Evidence-based design: Structured approaches in leading landscape architecture practice by Elise Fagan A THESIS submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional & Community Planning College of Architecture, Planning and Design KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2017 Approved by: Major Professor Jessica Canfield Copyright © Elise Fagan 2017. College of Architecture, Planning and Design Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional & Community Planning Committee Members: Jessica Canfield, ASLA Stephanie Rolley, FASLA, FCELA, PLA, AICP Howard Hahn, PLA, ASLA Abstract Landscape architecture is embarking on a new design frontier, one where its practitioners are increasingly being asked by clients to design using credible evidence and to ensure design performance. As design disciplines follow in the footsteps of other evidence-based practices, like medicine and engineering, landscape architecture is poised to become a more scholarly profession – a profession of evidence-based landscape architecture. Evidence-based landscape architecture was first coined and defined in 2011 by Brown and Corry as “the deliberate and explicit use of scholarly evidence in making decisions about the use and shaping of land” (Brown and Corry 2011, 328). Current literature explains the benefits of practicing evidence-based design (EBD). These include ensuring design performance, justifying client investment, quantifying the value of design, systematically managing complex projects, marketing the firm to clients, attracting the most innovative designers to the firm, and adding to the knowledge base of the landscape architecture field. However, little is known about how landscape architecture firms are engaging evidence-based design in daily practice. This thesis examines how four leading landscape architecture firms (Design Workshop, Mithun, Sasaki Associates, and OLIN) have developed unique EBD approaches to integrate, apply, and propagate evidence-based design in professional practice. In order to study and analyze the four firms’ EBD approaches, individual comprehensive case studies were conducted. Qualitative data was collected through: focused interviews with directors and leaders of evidence-based design at each firm; casual observations made during office visits; and, a review of firm literature. A case study framework for EBD approaches in professional practice was developed based on discussion topics that consistently emerged from the interviews. The framework was used to organize, analyze, and present the findings into four major themes. A cross-case analysis was conducted to compare the development, implementation, and effects of EBD approaches at each firm. Findings reveal that each firm has developed an EBD approach to meet the need for engaging complex problems and meeting increasing client expectations for performance. While each firm’s EBD approach is unique, similarities and characteristics emerged between the case studies. The most consistent factors identified across cases include: having academic founders of the firm; the implementation of EBD- or research-specific roles and responsibilities; the creation of tools to organize and understand data; cultivating design cultures to support the EBD approach vision; the communication and transparency of relationships with clients and consultants; and, the reporting of findings for the advancement of the profession. Although any landscape architecture firm is likely to employ at least one of these concepts, the developed integration, application, and propagation of a majority of these concepts is what makes these firms unique and successful in applying EBD in professional practice. It was also found that the design processes themselves vary dramatically across the firms. EBD in practice is therefore not prescriptive and does not always look the same. The findings and case study framework developed in the study are useful primarily for landscape architecture firms looking to develop, integrate, apply, and propagate their own EBD approach. Table of Contents chapter 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 1 chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7 chapter 3 METHODOLOGY 27 chapter 4 FINDINGS: CASE STUDIES 41 Design Workshop 42 Mithun 78 Sasaki Associates 108 OLIN 136 CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS 169 chapter 5 CONCLUSION 203 REFERENCES 207 APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS 213 APPENDIX B: CODED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS 216 Design Workshop 217 Mithun 239 Sasaki Associates 270 OLIN 297 APPENDIX C: APPROVED IRB 336 v List of Figures CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 1.1 - Range of Evidence Chart | pg 2 (Elise Fagan) CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 - Literature Map | pg 10-11 (Elise Fagan) 2.2 - Timeline of Evidence-Based Design | pg 14-15 (Elise Fagan) 2.3 - The Evidence-Based Design Process | pg 19 (Elise Fagan, adapted The Center for Health Design 2009) 2.4 - Typical Linear Design Process Diagram for Landscape Architects | pg 20 (Elise Fagan, adapted from Lynch and Hack 1984, 11) 2.5 - General Evidence-Based Design Process | pg 20 (Elise Fagan, developed based on information from Augustin 2012; Brandt, Chong and Martin 2010; Brown and Correy 2011) CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY 3.1 - Research Methodology Flow Chart | pg 28 (Elise Fagan) 3.2 - Table of Interviewees | pg 30 (Elise Fagan) 3.3 - Case Study Framework | pg 38-39 (Elise Fagan) CHAPTER 4 - FINDINGS - CASE STUDIES 4.1 - Design Workshop Denver Office | pg 42 (Photo by Elise Fagan) 4.2 - Design Workshop's DW Legacy Design® Diagram | pg 43 (Design Workshop 2007) vi EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN: STRUCTURED APPROACHES IN LEADING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PRACTICE 4.3 - Metrics Sheets | pg 51 (Jost 2012) 4.4 - Abbreviated Sustainability Matrix | pg 52 (Elise Fagan, adapted from Design Workshop) 4.5 - Mithun Seattle Office | pg 78 (Photo by Elise Fagan) 4.6 - Rating and Certification System Examples | pg 82 (Elise Fagan) 4.7 - Sasaki Associates Watertown Office | pg 108 (Photo by Elise Fagan) 4.8 - The Visualizer | pg 118 (Sasaki Associates 2013) 4.9 - The Prioritizer | pg 121 (Sasaki Associates 2013) 4.10 - OLIN Philadelphia Office | pg 136 (Photo by Elise Fagan) CROSS CASE ANALYSIS 4.11 - Cross-Case Analysis Matrix | pg 194-201 (Elise Fagan) vii viii EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN: STRUCTURED APPROACHES IN LEADING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PRACTICE Acknowledgments There are several groups and individuals who deserve due credit for this five-year thesis endeavor. Most importantly are the individuals and the collective of the four firms featured in this work: Design Workshop, Mithun, Sasaki, and OLIN. Each was gracious in welcoming me into their offices, discussing candidly at length about their evidence-based design work, and who continued to provide information and reviews long-since that initial interview. A most sincere thank you to all of them and I hope this thesis is of value to you and your work. Thank you to the faculty and staff of the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional & Community Planning at Kansas State University who are selflessly devoted to providing high quality and competitive education to us, the students. Particularly to Chip Winslow and Blake Belanger who conducted a number of heart-to-hearts with me about the drain this thesis has had on my mental and emotional stamina. Also many thanks go to my enduring committee members, Jessica Canfield and Stephanie Rolley who broke me down to a low I had to build up the strength to dig myself out of. Truly, thank you for being there in the end to help me see this through. Sincerest thank you to Howard Hahn who graciously came on as part of the committee in the final hours; your work ethic and kindness is unparalleled and something I strive to balance in my own life. Thank you to the LA Class of 2013 for being the support, entertainment, and competition that got us through this program alive and thriving. Thank you Kevin and Derek for dismissing me from the ULI team, it allowed me to explore a topic that will undoubtedly give back for many years. To the LA Class of 2015 who I spent a lovely summer with in Manhattan. To the Landscape Architecture studio at Davis Partnership Architects who allowed me the flexibility and unabated support I needed to make progress. Davis provided an unintended lens of a firm in its early, grappling stages of defining themselves as an EBD firm which framed the baseline for this thesis. Most importantly to my family. To Talia who kindly transcribed some interviews for me. To Chelsea who became my partner in crime belaboring the woes of a graduate thesis. To Kevin who silently supported this stressful time in my life. And to Mom. Your ceaseless check-ins on "how's Manhattan?" or "how's K-State?" were the loving parental aversions to my internal conflict. But you were the reason I ultimately saddled up for the final ride. Thank you for your strength. To Dad - thank you for my strength. ix x EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN: STRUCTURED APPROACHES IN LEADING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PRACTICE Preface I committed to the thesis route in the Fall of 2011. I chose this path because it offered, to me, a challenging opportunity. After multiple failed topic investigations, I attended the 2012 ASLA conference in Phoenix. While attending a session entitled, "Assessing the Performance of Landscape Projects", I wondered, how are these firms making this process profitable? This ultimately influenced my thesis topic. Between the Fall of 2011 and Fall 2012, I was the student research assistant on the academic team for Landscape