LAF News Blog
Stay up to date on LAF!
Now through November, LAF is rolling out 20 new case studies that showcase the environmental, economic, and social benefits of high-performing landscapes. Visit the LPS Case Study Briefs page to see the latest or follow us on Facebook , LinkedIn , or Twitter to get updates as each new case study is released.
The case studies are part of LAF’s award-winning Landscape Performance Series, an online, interactive set of resources to help you quantify benefits, show value, and make the case for sustainable landscape solutions. By year-end, the searchable database will contain over 80 Case Study Briefs.
From Dallas’ Klyde Warren Park to private residences in Aspen to the 1,000-acre Napa River Flood Protection Project, the new case studies represent a range of geographic locations, scales, project types. Documented landscape performance benefits include:
- Filters 4.5 million gallons annually, 100% of surface runoff from 12.5 acres of developable properties adjacent to the park. (Milliken State Park, Detroit, MI)
- Improves the quality of life for 99% of 108 park users surveyed. (Buffalo Bayou Promenade, Houston, TX)
- Creates an estimated 1,373 construction jobs and 1,254 permanent jobs on properties developed as a result of flood protection. (Napa River Flood Protection Project, Napa, CA)
- Provided a hands-on educational experience for 450,000 people. (Chicago Museum of Science and Industry Smart Home, Chicago, IL)
- Increased calmness in 57% and made the hospital stay easier for 50% of patients surveyed. (Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL)
These exemplary projects were documented through LAF’s 2013 Case Study Investigation (CSI) program, a unique research collaboration that matched eight LAF-funded faculty/student research teams with practitioners from 20 participating design firms. The teams worked together to develop methods to quantify performance benefits and produce the Case Study Briefs.
Through the Landscape Performance Series and Case Study Investigation programs, LAF is working to advance our collective knowledge of landscape performance and lead the profession to routinely design with specific performance objectives, collect performance data, and integrate landscape performance in design education. The next CSI program will run March – August 2014 with applications available starting in October.
The 2013 Case Study Investigation (CSI) program officially ended on August 9 with each of the faculty-student research teams presenting their work during a 1.5-hour, information-packed webinar. The researchers described a variety of exemplary projects, the research process, and some of the key environmental, economic, and social benefits that they were able to document.
This year’s teams demonstrated creativity and ingenuity with the methods they used to observe and quantify performance. Two of the teams went in to detail about the methods and processes they pioneered and tested through CSI.
The University of Oregon research team discussed their experience using Jan Gehl’s Public Life Public Space survey to assess the social benefits of three exemplary public spaces: Portland’s Director Park, Randall Children’s Hospital, and Dutch Kills Green in Queens.
The Utah State University research team presented two innovative methods they developed to assess landscape performance on three residential sites in Aspen, Colorado: (1) A visual analysis of landscape buffering and (2) A bioclimatic analysis of Human Comfort Zone.
Want to learn more? Look for the resulting 20+ LPS Case Study Briefs from the 2013 CSI program in Sept/Oct, as we publish several each week.
by Rachel Guinn, MLA Candidate and Mary Pat Mattson,Studio Assistant Professor, College of Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology
LAF’s Case Study Investigation (CSI) program gives emerging landscape architects an opportunity to gain knowledge about professional practice from a wholly new perspective. IIT’s Mary Pat Mattson interviewed Research Assistant Rachel Guinn about her experience.
What interested you in becoming a researcher for LAF’s Case Study Investigation program?
I was interested in participating in CSI to learn about what landscapes do after they are installed, and I was especially excited to study local landscapes here in Chicago. Far too often, landscape is talked about as a static thing, so the opportunity to investigate the “living, breathing” aspects of landscapes really interested me.
Were you already familiar with concepts and methods of ‘landscape performance’?
What I have learned from CSI is how diverse and infinite landscape performance is, which makes it very difficult to quantify concisely. Ecologic benefits are complex simply because ecologic processes do not stop at property boundaries, so understanding the effects of and influences on a landscape project is quite an undertaking. Social benefits are notoriously difficult to quantify because so many effects of landscape are qualitative and subjective. Economic benefits may appear to be simple, but given the diverse ways that projects and their maintenance get funded and the many people involved, it is not always clear where and what the costs of sustainable landscapes are. CSI has given me an appreciation of what an endeavor it is to study the benefits of landscapes, but how valuable that information is.
What did you find most rewarding in your research process? Were there any surprises or big hurdles to overcome?
The most rewarding aspect has been getting to thoroughly “know” projects by talking with the people who helped them come about, coming to understand the lifespan (up till now) of the projects — how they began as design goals, how they have changed over time as needs altered and issues cropped up. It has given me an even deeper appreciation of the time and effort that developers, landscape architects, architects, landscape contractors, invest in creating landscapes that function at the highest levels.
Being on the “interviewer” side of conversations was difficult. As a design student, I was used to being asked questions about a project, but turning the tables and asking the questions requires understanding on a whole other level. It was so important to be prepared to ask the right questions to maximize the outcome of interviews.
Can you describe something that links the three projects you’ve studied?
All of the projects we studied in CSI used landscape as an educational tool, whether through stewardship (63rd Street Beach), programming (the Smart Home exhibit), or visibility of ecologic processes (Advocate Lutheran General Hospital). I think education is often part of successful projects because it engages people directly, and the more people notice their environments, the more they will care for them and ensure the project’s continued success. Learning about individuals’ stewardship for these respective projects has been a remarkable and rewarding discovery.
Is there a project, or aspect of a project, you wish you could continue to explore?
I have read about Chicago’s water quality issues and seen beach closures for years. While researching 63rd Street Beach, I found a plethora of research conducted at this location, which has been known for its particularly high levels of E.coli. Sources of the pollution range from sewer outflows to seagull populations to human use. It would be great to continue to study how, if at all, the creation of dunes at the beach has helped to improve water quality — if the naturalized landscape makes people more aware of their impacts on the environment, if the grass has helped filter pollutants, or if the dune habitat has truly helped to reduce gull numbers.
How has the experience affected you as a young landscape architect? How do you anticipate taking these experiences into future practice?
Being a research assistant has been a fantastic step into real-world projects, clients, and firms. It has been great to dive into these projects, their histories and how they are performing. I now see the value in being able to talk about landscape in terms of quantifiable performance benefits, and the importance of connecting academic and professional practices to study projects after installation.
Research Fellow Mary Pat Mattson and student Research Assistant Rachel Guinn are participating in LAF’s 2013 Case Study Investigation (CSI) program. They have been evaluating and documenting the performance of three Chicago-area landscape projects.
By Shanna Atherton, MLA-EP candidate, University of California, Berkeley
Restoring natural processes to degraded or heavily managed river systems while respecting human needs is no easy feat, but this summer the Case Study Investigation (CSI) program gave our research team the opportunity to look at three projects that have done just that. Ranging in scope from 35 to 1,011 acres, the restoration projects along Tassajara Creek, the Colorado River, and the Napa River clearly illustrate that through collaboration and a willingness to think outside the box, ecological function can be promoted without sacrificing flood control needs or water rights, and that impressive social, economic, and environmental benefits can be realized along the way.
Tassajara Creek Restoration Project
Located in the heart of the Livermore Valley east of San Francisco Bay, this 35-acre creek restoration project was designed to halt channel incision and manage flooding in the newly developed area of eastern Dublin. The project was conceived as an alternative to the traditional trapezoidal flood control channels prolific in the valley, an alternative that promotes habitat diversity and natural geomorphic processes within the riparian corridor while maintaining its flood management capabilities, increasing the aesthetic value of the channel and serving as an amenity to nearby residents. Our research team set out to quantify the social and economic benefits that such an alternative could provide to local residents and the district charged with maintaining the site. We observed public use of the project’s features over a weekend in the summer, including a local trail that extends the regional trail network and a low-flow crossing that provides access to a regional park. We also analyzed property values in communities adjacent to the creek, comparing these values to communities near a trapezoidal flood control channel, and we worked with the local flood control district to estimate the lowered long-term maintenance costs of the restored channel compared to those of a trapezoidal channel.
Yuma East Wetlands Restoration
Located near the historic downtown area of Yuma, Arizona along 350 acres of the lower Colorado River, the Yuma East Wetland project transformed a degraded wetland — once a site of illegal dumping and transient encampments — into a refuge for many threatened and endangered species. Recreational amenities provide much needed access for locals to the river, while an innovative water reuse plan minimizes the need to draw on tightly guarded water rights. This project is a hallmark of what can be achieved when divergent constituents of a community band together to re-envision public open space.
Napa River Flood Control Project
The Napa River Flood Control Project was part of a monumental effort in the 1990s to reconceive the river’s flood control strategy on a regional scale. Adhering to the ‘living river’ principles developed by an impressive community coalition, the city of Napa has implemented project phases along a 7-mile stretch of river, resulting in the restoration of 1,011 acres of habitat that meet the primary project aim of protecting the functionality of the river’s ecological systems while providing flood protection for many Napa residents. Though the project’s goal of 100-year flood protection will not be met until the final phases of the project have been completed, many environmental, economic, and social benefits are already being realized by the community today. We set out to identify these benefits, reviewing vegetation and bird monitoring efforts of the completed project phases as well as employment data that illustrates the direct impact of this project on the local workforce.
Working on these projects has provided our team members with valuable insights into the many benefits that the restoration of ecological function, guided by design principles, can have on watercourses, the agencies that manage them, and the communities that border them. We hope that through our identification and exploration of these benefits, others will be inspired to explore creative solutions to complex design challenges.
Research Fellow G. Mathias Kondolf and student Research Assistants Zan Rubin and Shanna Atherton are participating in LAF’s 2013 Case Study Investigation (CSI) program and working to document the social, environmental and economic benefits of three exemplary landscape projects in California and Arizona.
By Paul Littleton, MLA Candidate and M. Elen Deming, PhD, Professor, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The three projects we examined this summer through LAF’s Case Study Investigation (CSI) program — Carmel Clay Central Park (Carmel, Indiana); Lowland Park at Milliken State Park (Detroit, MI) and The City of Ann Arbor Municipal Center (Ann Arbor, MI) — shared some common characteristics. They were all public landscapes; at different scales and contexts each created a new kind of community center; each provided ecosystem services for stormwater management; each project saved or “paid back” public resources. Also, each project adopted an ecological aesthetic that recalibrated or redefined what many users expect from public landscapes.
In a sense, each of these projects tries to teach visitors about hydrological processes by laying them bare to view. Trouble is, not everyone understands what they see. Behind the performance benefits quantified for our projects we sense there may be other social impacts to be measured. We enjoyed enthusiasm for these places by designers and clients; we also encountered a level of puzzlement and ambivalence toward public open spaces that adopt a new attitude towards nature.
A case in point is the highly innovative design at the Ann Arbor Municipal Center (AAMC). Our methodology for measuring social benefits involved a short survey asking respondents to identify their familiarity with the place (employees or visitors, level of use of various amenities, etc.), how they thought the project reflected on the city of Ann Arbor, and whether they would consider similar stormwater management techniques for their home landscapes or in other projects. The City of Ann Arbor assisted our survey process by announcing it through a public press release and installing posters with a QR (Quick response) code throughout the AAMC.
Response level and survey depth was spectacular — 123 responses in just three weeks, more than 100 surveys fully completed, with 35 thoughtful individuals adding more comments after the survey was done. Ann Arbor obviously cares deeply about its public open space. Because public opinion was so sharply divided over the merits of the project as a whole, we wanted to share a few representative responses.
Supporters of the project said: “The designers did a good job”; “It’s great to be able to demonstrate these features to private developers when we’re trying to encourage them to consider low-impact development techniques”; “Parts of the center offer good examples to show clients considering such features in their own buildings.”
Naysayers wrote: “If city hall is trying to lead by example, they are failing. They come across as being “smarter” vs. inclusive… They force stuff vs. letting it develop out of a genuine public want”; “these features do not improve my experience of the building and are not presented in a way that improves environmental consciousness… [T]he overall lay out removes public space in front of and on the roof of the building from public use… [as if] the city government doesn’t actually want the public to be able to gather near or around the building.”
Some grasped issues of landscape performance: “[T]he green roof is creating habitat for bees, birds and other insects“; “I watched the big rain storm a week or so ago (2.5 inches in less than an hour); when I got to City Hall for a meeting, over 8 inches of rain water remained in the rain garden. When I left that meeting, 2 hours later, all the water was gone. That’s what rain gardens are supposed to do. I was and am impressed.”
Others missed the point: “[I]t rains so much here, I don’t think many people are very concerned about water. Maybe if we lived in a desert we’d celebrate collecting water more, but really, the whole rain garden idea seems like it will be a smelly, swampy mess and a breeding ground for West Nile virus.”
Finally, many offered the City constructive advice: “It is my perception that near to, if not all, of the hostility towards the municipal center’s rain gardens and its water feature are due to poor program execution…. I advise a clear avenue for public input and comment in the design of such installations”; “Downtowns should be for people, first. To the degree that great spaces can be built around and/or incorporate art, music, or eco-friendly educational opportunities and infrastructure, all the better.”
The big lesson from the survey is a simple correlation: people who spent a greater amount of time on the site — employees — gave more positive and insightful responses to our questions than casual visitors did. Landscape architects often try to lead innovation toward emerging value systems like sustainability, transparency, and inclusiveness. It is good to remember that building awareness (and changing taste) takes time, patience, and many, many opportunities for public dialogue.
Research Fellow Elen Deming and student Research Assistant Paul Littleton are participating in LAF’s 2013 Case Study Investigation (CSI) program and working to evaluate the environmental, economic and social performance of three landscape projects in Michigan and Indiana.