Proponents of the behavioral-science-based paradigm suggest that the built environment can be studied as a system of behavioral settings-without considering appearance or visual preference or making subjective aesthetic judgments-with social and cultural factors as the main variables influencing the character and quality of environments (Mar.cus and Sarkissian 1986:4; Rapoport 1990:91). Under this paradigm the traditional considerations of materials and technology are only secondary, modifying or constraining influences. Generalizations, it is thought, can be drawn if the topic is approached cross-culturally and comparatively. The design research that typically occursdesign guidelines, project-definition programming, and post-occupancy evaluations-is considered too specific and limited to adequately form a substantive knowledge base for the disciplines, even if these data are systematically compiled and made available to others. Since many designers are innocent of systematic research methods and statistical analysis procedures, a great deal of their project-based research and conclusions are unreliable in application to general (and even specific) situations. Because much of this information is considered proprietary, little of it is found in the literature in any case. The basis of an environment-behavior approach to design is the notion that there is a relationship between the environment and behavior and that this influence can be understood to inform design. We generally understand how the environment acts to influence

36

Chapter Two

behavior. People, for example, are more excited in a carnival atmosphere or more relaxed in a quiet park. Conversely, it is also true that our behavior has an influence on the environment. If people repeatedly follow a single path it becomes Worn to the extent that it is physically expressed in the landscape. Environment and behavior may be seen to be interactive when, as a consequence of our discovering a path worn into the landscape, it attracts us to adopt the same behavior. There are ecological relationships between environment and behavior due to their mutual influences on one another. The greater our understanding of these relationships, the greater our ability to apply that knowledge to guide design decisions and create predictable environmental settings. Environment-behavior research draws from a variety of disciplines, with the topic having more to do with geography and culture than with architecture. People, activities, schemata, and relationships are all considered more important than buildings or settings as artifacts to provide an understanding of the living environment (Rapoport 1990: 91). What is necessary, it is argued, is to be able to understand culturally different ways of comprehending the environment and that this understanding is more important than design methods or styles. Furthermore, the most important part of designsystematic problem identification-is often missing (or dismissed) from contemporary paradigms, and this condition constitutes an institutionalized constraint to effective paradigmatic change (Derrington 1981:59; Lynch 1981; Rapoport 1990:83). In the absence of systematic, comprehensive problem discovery and identification, designers often miss (or avoid) the most difficult and challengingthat is, real-problems by substituting their own self-posed problems as defined by the internal values of their profession; that is, trivial and easily solved ones. An even greater hindrance to the development of the design disciplines is the apparent disinterest among designers in finding and reducing areas of uncertainty through the development of knowledge, as other fields do constantly (Rapoport 1990:97). This may result because designers often consider the problems to be obvious, as viewed through the filter of their prevailing internal value system. When we believe that we know what the design problems are, we are unlikely to spend energy verifying that knowledge. Some design-research advocates conceive design as a process of proposing alternatives and choosing from among possible courses of action to achieve certain predicted effects based on explicit objectives, sometimes called the "choice model" of design (Rapoport 1977: 15). To achieve this, it is imperative that the design disciplines create and operate on the basis of a knowledge base-objective understanding of environmental reality-if their design services are to provide improved performance in the landscape. To determine the best among

substantive Theory

37

possible alternatives there has to be an evidentiary system for determining the most appropriate choices. Advocates of a knowledge-based approach see designs as hypotheses to be rigorously tested (Zube 1983; Rapoport 1990) to produce a cumulative body of knowledge. A strong research component is considered a minimum requirement for any discipline (and, within universities, any education program) to develop a sound knowledge base. Systematic evaluation of the mutual interaction of people and the built environment is concerned primarily with what to design and why; posing human criteria for designs based on an understanding of person-environment interactions. Rapoport suggests that this type of investigation deals with three general questions (1977:1): • How do people shape the environment? Which characteristics of people, as individuals or groups, are relevant to the shaping of different environments? • How and to what extent does the physical environment affect people? How important is the designed environment and in which contexts? • What are the mechanisms that link people and environments in a two-way interaction? Appleton (1975) theorized that people have an innate preference for certain protective or sheltering environmental settings. This is described as a prospect and refuge relationship between an observer and .the landscape. The basic premise of the prospect-refuge theory is that people evolved as an "edge" species in a savannah environment over many thousands of generations (Wilson 2002). The forest edge condition within the open grassland-woodland environment of the savannah provided a sheltered prospect from which people could view the open landscape in search of food and shelter. The edge condition also provided the benefit of a protective refuge that concealed the viewer from predators or enemies. The theory postulates that since people favored and occupied this type of landscape during a lengthy period of evolutionary development, this preference has been encoded in our subconscious as a precognitive response to an environment that provides a prospect and refuge setting. The theory suggests that to satisfy one of our most basic human needs, designed environments need to provide a recognizable and beneficial relationship (a prospect and refuge condition) if they are to be preferred on a fundamental subconscious level. An interesting aspect of the prospect-refuge theory is that the image presented by many landscape paintings seems to provide a broad panoramic, or prospect, view of the landscape from an obvious or implied refuge position. The prospect-refuge theory can be easily tested in the environment to demonstrate its apparent influence on behavioral choices. People,

38

Chapter Two

for example, are more often observed choosing to sit on benches under the shelter of trees at the edge of a space than on benches out in the open at the middle of a space, conspicuously located in the full view of others. People tend to want to view others more than they want to be viewed in this kind of setting, although there are, of course, excep"": tions. Theory provides useful guidance to designers in considering the use of public space, but the design decisions must still be made on the basis of value judgments. When designers evaluate available choices to address a wide range of problems and opportunities, the theory may explain, but it does not determine design choices. Design choices are always made to reach the most equitable and harmonious balance among a range of competing interests.

Systems Theory One of the greatest challenges of contemporary life is to understand and manage the interface between complex cultural and environmental systems (Senge 1990:14). Systems theory provides a means of comprehending reality on a holistic basis and has become our most important means of understanding complex conditions. Systems thinking provides a structure for unifying the broad theoretical positions that have been brought together to form the profession of landscape architecture as we now know it. Systems are defined as "wholes" consisting of entities and relationships that function through the interrelatedness of their parts. Systems exhibit existential properties independent of these parts (Motloch 2001: 1). Systems relationships are characterized as follows: • The behavior of each element of the system has an effect on the behavior of the whole. • The behavior of the system elements and their effect on the whole are interdependent. • The elements of the system are so interconnected that independent subgroups of them cannot be formed (Ackoff 1981). Insights from all branches of science during the last half of the twentieth century have precipitated a shift in worldview from the mechanistic view of Descartes and Newton to the holistic view of Smuts and Bertalanffy (Capra 1996:43). Newton used the metaphor of a clock to describe the intricate interrelationships among the different parts of nature. While it is true that the parts of a clock are activated by one another, they do not have the capacity to change one another and evolve together over time, and the action is directed in only one wayfrom spring to wheel to hands, not the reverse. Also, the individual parts of the clock do not exist for their own purposes, but only for their

Substantive Theory

39

collective purpose to measure time. The parts of a natural system are much more complex since each part contributes to its individual wellbeing as well as to function in concert with all others to influence the overall well-being of the system as a whole. Thus, the mechanical view of nature had a grossly simplistic and misleading influence on our understanding of nature. In particular, it suggested that by understanding the parts we could come to understand the whole. Systems thinking has developed in response to this deficiency. The systems approach affects all aspects of landscape architecture, including learning. An important characteristic of natural systems is their ability to learn, to acquire "information" that informs their development and evolution over time. DNA, for example, may be described as the information an organism uses to build itself. DNA is often referred to as the blueprint of an organism, telling each cell how to become a particular part of the system, such as bone or muscle in animals, or leaf or stem in plants. It might also be useful to think of DNA as compared to the policy and procedures manual of a complex organization. It not only tells the organization how to form itself but also how to act, or more correctly to interact, with other elements of the system. In either case the DNA is the repository of vital information. As organisms evolve and become more complex they acquire increasing amounts of information, stored in the DNA, to guide the creation of each subsequent generation in a predictable way. The same is true for the organism and its social group. As human society became more advanced and complex, people had to have increasing amounts of information to manage their survival. Continual learning is required for survival in a changing world. Hutchins (1996) describes learning as the process by which a system alters its structure to adapt to its environment and increase its capacity to survive. This is what happens to us as we learn. The more we learn, the more fit we become to survive in our environment. We also increase our capacity to become what we are capable of becoming as an individual. One of the reasons we are not the same person today that we were at age ten is that we have learned a lot since then and changed because of it. Learning is a creative process. There are seven principles of systemic learning (Hutchins 1996:137): 1. Learning is driven by a search to explain the discrepancy between past knowledge and present or anticipated experience. This is done to better predict the future and improve the probability of survival. 2. Learning is the active reconstruction of past knowledge and skills to integrate new information or behavior at a higher level of complexity. Memory occurs at an objective physiological level in the nervous system; thus, learners actively construct meaning.

40

Chapter Two 3. Learning is socially mediated and contextual. Learning has an "ecological context." When what is learned is influenced by the knowledge accepted by others, their beliefs, and their effect on the learning processes, it is socially contextual. 4. Learning requires feedback and comparison against an ' internalized standard or an accepted external standard. Learning does not occur without feedback to measure understanding or performance in relation to the standard. Delayed feedback or feedback unaccepted as a legitimate standard of evaluation does not serve to advance learning. 5. Learning requires integration and automaticity, which are dependent on motivation and persistence. Significant repetition is necessary to integrate new information or skills to the extent that their application becomes an automatic response. Unless new learning is fully integrated, old learned forms reconstruct themselves when the process is destabilized by stress or new information.

6. Learning is both a single-looped and double-looped process (cognitive and metacognitive). It is thinking directed toward learning new things as well as thinking directed at the process of learning-thinking, and thinking about thinking. 7. Learning is both product and process. Product and process are the same thing, only seen from different vantage points. Learners cannot achieve the product (knowledge) without the process (learning) taking place. They cannot meaningfully engage the process without a product resulting. These principles resonate strongly with the process of design. A useful way to understand design is to conceive it as an applicationoriented learning process. If we begin with the concept that we must know what is desired in the future and what conditions exist that require design change, it should be apparent that we need to learn these things in order to be able to design effectively. From a systems approach, design problems are best understood as a set of interdependent problems that are definable only by their specific interactions (Ackoff 1981). Learning is necessary in our search for what is, as well as for what should be. Based on the proposition that design requires learning, there are three principles of design process when approached from a systems learning perspective: 1. Design is a learning process: change must be informed by reliable knowledge if it is to bring about predictable improvement within a complex system. 2. Learning is a design process: it structures purposeful change in what we know and how we understand and relate to the world.

Substantive Theory

41

3. What must be known to design well must be learned: because the world is changing rapidly, we must learn continuously to be able to inform change in ways that result in the improvement required for design success. The principle of holism contends that as a result of synergistic interactions, the whole of a system is greater than and different from the sum of its parts (Smuts 1926). Holistic thinking emphasizes the organic and functional relationships between the parts and the whole, an integrated system of mutually interdependent relationships that facilitates the emergence of new (systemic) properties. Contemporary ideas about systems discount the notion that we can understand the whole by examining the individual parts: by examining the parts individually we fail to comprehend the essential relationships between them (Wheatley 1992). In design it is always the relationships rather than the parts that are most important. The world is filled with examples of landscapes, tools, machines, buildings, and towns that are well designed, in comparison to others that are not. The examples in both categories may contain precisely the same type and number of parts. Having all the right parts does not equate to having a good design. They must be placed in harmonious relationships with one another. An understanding of systems relationships is integral to design, as expressed in John Motloch's view: For landscape management, planning, and design to effectively integrate diverse systems, landscape designers must be systems thinkers (thinking integratively and with cognizance of systems dynamics). They must be committed to landscape management, planning, and design that optimize the health and productivity of diyerse physical, ecological, and human systems. Landscape designers must aspire to manage, plan, and design people-environment relationships and human interventions that promote landscapes of high relevance and deep meaning that are sustainable (address today's needs while sustaining the ability to address the needs of the future) and regenerative (function to regenerate system capacity). (2001 :1)

In many ways, designers have always been systemic thinkers, organizing a broad array of interrelated parts to produce a unified design whole. The primary difference between Motloch's description and the way designers have always worked is mainly a matter of what is to be included, the extent to which systems thinking has been expanded to apply to an increased range of considerations. In the past, designers tended to focus their attention on the specific place or object being designed. We now realize that in designing the landscape, this objective view is inadequate for understanding the relationships we influence. The systems being influenced far exceed the limits of the property being designed or developed.

42 Chapter Two For designs to holistically address the total complex of interactive relationships in the landscape requires a systems approach. Open systems, such as the landscape, which are subject to influences from outside the system (and in turn, exert influences beyond the system), exhibit a number of common characteristics. These include (1) interdependence in the relationships among subsystems and the ovenill system, or suprasystems; (2) hierarchy among subsystems and the suprasystem which have specific patterns of influence within and between system levels; and (3) tradition, in that systems are subject to the irreversibility of time and the increasing entrenchment and reinforcement of complex interrelationships. Any system has its own hierarchy of subsystems and at the same time exists as a subsystem in the hierarchy of a greater or suprasystern. Each level of complexity has the explanation for its mechanisms in the levels below, and its significance in the levels above. In an African savannah ecosystem, for example, the lions exist as a predatory subsystem because of the available energy organized by the subsystem of grazing animals who convert the energy captured by photosynthesis in the subsystem of the grassland. Each level in the food chain exists because of the one below. Antelope colonize the region after the grassland becomes well enough established to provide a predictable food source. Lions assume a predatory role in the food chain after the antelope become well enough established to provide their food source. Once established as a subsystem in the ecosystem, the lions serve to keep the numbers of antelope in check and prevent weak individuals from transmitting their characteristics into the gene pool. Each level, or subsystem, in the food chain is interdependent with the others. The history of the ecosystem describes system change over time that enables the hierarchical subsystems to become established and their interrelationships entrenched. Reduction of the grassland through the introduction of farming, for example, would bring about a reduction in the antelope population that, in turn, would cause a reduction in the number of lions due to the loss of available food source for each level. Alternatively, if the number of lions was reduced through hunting, the antelope population could expand, increasing pressure on the grassland that would bring about its reduction through overgrazing. The essential properties of a system derive from the interactions among its hierarchically interrelated subsystems, the interaction of the parts acting as a whole, not the parts acting or existing separately. When the elements are taken apart the system loses its essential properties and ceases to exist. Systems theory has become our most important means of comprehending reality on a holistic basis. It provides structure for unifying the broad theoretical positions held by the many disciplines dedicated to understanding natural and built environments in ways

Substantive Theory

43

that integrate knowledge of the processes by which nature and society organize themselves. It also provides insight into the processes of learning and decision making that lead to design results. There are two primary reasons why systems theory is important to landscape architecture. One is that the environment is highly complex and complex conditions require a systems approach to understand them. The other reason is that the environment is dynamic. This leads to continual change and, as a consequence, makes continual learning a central feature of successful design process. The advantage of a systems approach becomes obvious when we understand that, like the landscape, design problem solving is an unending process. Because problems and solutions are in constant flux, they do not stay solved. And, even when problems remain relatively stable, their solutions become obsolete, sometimes before construction is complete (Ackoff 1981). Landscape improvement is an ongoing process of complex systems management. Landscape design is a specific step in the process. An important result of systems thinking has been the shift from a purely quantitative view of the individual parts of nature to a more qualitative understanding of nature as a whole: a shift from the singular focus on substance to a more balanced assessment of both the form and the substance of interrelated phenomena. We are still in the process of shifting our view from the concept of the machine to ecosystems, and unfortunately this view is not yet fully understood in the corporate, political, or academic communities (Leopold 1949:243; Capra 1996:4). The decision-making world seems to be trapped in a crisis of perception. If we perceive things as being separate and unrelated, we will continue to address them as such. This is what we observe when we see that streets,are designed as one system, utilities as another, and buildings as another in the formation of cities. None of these closely related urban features are designed to perform as a single system, the city. The result is dysfunctional or poorly functioning urban environments. One of the most important aspects of a systems view is its repositioning of attention from objects to relationships-a shift from objective to contextual thinking. Unfortunately, the world is slow to change its fundamental intellectual framework. Perhaps too many people have too much at stake in the old paradigm for it to be changed quickly. There is compelling reason to believe that the looming crisis of the environment calls for change that is both profound and immediate. But, unless our perceptual abilities allow it, we are unable to comprehend reality in a new and more integrated way. One of the clearest examples of the view that nature can be comprehended by investigating individual parts is the university, whose institutional structure is based on different disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, economics) existing in relative isolation from one another. The parts work well to focus on research into different areas of knowledge but

44 Chapter Two there are no clear systems for integrating the knowledge each of them creates into a comprehensive, or comprehensible, whole. Quantum physics revealed that, at the subatomic level, objective reality does not exist, only the probability of reality as expressed through the presumed interrelationships among particles. This shift in attention from objects to relationships, from a focus on the discrete components of nature to the contextual structure in which they exist and the forces that motivate them, enabled the science of ecology to develop. Attention to the structure and function of environments as complementary realities, rather than the mere quantification of individual objects within them, is providing the design disciplines with an . opportunity to better understand the environments we act to influence. This improved understanding enables us to view environments as settings of dynamic and meaningful relationships rather than static voids awaiting improvement from the hand of the gifted and creative designer. To design in a way that takes all the subsystems (biological, geological, social, political, etc.) into account requires that we learn a great deal about the system and its subsystems. Systems theory holds the promise of providing the unifying theoretical field to integrate knowledge of the way nature, and society as a part of it, organizes itself. Systems thinking is particularly important to design because it is largely based on pattern recognition and organization, a fundamental principle of design thinking. "The idea of a pattern of organization-a configuration of relationships characteristic of a particular system-became the explicit focus of systems thinking in cybernetics and has been the crucial concept ever since" (Capra 1996:80). The evolving nature of pattern organization is becoming increasingly important to landscape planning and design. In changing the landscape it is not only important to organize different elements in an appropriate pattern of relationships, but also to integrate that pattern into the larger patterns of the landscape in ways that are harmonious and mutually supporting. Systems, whose essential properties exist and function through the interrelatedness of their parts, may be described according to their relative stability (Motloch 2001:2; Capra 1996:27). Equilibrium structures are highly integrated, interactive, self-perpetuating, and stable. Dissipative structures are highly spontaneous, dynamic, and inherently unstable. Stable systems exhibit structures that have evolved slowly over time to increase the interrelatedness of their parts and have few internal or external conflicts. Unstable systems, undergoing transformation, promote the spontaneous generation of new structures and maximize the rate and extent of change within them. Fundamental change in equilibrium systems is extremely difficult because of their internal stability and resistance to outside influences.

45 Equilibrium structures are usually fine-tuned for change in the ,hort term and tend to be homeostatic: functioning to sustain themselves over time. Dissipative structures operate in a condition of dis~uilibrium and are characterized by high internal and external conflict and intense stress over short time periods. Dissipative structures func,.Don to create new and more relevant interrelationships, and evolve fnew and more appropriate equilibrium structures-in the long term. Their instability makes them somewhat unpredictable in the short term. But conditions of great turmoil and instability, while stressful, afford great opportunities for fundamental design change due to the rapidly changing nature of the current situation. An example of these opposing structures may been seen in the apparently stable paradigm within the design education system (with its continuing value on the art rather than the science of design) existing in parallel with the rapidly changing design practice environment. The latter must respond to unstable and rapidly deteriorating built environments and to clients' changing value systems. And there is another consideration. In spite of continuing technological advances and the abundance of resources available to them, American architects, engineers, planners, and landscape architects have been unable to create reliably safe, healthy, enjoyable, and beautiful urban environments. This results, in part, because designers in each discipline take responsibility for their own area of expertise-and that area alone. They do so with apparent faith that by designing the parts, the whole will also be designed. In reality, this is true. Because the subsystems are interdependent, the whole system is being designed. Unfortunately, it is being designed inadvertently or by default. The values that guide the design decisions about the parts do not relate to the outcomes of the whole. As a consequence we are, by neglect, designing the whole system badly. The same design thinking being applied to the parts needs also to be applied to the whole, and in a holistic or systemic way. To meet rapidly evolving performance standards, the contemporary development environment (requiring science-based prediction of design outcomes) is being required to move beyond the traditional design approaches and adopt new ways of interpreting the process of landscape reformation. Land planners and designers of the future will have to find ways of reconciling and creatively integrating these diverse value systems if the profession is to remain relevant and viable. As we hold to our values of the past, other disciplines, such as civil engineering and planning, are stepping up to the opportunity by offering new services to meet the changing requirements of contemporary land design and development. They bring to this challenge their own technology, but often without the values of the whole; that is, without the integrated and collaborative synergy of multiple knowledge bases, technologies, and values.

46 Chapter Two Over the last quarter century there has been steady progress toward organizing landscape architecture in conformance with a systems approach to the process of learning. Professional design performance and the related process of educational preparation are based on three interrelated suppositions regarding the relationships betwfen education and practice: 1. The behavior of each element of the system (either design practice or its educational preparation) has an effect on the behavior of the whole (the profession). 2. The behavior of the system elements and their effect on the whole are interdependent (in other words, education is depen- . dent on the design profession and the design profession is dependent on its educational preparation). 3. The elements of the practice/education system are so interconnected that they cannot be formed into independent subgroups (Ackoff 1981); that is, they exist as integrated components architecture (the discipline and the profession) asofa landscape whole. An underlying presumption of these suppositions is that the student is a member of the profession with the status of landscape architect-in-training. There is no distinction between student and practitioner; that is, there is no physical or intellectual distinction between the person a student is now and the person she or he will be upon becoming a practitioner at some future date. The student is an integral part of the system of landscape architecture, currently operating in the educational subsystem. The future of landscape architecture is reliant on the quality of education students now receive to prepare them as both trained entry-level practitioners and as life-long learners who will very shortly assume leadership of the profession. As stated earlier, the essential properties of a system derive from the interaction of its parts acting as a whole, not the parts acting separately (Capra 1996:29). The requirements of professional practice influence education as much as the characteristics of education influence the nature of practice. If a system is taken apart it loses its essential properties. When you disassemble a car and lay the parts out on the shop floor you no longer have a "car" (as a whole system). You only have the parts. When the parts are integrated and interactive, a system results: a condition exists in which the whole is capable of actions its parts.that are greater than is possible from the sum of the actions of For the parts of a system to be fully understood, they must be comprehended in their systemic or holistic context. You cannot, for example, understand the feeling of power from speed of movement or the sense of freedom you experience from owning or driving a car by

stantive Theo_ry

47 _

. . g the parts on a shop floor. Similarly, to fully understand the ucation process it needs to be comprehended in the context of the ,sociopolitical and biophysical processes in which it takes place, and With regard to the requirements of contemporary professional practice. ~( A systems approach to design intervention in the continuing evelopment of the landscape includes understanding, arranging, and !.rnanaging the integrated features, processes, and spatial patterns of !'lhecommunity and its host environment (the urban landscape and its .regional hinterland) to improve the quality of their interdependent relationships. The quality of design ideas, and in particular the environments that issue from them, must be measured by the extent to which the whole system integrates with and responds to the demands being placed on it. These demands include our immediate needs, the biophysical requirements of the environment, and our continuing requirement to effect useful change in the landscape in the future. The importance of design ideas cannot be overstated. An idea is to design what light is to vision. Ideas are the enabling vehicle that conveys and makes tangible the meaning of design change. For design ideas to keep pace with rapidly developing knowledge and events, the discipline has acquired new knowledge, and professional practice has incorporated new technologies, methods, and services. An important role for current practitioners and academicians will be to guide the future development of the profession in ways that will preserve the best of the discipline's traditional values while simultaneously shaping new holistic ones that encompass our evolving social and environmental concerns. To meet needs on a systemic basis requires that we consider the interrelated concerns for quality of life and quality of the environment from an evidence-based perspective. These interrelated aspects, for which design consideration must be made, include: • cultural and social considerations • economics and production • environmental processes • physical and functional relationships • sensory and perceptual considerations The systems criteria for achieving holistic integration of these considerations through design are characterized by: • the multidimensionality of relevant knowledge areas and performance criteria • the interdependence between criteria originating from different sources • the dialectic between problems and their proposed solutions

48

Chapter Two

Sophisticated design methods are needed to effectively integrate design thinking into the decision-making processes for land development. Of perhaps equal concern is the question of whether our contributions are being made in the most effective decision-making arenas. Do designers, for example, interface at the most appropriate levels of political and economic decision making to exert the influence we wish to achieve? This question, while important, is not discussed here. The considerations to be reviewed here address what is known about the process of delivering design services as it is now employed and how this process may be managed to improve the quality of design results. Design process, or design technology as it is also called, is one of the primary indicators of successful design practice (Coxe et al. 1987: 8). The procedural theories of design that address methodology, ideology, purpose, and the principles of knowledge application are outlined in the following chapter.

3 Procedural Theory Some people consider it noble to have some method, others consider it equally noble to have no method. To have no method is bad. To adhere strictly to method is worse still. It is necessary at first to observe a strict rule, then to penetrate intelligently into all the transformations. The possession of method liberates us from the necessity of possessing method. -Lao Tzu

The procedure of design decision making, design process, is an area of theory encompassing a number of broad considerations. This area of theory is based on the notion that how we apply knowledge is as important to successful landscape change as the knowledge we apply to inform design thinking. An evidence-based design process is intended to connect knowledge to design action. By this approach the problem is framed in relation to design intentions and context, and decisions are based on an understanding of the critical issues. Because decisions are directly related to knowledge, this approach is seen as an effective means of integrating and resolving all the relevant concerns (Archer 1965). In very broad terms, there are three basic questions to be addressed through design: 1. What do we have? What conditions now exist that are insufficient to meet our needs or satisfy our goals and aspirations?

49

50

Chapter Three 2. What do we need? What conditions or relationships must exist for us to meet those needs or achieve our goals and aspirations? 3. How do we get it? What physical arrangement will provide the conditions and relationships we desire and how might th9t be achieved?

Procedural theory is intended to address these questions in an integrated way. Design process is defined as the sequence of events that extends from the time when a condition requiring design intervention is detected, through the deliberation of factors influencing the decision, to the final determination of a course of action to change the environment (Broadbent 1973:10). Early work by Hideo Sasaki to outline the design process suggested that three types of thinking were involved (1950:159): 1. Research: investigation to understand the context and factors to be considered 2. Analysis: determining the ideal relationships among the factors and context 3. Synthesis: integrating the complex of relationships into a spatial organization Christopher Jones modified and elaborated the three stages of what he described as a systematic design method (Jones and Thornley 1963). It was intended to have two benefits: reduce the likelihood of design error, redesign, and delay, while at the same time make possible more imaginative and advanced designs. The three stages include: 1. Analysis: listing the design requirements as a set of logically related performance specifications 2. Synthesis: finding possible solutions to each performance requirement and developing complete designs from these with the least amount of compromise 3. Evaluation: evaluating how well alternative designs meet the performance requirements prior to final design selection (Jones 1984:10). The typical phases of design process are traditionally described as inception, immersion, inspiration, and implementation (Jones 1992), suggesting that design ideas come from a deep understanding of context and desires. Design requires knowledge to guide future change, but creativity, particularly in analysis to determine meaningful relationships and synthesis to create forms that facilitate them, remains critical to design success. Even when design was thought to be based primarily on creative inspiration, rather than evidence-based predictability, deep immersion in the problem was considered necessary to enable designers to "create" effective ideas. In contemporary lan-

Procedural Theory

51

guage, it also means that our thinking is informed by relevant knowledge about the conditions we seek to influence. When broken into definitive actions, the design process may be described as four stages (Broadbent 1973): 1. Recognize and describe the problem 2. Describe the conditions to be met in resolving the problem 3. Formulate a solution that satisfies these conditions 4. Implement the solution Design thinking and design training come to us through a long tradition originating in the fine and applied arts. Each design discipline has its own definition of purpose and function. Architecture, for example, is oriented toward the provision of shelter, landscape architecture toward the provision of place, and engineering toward the application of technology to solve human problems. The mainstream approach to architecture, and by extension to landscape architecture, has been described as the "grand tradition" of design, in contrast to "vernacular" design that is not produced by professional designers (Rapoport 1977:5). The results of grand-tradition design are often self-consciously formed landscape or urban elements, including built monuments and landscape features that tend to be overt, often selfreferential, and communicate "... the uniqueness of man. They represent the 'high art' that is generally taught in schools of design. It is based upon an anthropocentric (human as center) and anthropomorphic (human as form-giver) mindset" (Motloch 2001:293). Grand-tradition design is focused on expressing the idiosyncratic concepts of the individual designer in an elitist manner, with form originating primarily from the designer's attitudes about aesthetics rather than from an understanding of ecosystems, culture, or place. These "professional" forms typically offer little opportunity for self-expression or influence from users of the built environment, nor do they tend to express the uniqueness of the biophysical environments in which they occur. The recent history of design methods has evolved from this traditional approach to design as a highly individualized, intuitive process where designers are primarily concerned with self-expression, toward methods that apply rational goals and objective knowledge as a basis for decision making. In the mid-twentieth century thoughtful designers began to develop a rationale for design that went beyond individual preference or intuition. Four generations of design process have been identified (Cross 1984:2; Strauss 1990:19). First-generation methods (dating from the 1960s) developed in reaction to preconceived, intuitive designs formulated to express the designer's ideas-such as a building form based on the shape of a crab shell, for example. These early design processes, oriented toward the identification and resolution of functional (and sometimes environ-

52

Chapter Three

mental) problems were linear, systematic, and "expert-driven" problem-solving approaches. These methods were based primarily on quantification and design programs generated by the designer (Motloch 1991:257). Second-generation processes (dating from the 1970s) based decisions on an expanded range of expertise, as represented by participants in the design process. These processes assumed that dialogue between designers and users would promote greater understanding of needs and conflicts (Caudill 1971; Zube 1974; Alexander et al. 1977), The process included participation by clients and users and was based on the perceived importance of common perceptions and values as a means of providing coherent application of knowledge (Broadbent and Ward 1969:41; Cross 1984:305). Reiteration of the design search began to deviate from a linear pattern of thinking. Third-generation processes (dating from the 1980s) regarded professional designers as experts in decision making but not in determining how people should live-that is, designers were thought to be knowledgeable about how to design but not what to design. Form proposals came from the design expert, but they were based on the knowledge and values of others. Users or clients determined whether to accept or reject the proposals (Marshall 1981:77). Decisions rested with clients, not designers. The process became cyclically reiterative as a means of incorporating feedback through multiple cycles. Under this paradigm the designer was seen as a facilitator of form decisions (Gilbert 1987:221). Fourth-generation design methods now emerging are sometimes referred to as innovation-intervention processes (Van Gigch 1984). These processes seek to network people, manage dialogue, identify and resolve conflicts in value systems, integrate expertise, and remove roadblocks that inhibit change (Strauss 1990:31; Motloch 1991:257). They serve to create sociopolitical environments within which healthy and responsive design decisions can emerge. Motloch contends that these processes can facilitate the concentration of common, culturally instituted meanings to the environment and promote social evolution and emancipation from institutionalized constraints. Fourth-generation methods (based on decision-making systems that are open and cyclical) often employ decision frameworks and design goals and objectives to pursue and document progress toward their satisfaction. Design guidelines and performance criteria are operationalized to implement the objectives through planning and design decisions. Fourth-generation methods are knowledge based and often integrate the expertise of a wide range of participants and technical consultants to assure the comprehensive resolution of complex problems. The rapid pace of contemporary change and our growing awareness of the complexity of the environmental conditions to be

53

Procedural Theory

addressed create a condition of urgency for responsible, knowledgebased planning and decision making. However, this is not as easy to accomplish as to recommend. The successful application of knowledge has many problems associated with it (Capra 1983). Having knowledge about the environment or critical design issues is not enough. More importantly, we must know how to effectively apply knowledge in a design situation. Among the most significant of the difficulties in applying knowledge include: • The great diversity of knowledge areas to be integrated through design • The absence of an institutionalized framework for information • The lack of understanding about what is known and what is unknown • The inability to predict what knowledge is most urgently required • Profoundly different approaches to the creation of knowledge • A lack of understanding about the values encoded in the information produced • A lack of understanding about how to apply knowledge through physical planning and design The first two stages of design process-to recognize and describe design problems and to describe the conditions to be met in resolving them-are the stages dedicated to learning about the design context and the problems to be resolved. We must first learn what is required before we can be reasonably certain that our design proposals will satisfy clients' or users' requirements, or integrate harmoniously into the environment. There are two conventional processes for building the knowledge required for effective decision making. One of these, decision modeling, is for application to general landscape-planning situations. The other, design programming, is for application to specific landscape or site design projects.

Design Programming American philosopher John Dewey said that "a problem well stated is half solved." If design problems are well defined, the likelihood of their satisfactory resolution is greatly enhanced. Alternatively, if the problem is unclear, or if the client and designer hold differing views of the critical issues, the likelihood of satisfactory resolution is quite low. For a design to predictably meet an elevated standard of performance requires that the project intentions and design criteria describing that standard are clearly and mutually understood.

54

Chapter Three

For example, if we intend for designs to integrate well with the existing ecological setting, we must identify the conditions of that setting and determine how design changes relate to them. Design programming is the process of learning to support a definitive statement of the problem to be solved by design. It is based on'the notion that defining project parameters and design performance requirements is an activity distinct from solving them. In reality, while the products of programming and design-design problems and design solutions-are distinctive, the process for achieving them need not segregate these two interrelated considerations. Programming was developed to provide the information required to facilitate effective design decisions. In response to the growing complexity of design practice and the perceived deficiencies in design information, the architectural profession instituted this "operating procedure for systematizing the design process" (Sanoff 1977). The proponents of programming recognized that an important aspect of any design is the effective definition of the problem; that is, establishing the critical issues to be resolved. The purpose of the design program is to objectively determine and categorically state the design problem (Alexander 1984; Lawson 1994:135). Design programming provides critical information needed to resolve problems of an unfamiliar nature, projects of great complexity, or work being performed on behalf of large client bodies (Pena, Caudill, and Focke 1977:82). It offers a way to translate information from one form (verbal and quantitative) into another (physical and spatial) to bring the client's goals closer to reality (Palmer 1981:16). Over the last thirty years there has been a growing body of literature in the United States on the topic of architectural programming as a method for controlling the quality of design products and assessing the success of design solutions. Early work by Alexander (1964) focused on the identification and analysis of environments that people found successful. The identification of successful design relationships provided information that could be integrated into the formation of new environments. Under a later approach (Alexander et al. 1977) he attacked the design problem by breaking it down into manageable categories or subproblems. Different design collaborators (representing different areas of knowledge) established a number of requirements for successful design resolution. These requirements could be synthesized into the formulation of design elements. The correct solution to a subproblem yielded a design element. These elements could then be combined into patterns, and the patterns combined and recombined into a pattern language to define "goodness of fit" for the design of a complex system-a building or landscape. The obvious purpose of programming is to provide an overview of design requirements that integrate human, physical, and external elements relevant to the feature or facility being designed (Palmer 1981).

Procedural Theory

55

The program is intended to insure that adequate, reliable, accurate, and relevant information is available to support design decisions (Douglas 1995:26). William Pena, one of the pioneers of the procedure, describes programming as a pre-design activity distinct from design. He delineates programming as problem seeking, and design as problem solving (Pena and Focke 1969). Another less obvious but equally important purpose of programming is to provide clients with an adequate understanding of the issues to be addressed by design. This enables them to make informed decisions about whether to accept or reject the design advice being offered. The key to improving design quality through research is to make specific connections between knowledge and form. Only when we (both designer and client) are able to relate what we know about the problem to form and process decisions are we able to improve the quality of design results. The third critical purpose of programming is to establish systematic communication between designers and clients that focuses on an objective assessment of design purpose and context before discussions of design results are considered. It is necessary to clarify basic design intentions prior to the discussion of design proposals. Unless the client and designer are in agreement on the intentions and requirements of a design project, it is unlikely that they will be able to work well together to develop and agree on a proposed solution. It is imperative that the knowledge-building aspect of design process is employed to clarify complex issues and reduce conflict among the parties. If the parties fail to reach a mutual understanding prior to the development and discussion of design proposals, it may be impossible to reconcile differences after opposing positions have been taken in defense of them. Programming as a process includes information collection, analysis, organization, communication, and evaluation (Palmer 1981) and results in the final comprehensive statement of the design problem to be solved. Pena (1987) describes problem seeking as a five-step procedure that includes: 1. Establishing the design goals 2. Gathering the relevant facts 3. Developing concepts to address the design issues 4. Determining the design needs 5. Stating the problem in a comprehensive way Each of these steps provides a specific type of information or element of the program. Under Pena's approach, the elements of programming are evaluated relative to their influence on design considerations. Pena described the program elements as being responsive to a set of universal design considerations or factors to be evalu-

56

edural Theory

Chapter Three

ated. The four fundamental design considerations are form, function, economy, and time (see box 3.1). These four design considerations provide the basis for information analysis. Analysis is the key to making knowledge an effective force in design. Only when we understand the design implications of the knowledge gained will we able to use that knowledge to improve design results.

The physical spatial form and pattern arrangement created

to be

ere has been acceptance, but not enthusiastic support among ,6igners for the programming paradigm. The procedure, while gen'ally accepted, is not rigorously applied in the United States (Derington 1981:59) nor effectively taught in the United Kingdom Symes, Eley, and Seidel 1997). Routine, systematic application of an 'dence-based design approach is still a thing of the future. Design programming represents a systematic departure from the 'aditional design approach (i.e., intuitive and personalized decision aking within the framework of prevailing values, past experience, d contemporary style) that is unwelcome among some practitioner d academic adherents to the view that "good" design springs from e creative genius of the gifted mind. Because of the enduring appeal grand-tradition design as an operative paradigm, it is not surprisg that some design schools devote little time to the systematic appli.ation of programming principles in either design practice or ~ducation. It is not uncommon to hear design instructors comment on design proposals they "like" or "dislike" in design reviews. And although design research constitutes an important component of most design education, rigorous methods of data acquisition, analysis, and application are often absent. More importantly, the analysis and translation of research conclusions into comprehensible and defensible design performance criteria do not receive attention commensurate with either their importance or their potential to advance design form exploration. Proponents of rigorous programming procedure are primarily those who hold that design is neither art nor science, but a decisionmaking process. In this view, design is conceived as a systematic process through which both science and art are embraced to bring about creative change to the environment. Acceptance of design as a systematic, knowledge-based decision-making process remains relatively uncommon (with the exception of technical knowledge) as an educational paradigm in many baccalaureate and masters degree programs in the United States. A review of the curricula of twenty-four accredited undergraduate landscape architecture programs revealed only four with specific courses in design research and of those, only two identified the subject matter as programming (Murphy 1998:71). Programming, when undertaken as a central aspect of design process, includes a number of relatively discrete research, analysis, and synthesis activities. The integrated tasks of a holistic programming and design process are outlined in box 3.2 on p. 58. The purpose of these integrated tasks is to organize design inquiry in a way that leads directly to usable information; that is, information that has a direct effect on design decisions. One of the first requirements in programming is to formulate a comprehensive definition of the critical design issues. This serves to organize and direct project of

Function Economy

Time

The functional relationships to be facilitated by design form Taking the greatest advantage of the resources available The temporal influence of decision making, implementation, and future use

Preiser (1978) considers that the overarching purpose of programming is to facilitate social change by promoting effective communication between the users, owners, and managers of designed places. To achieve this he suggests that programming must incorporate humanistic information. Among the types of information he recommends are person/person and person/environment relationships, psychological needs, spatial behavior, and aesthetic considerations. His procedure employs seven steps: • Document the client's organizational goals and objectives and the impinging codes and regulations. • 1ranslate the goals and objectives into functions that the organization must carry out. • Break down the functions dated spatially.

into activities to be accommo-

• Formulate performance requirements criteria for each activity setting. • Devise adjacency requirements trade-offs.

and environmental

and establish priorities and

• Designate appropriate spatial requirements with their estimated areas to provide an assessment of overall facility size. • Develop options or different types of solutions to the program. In spite of an extensive body of literature by both practitioners (Pella and Palmer) and academicians (Alexander, Preiser, and Sanoff),

57

58

59

Chapter Three

• State the general design problem to be resolved • Define the specific project issues and requirements

to be met

• Conduct project research of the issues and analyze critical relationships • Document the research conclusions as design performance requirements • Propose alternative design concepts to address the issues • Evaluate the design concepts for feedback inputs • Restate the design problem and critical issues on the basis of feedback inputs • Repeat the process until a thorough understanding been achieved.

I

of the problem has

research in productive areas and leads, through analysis, to a definitive statement of design instructions and performance requirements. A broad understanding of the critical issues enables the designer to establish a frame of reference from which to assess the information gained by research relative to possible design relationships. The next step is to establish a conceptual design approach, which identifies the specific information to be collected and establishes the significance of the issues in relation to one another. The result of this process of knowledge building, design integration, and feedback assessment is a set of comprehensive design criteria (design performance requirements) to guide the formulation and evaluation of design proposals. This approach gives designers increased assurance that their designs will satisfy established client and user requirements and fit appropriately into the framework of the environment. The knowledge which the performance criteria are based is acquired through dataoncollection.

Data Gathering The quality of a particular design is more often a reflection of the type of questions we ask than the answers we provide. Asking the right questions is one of the most important factors to design success, and thus one of the most critical aspects of the design process. Unless we know our destination, the likelihood of arriving is low. To guide the acquisition of needed information, we must first identify the critical issues. Four areas of investigations may be conducted to define the critical design issues: 1. Existing site conditions: investigate the natural and cultural features and processes currently taking place on the site.

2. Requirements of users: establish and determine the needs of primary user groups as well as those acting in support of them, such as maintenance or security. 3. Requirements of the activities to be provided: each activity to be provided or retained has preferred or limiting relationships to be established with one another. 4. Constraints under which the project will be implemented: all projects operate under constraints such as the values of the client, economic constraints, legal requirements, or time limits that will influence the nature of a final design solution. To further their understanding of the critical issues, designers may perform several different kinds of investigations. These include: 1. Survey of similar facilities: conduct parallel studies of similar situations to determine the strengths and weaknesses of current development practices. 2. On-site investigations: investigate site conditions, activities, or processes to determine their potential influence on design decisions. 3. Review of current literature: determine the state of the art from published research as a point of departure for establishing design performance standards. 4. Inquiry-by-design: conduct preliminary design studies to establish the specific relationships to be encountered by the proposed development. These information-gathering techniques will lead to the creation of a comprehensive database to inform and evaluate design proposals. But before information can be used to guide design decisions, the raw data must be translated into a usable format. This begins with data analysis.

Data Analysis It is necessary to know how information is to be used before it is possible to assess its importance to design. In most situations the only way we have to establish the relevance of information is through its relationship to the intended design conditions within the context of the proposed development site. For example, if the requirement is to provide sports fields on a site with seasonally saturated soils, the type of hydrologic information to be gathered and the requirements for its analysis will be directed toward designs to lower and control groundwater levels. Alternatively, if the design requirement is to create a year-round wetland and wildlife habitat, the analysis of the same information would be directed toward methods to maintain soil moisture on a year-round basis. The data may be collected and analyzed

60

Chapter Three

61

but, without a direct relationship to intended use, fail to provide improved understanding of the situation. The purpose of analyzing research data is to determine how knowledge may be applied to design decisions: determining the most appropriate (or inappropriate) locations on the site for the proposed activities, and the most appropriate (or inappropriate) relationships to be established among them. Once these broad conclusions have been reached, attention may be shifted to the development of more refined information analysis, such as the detailed consideration of technical performance and spatial or dimensional relationships.

improved upon? What constitutes improvement in the environment to be changed? Design goals define the desired results of the changes to be imposed, such as convenience, profits, or safety. The goals need to be as comprehensive as possible if the basic project intentions are to be addressed holistically. Alternatively, if the goals are to define the parameters of the project realistically, they should be limited to the capacity of the decision-making process. Examples of design goals might include protecting development from flood damage, or using site resources effectively.

Translating Conclusions into Design Instructions The pivotal function of programming is to acquire and translate information into useful knowledge; that is, into design performance instructions. These instructions must be neither vague nor overly restrictive. They must be clear enough to guide design decisions without dictating specific choices. Designers require three general things from the program: • Clear guidance about preferred relationships design performance

and intended

• conform Clear understanding of the conditions to which the design must • Flexibility to give designers the freedom to create the best possible overall relationships If there is too much uninterpreted information, designers will be unable to connect the knowledge to design decisions. If there are too many restrictions or preconditions, designers will lose flexibility and be unable to maneuver within the context of existing conditions to establish desired patterns of relationships and formulate appropriate design solutions. Once the data have been analyzed and conclusions have been reached, the program information is documented to clarify the design guidance, often as a hierarchically ranked array of design requirements. These requirements include the project goals, project objectives, and performance criteria. Project goals. The goals state the intended results: why design change is being considered. If the goals cannot be clearly defined and written, it is highly unlikely that the designer/client team collectively knows with any certainty what they are. Unstated goals cannot be shared, cannot become the basis for general agreement, and are unlikely to be achieved (Pena 1987). If the design intent is to improve on conditions that presently exist, the first questions to be asked are: What are the conditions to be

Project objectives. Design objectives are the means we employ to satisfy the project goals. Unlike goals, which are general statements of project intent, the objectives are concrete steps specifically related to design form. To establish the objectives, it is useful to have physical relationships in mind. This requires the consideration of the general form relationships to be employed to satisfy the goals, but not necessarily in the context of an overall design concept-the various objectives may be unrelated to one another, at least in the beginning, before they are integrated by a final design. To satisfy a goal of protecting development from flood damage, the design objectives might, for example, include maintaining existing streams in a natural condition as a flood-management strategy. Locating golf-course fairways in a floodplain to utilize land that is occasionally inundated might be an objective to satisfy a goal to use the site resources effectively. Design performance criteria. Performance criteria refer to the desired qualitative standards of physical design relationships. The performance criteria, which cover all aspects of design, address a variety of areas in which the quality of design performance may be measured (Garvin 1988). These include: • Functional and spatial requirements of the activities to be provided • Reliability of the design functioning as intended • Degree to which the design functions conform to established standards • Durability or useful life expectancy of the built design • Serviceability or ease of maintenance • Fitness of the built design to the environment in which it is located • Aesthetic qualities of the design in relation to its environmental context • Perceived quality as determined by the client or users Area requirements for the desired features of a design are typically among the first criteria to be established. These would include such things as the area required for a parking lot or a sports field. Location

Chapter Three requirements, functional relationships, and technical or construction limitations also are among the more obvious of the design perf()rmance criteria. _ Design quality can only be reasonably evaluated in relation to the performance requirements· it is intended to meet. Criteria establish the relationships to be satisfied by a designed condition. However, if the performance requirements are inadequate to address all the critical issues, the design may, by definition, be considered successful but at the same time fail to address the full spectrum of human needs or ensure the appropriate use or protection of the environment. Programming is the designer's way of providing designs that are both successful and effective improvements to the environment. One of the most important considerations to successful programming is that the information on which it is based is both complete and factual. Unfortunately, we can never foresee future information needs well enough to determine precisely what information will be needed to support designs prior to their formulation. For this reason, the development of preliminary design concepts is useful as one of our most reliable means of revealing deficiencies in program information. From the evaluation of preliminary design proposals, the absence of needed information is revealed. Once these deficiencies have been identified they may be used to guide additional information acquisition until all necessary information has been collected. For this reason, programming is not just a preliminary or pre-design activity. Rather, it is better to understand process. it as an ongoing requirement throughout the design decision-making

'OceduralTheory

63

Under the best of circumstances we should consider that, as designers, we are active collaborators with clients, builders, lenders, and municipal reviewing authorities. Each of these players has different priorities, holds different values, and pursues different goals. Integrating these participants into a successful decision-making and implementation process can be particularly challenging. But there is another fundamental characteristic of the process that makes success in design so difficult to achieve. Designers and their collaborators apply current information to predict future conditions. Each of these collaborators provides critical (although sometimes conflicting) information on which to base design decisions. On the basis of this broad array of information we attempt to predict the future success of design proposals. Unfortunately, success will only occur if the underlying assumptions are correct (Jones 1992). Predicting the future is an inherently risky proposition. It is this unreliability of the process that makes successful design resolution so challenging. As Jones explains: The final outcome of designing has to be assumed before the means of achieving it can be explored: the designers have to work backwards in time from an assumed effect upon the world to the beginning of a chain of events that will bring the effect about. If, as is likely, the act of tracing out the intermediate steps exposes unforeseen difficulties or suggests better objectives, the pattern of the original problem may change so drastically that the designers are thrown back to square one. (1992:10)

Six-Step Design Process

Design Process Design process has two primary aims. One is to assure that all the appropriate questions are posed and the relevant issues are considered in the decision-making procedure. The other is to facilitate the development of solutions that respond to these issues appropriately and take advantage of all the available opportunities to ensure design success. The secondary aims of design process include the management and integration of the different stages of design thinking, including the interactions and deliberations of all parties. This helps assure the effective and efficient application of knowledge, time, and resources. On complex land development projects, these aims are difficult to accomplish, meeting them requires systematic organization and management and procedures. Delivering successful designs is demanding due to the complexity of the information required and the number of participants involved.

Under typical practice conditions, the delivery of site-design services is guided by a sequence of six general steps. The six-step process is organized so that each step prepares for the next, leading designers through a logical progression of tasks. The sequential order of the steps suggests the underlying logic of their relationships to one another. Step 1: State the design problem. Begin the process with an initial charge or appointment from the client to the designer. This is normally expressed as a formal statement of the design commission recognizing that a condition requiring design change exists. Step 2: Define the problem. Engage the discovery stage of the process by identifying and assessing critical issues, developing design concepts, and uncovering information necessary to the successful execution of the design. A detailed description of the issues to be resolved is recorded in a program of instructions to the designer. Step 3: Search for solutions. Envision possible courses of design action available and evaluate each possibility in terms of its suitability

64

65

Chapter Three to the requirements of users and the site, and its acceptability to the client. Select and develop the best alternative. Step 4: Document the 'design decision. Prepare a record of the selected design idea to provide a detailed account of the relationships to be established. Documentation takes a form suitable to guide future implementation of the design in an accurate, complete, and technically appropriate way. Step 5: Implement the design. Execute the design idea. This is normally carried out by independent building and earthwork contractors with the designer administering the construction contract on behalf of the client to ensure faithful execution of concepts and specifications. Step 6: Evaluate the design result. Critically analyze the completed project under use conditions to determine the extent to which it meets client and user expectations and requirements and fits appropriately into the conditions of the environment. This is also an opportunity to evaluate the design delivery and implementation process. Results of the post -occupancy evaluation form the basis for improved design quality and service delivery in the future. The six-step process leads the designer through a series of criticalthinking and decision-making stages. It begins with a broad vision that improvement is needed, but where relatively little is known about the details of the design problem or the opportunities to be addressed. From there it progresses to the development of sufficient understanding to support the formulation of reasonable possibilities. With this understanding the designer proceeds to the final determination of landscape form. Based on the selected course of design action, the environment is reformed and ultimately evaluated to determine if the desired results have been achieved. The design process is organized to provide continuity throughout the life of a project. The continuous nature of design is reinforced over time by the post-occupancy evaluation (POE), which serves as a bridge between projects by systematically linking the knowledge and experience gained on one project to those that follow, providing a mechanism for continually improving design knowledge and design performance with each successive commission (Preiser, Rabinowitz, and White 1988). This final step brings the process full circle, returning designers to the first step on the next project with the advantage of knowing (rather than believing) how well (or how poorly) their previous design ideas succeeded. Ervin Zube (1983) has described design as a hypothesis to be tested. Although we may be reluctant to describe them to our clients as such, all designs are experiments. The design process makes it possible to

conduct a controlled experiment, the stages of which combine to provide a systematic record of both design intent and design result. From a perspective of knowledge building, as opposed to problem solving, implementation is necessary to provide the objective data from which design results may be determined. But it is the design program and the post-occupancy evaluation, not the built design form, that provide the knowledge base to evaluate the quality of the learning process and the information employed to effect changes in the environment. Designers, however, do not have to build their ideas to evaluate them. The process of learning by testing ideas against reality may be achieved intellectually as well as physically-at least partially. By introducing new knowledge into the decision-making process and testing it against design intent and environmental context, we model the process of learning by experience. This offers many of the advantages of new insight without the need for implementation. And without the burden of time and cost associated with it. The most rational method we have for understanding systemic relationships is to hypothetically model and evaluate them. The design process is not only a way of proposing future conditions, it is also a way of investigating them. Design investigation is an opportunity to speculate about an integrated set of conditions for the purpose of examining their potential relationships. Design exploration is our primary means of holistically testing possible future conditions and evaluating their potential to solve conflicting or unmet design relationships. Establishing and evaluating design form is our principle means of examining an integrated complex of systemic relationships. We postulate a possible future condition in order to work backwards and evaluate whether we have established the desired relationships. The critical step in design analysis-holistic analysis as opposed to analysis of individual parts-is in developing and testing design concepts. We have no other means of "seeing" all the potential relationships we need to evaluate to determine if the design form is a good one, relative to existing conditions and to other possible alternatives. Multiple alternative concepts provide further opportunities to evaluate and understand design form relationships.

Learning through Feedback A design process that models a proposed future reality and its context in a comprehensive way incorporates two important features into decision making: it broadens the knowledge on which decisions may be based and simultaneously creates a steeper learning curve, increasing the value we derive from improved knowledge. It is not the increase in knowledge itself that is important in design, but our improved understanding and ability to model design ideas with

66 Chapter Three greater predictability. The evaluation of proposals during the design investigation and elaboration stage simply mimics the POEstep, based not on actual conditions but on our perception of them. Efforts to estimate a design proposal's capacity to satisfy the conditions imposed by the program also improve our understanding of the complex interrelationships we propose to change. As our understanding of these relationships evolves we are able to reexamine design ideas in light of new knowledge and insight. With improved insight we attempt to improve the predictability of design concepts and their potential to bring about improvement in the landscape. This brings us to the question: How is the process applied to produce this result? The six steps of design are listed as a sequence of stages. But the linear sequence is only an outline of steps, not a description of the process as an operational system. In reality the process is rarely applied linearly, with one step being concluded and then moving on to the next until the entire sequence is completed. It is most successfully applied as a reiterative or cyclical process, with the steps being repeated as we attempt to improve the quality of the design results. Improving design concepts based on evaluation, referred to as recycling with feedback (Halprin 1969), has the benefit of continually incorporating new information and fresh insight before reaching a final decision. The feedback-response mechanism is active in the formation and evolution of complex systems and it works equally well in the development of designs for them. All complex systems evolve into harmonious relationships. This is particularly so of dynamic systems such as landscapes. In nature we find that the relationships of site contour, soil, water, plants, and their associated animal communities are finely tuned with one another. Because these relationships are well understood, biologists often rely on one aspect of the environment to provide clues about others. Understanding plants can provide very accurate indications about not only which animals might use them for food or live in association with them, but also what soils, climate, and water relationships have to exist for them to survive. When we try to create such harmonious relationships by design we find that they are usually too complex to be fully understood or established at first attempt. But through reiterative investigation and refinement, designers are able to create complex, fully functioning systems with all the problem areas addressed. Just as harmonious relationships in natural environments need an opportunity to mature and evolve, so do the designs we develop to create them. It is the designer's role to establish these relationships and refine them until all the bugs have been worked out. For each set of relationships we establish, we create new relationships that conflict. These new or unintended relationships need to be adjusted just as certainly as those we

67

Procedural Theory

originally set out to correct. Designers benefit from a process that facilitates the growth and evolution of comprehensive solutions for complex environments. The process requires that we continually evaluate the proposal to find these newly created problem areas and then to provide clues for addressing them. Ideally, we need a continuous cycle of design and evaluation to enable solutions to evolve and develop (Zeisel1981; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Weisman 1983).

Phases of Design Evolution To describe design process as an integrated learning and decisionmaking procedure, it is helpful to generalize the steps. During the ideation stages of the process, the six steps are reduced to four. Two are omitted since we need to neither document nor implement in the formative, envisioning stages of the process. And, while a post-occupancy evaluation is not possible at this stage, evaluation of the proposed concepts in a model form is ongoing. This modified four-step framework provides the abbreviated context for the conceptualization stages of the design process. These four steps form the basis of a continuous, cyclical process of learning, postulating, evaluating, and ultimately, deciding about the design conditions we hope to improve. To describe the interactive relationships among the design process components, or subsystems, it is useful to direct attention to what might be more properly referred to as phases of interaction. The phases of design process represent stages of activity as they proceed in a cyclical, or systems, approach to defining the project issues and formulating appropriate design responses. The four cyclical phases are illustrated in comparison to the six-step process as follows: Phase 1 Problem Statement Phase 2 Problem Definition Phase 3 Concept Development

Phase 4 Concept Evaluation

Step Step Step Step Step Step

1 2 3 4 5 6

State the design problem Define the project Search for solutions Document the results Implement the solution Evaluate the design

These phases of interaction are used as an operational framework for describing design process as an integrated learning and decisionmaking procedure. The procedure is based on essentially equal portions of discovery, conceptualization, and evaluation. The discovery, or learning, component is the research part of the process, undertaken to assure that designs are well supported by relevant data. Conceptualization includes the creation of possible future conditions based on application of the information. Evaluation is the critical analysis of concepts to assure the appropriate application of knowledge.

68

Chapter Three

The term phase is used to convey a zone of influence in the process rather than a discrete activity with precise limits. The phases have products, but, because the product of each phase is integral to all other products, it is only tentative; until the product of each phase has been verified by the products of the other phases of the process, we cannot be certain that any of the products are correct or in harmony with one another. Only when each phase of the process reaches a state of equilibrium with all other phases, and each product appears to be equally appropriate relative to all the other products, can any of them be considered individually complete or systemically correct. The four phases represent a hypothetical sequence of thinking activities we engage to develop our understanding of the problem and to formulate the most appropriate design response to it. The phases are repeated in a cyclical pattern of reiterative statements of problem definition, design speculation, and evaluation for feedback to improve our understanding and to provide the basis for a repetition of the four-phase cycle. The design concept-both problem and solution-evolves holistically in the same way that nature evolves. Nature evolves as a series of integrated wholes rather than as an accumulation of sequentially ordered parts. Each cycle in the design process represents an evolutionary stage of development for the concept: a whole that, in the early stages, has not yet fully evolved. An advantage of this approach is that both the process and product of design lend themselves to greater flexibility and to the possibility of more systematic understanding and knowledge-based decision-making. This is so, in part, because there is not only the possibility, but the expectation, that each phase has the potential for change and improvement-the potential to evolve-as the circumstances, created by new knowledge and design insight, indicate that change is appropriate. Because the phases are executed reiteratively, the relationships between them closely approximate the interactive way designers think and the way the environment works as it changes and evolves over time. Repeated cycles to produce multiple design options provide numerous vantage points from which to evaluate the problem. The cycles of evaluation approximate the influence of the forces in the environment. Establishing a system of feedback loops based on whole (but not fully developed) design ideas provides the potential for increasing our understanding of the whole system (problem and solution). As we improve our understanding of the parts (the problem issues) in their relationship to one another, we improve our understanding of the whole. Because designs for the landscape are complex, this approach creates multiple opportunities to discover critical design relationships and to formulate design responses that take optimum advantage of

ocedural Theory -------------------

69

them by investigating all of the issues integrally as they relate to the .total context of the problem situation. Because design problems do not arrange themselves to conform to our project or time requirements, the process also needs to provide an opportunity for the phases to occur in any sequence. Any prearranged sequence of events, even cyclical, suggests that the creative resolution 'of complex and poorly understood problems is predictable and likely to emerge from some predetermined pattern of working. Yetwe know that a design formula that assures success is highly unlikely, and it is the unpredictable and the unknown that designs are formulated to resolve. The pattern of work needs to be flexible enough for any phase to come first, or to come last, if it is to provide optimum opportunity for innovation and learning under uncertain and dynamic conditions. Improved system performance based on continual learning and the incorporation of feedback is a fundamental characteristic of ecological and cultural systems. Complex, self-organizing systems maintain harmony and fitness with their environments by gaining information continuously through feedback loops (Capra 1996; Hutchins 1996). This is well illustrated by the example of steering a ship. As frequent compass readings reveal departures from a set course, brought about by wind or current, the helmsman makes corrections to bring the ship back on course. As natural systems detect departures between their performance and the desired relationship with the environment, information is fed back to stimulate changes to improve or correct the relationship. The reiterative design process provides the opportunity for creative speculation (setting a course), critical evaluation (checking the compass to determine if we are on course), and the means to determine the conditions that cause any deviations between an environment's intended performance and its estimated or assessed performance (wind pushing the ship off course). Awareness of a deviation between intended and estimated (that is, designed) performance and the identification of its cause provides the basis for feedback. Most importantly, it improves our understanding of the critical relationships to be established: the design questions. The design questions are improved incrementally as the multiple perspectives created by successive design cycles are engaged to evaluate proposed changes to the system. Since improving relationships with the environment is the function of both natural change and imposed design change, the evolution of design understanding may be based on the same feedback process as that employed by highly evolved organic systems-processes developed over millions of years of trial and error-to improve their fitness and success in the environment. In nature, feedback loops are perpetually operational. If we are to model design on highly successful universal change processes, feed-

70

Chapter Three

71

back needs to be continuous throughout the design process. The feedback must also be immediate to be of greatest benefit (Hutchins 1996). Delayed feedback is less likely to reveal a direct connection between cause and effect, and thus, less likely to indicate appropriate ways to improve the unsatisfactory relationship. The cyclical relationships among the phases are illustrated in figure 3.1. Each phase is linked in an unending pattern with design activity moving from phase to phase; the arrows indicate a clockwise learning progression between the phases.

standing of the problem as well as the possible solution. Based on the designer's improved understanding, a revised and elaborated statement of the problem can emerge, leading the process back into Phase 1 (Problem Statement), or more precisely, problem restatement. Because the statement of the problem has changed, so may the definition of the critical issues. In a second cycle through Phase 2 (Problem Definition), the designer redefines the critical issues arising from the revised statement of the problem. Because the process is reiterative, there is no anticipation of conclusion with the completion of each cycle. Each cycle returns to the same phase at which it began, but not to the same level of understanding. Advances along the spiral path measure not only the passage of time (and in practice, money), but also increased knowledge of the project issues, opportunities, and design possibilities. The process

Based on this pattern of relationships, successive cycles of activity are shown in figure 3.2, passing repeatedly through the four phases, as suggested by Richard Moore (1980, pers. comm.). Project time begins at the center of the diagram and radiates out in all directions. The point of beginning is the moment work begins on the project. Programming activity begins at that point and moves along the spiral path, each cycle of the feedback loop marking increments along the time lines. Taking the process repeatedly through the four phases creates multiple opportunities to build knowledge through evolutionary growth of project understanding.

Time

At least two things may be learned from the evaluation phase. Evaluation of proposals provides feedback to improve our under-

CD

o

CD State the Problem

Evaluate Alternative Concepts

(1)

Define Problem Requirements

Develop Alternative Concepts

Define