Preference for Landscape Style: A Comparison Between Landscape Architects and Other Professionals

Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Landscape Architecture in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Lisa L. Russell, B.S., M.C.R.P.

Graduate Program in Landscape Architecture

The Ohio State University

2014

Thesis Committee:

Dr. Jack L. Nasar

Deborah Yale Georg, RLA

Copyright by

Lisa L. Russell

2012

ii

Abstract

Research has found differences between design professionals and non-designers in the

way they evaluate high and popular style architecture. The question arises, would

landscape architects differ from non-landscape architects in their evaluations of high and

popular landscape styles? To test this, I presented a set of sixteen photographs of

landscape scenes to 35 landscape architects and to 38 other (non-landscape architect)

professionals in anonymous surveys. Eight of the pictures represented ‘high’ style

landscape designs and the other eight were popular styles. High style landscapes

generally are designed by landscape architects and include abstract concepts or design

statements. Popular style landscapes, while professionally designed, are recognized for

accommodating the needs of users over making symbolic statements. The respondents

rated each picture for attractiveness, excitement, and restfulness. The two groups gave

similar responses across the full set of landscapes. There was no statistically significant

difference between the professions on any scale. In addition, they did not differ in

responses to each kind of landscape. The analyses found no statistically significant

interaction between Profession and Landscape Type. There was, however, a statistically

significant difference between landscape architects and other professionals in their

reported willingness to walk out of their way to visit the landscapes. The findings call

into question whether landscape architects and non-landscape architects differ in their

preferences, as architects’ preferences differ from preferences of building users.

iii

Acknowledgments

I am sincerely grateful to the following individuals for their contributions and support:

Dr. Jack L. Nasar, Deborah Yale Georg, Dana Hitt, Dr. Shilo Anders, and Mary Malone.

iv

Vita

July 15, 1959....................................................................................Born – Decatur, Illinois

1997................................................................. B.S. Agriculture, The Ohio State University

2006................................. Master of City & Regional Planning, The Ohio State University

1984 to present................................................................. Independent Landscape Designer

2002 to present..........................................................City Planner, City of Columbus, Ohio

Fields of Study

Major Field: Landscape Architecture

v

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. .ii

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii

Vita..................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review ...................................................................1

1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................1

1.2 Literature review..................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Differences................................................................................................1

1.2.2 The nature of preference ...........................................................................4

1.2.3 Effects of natural.......................................................................................6

Chapter 2: Method ...............................................................................................................8

2.1 Participants...........................................................................................................8

2.2 Stimuli................................................................................................................10

2.3 Questionnaire .....................................................................................................13

Chapter 3: Results ..............................................................................................................14

3.1 Unattractive-attractive scale...............................................................................14

3.2 Boring-exciting scale .........................................................................................17

3.3 Disturbing-restful scale......................................................................................20

3.4 Walk out of the way question ............................................................................22

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Extensions.............................................................................25

References..........................................................................................................................28

Appendix A: The Survey ...................................................................................................30

vi

List of Tables

1. Characteristics of the sample ....................................................................................... 8-9

2. Main effect of professional group on the unattractive-attractive scale..........................15

3. Overall means on the unattractive-attractive scale for high and popular trials..............15

4. Interaction of profession and landscape type on the unattractive-attractive scale.........17

5. Overall means by profession for the boring-exciting scale ...........................................17

6. Overall means on the boring-exciting scale for high and popular trials ........................18

7. Interaction of profession and landscape type on the boring-exciting scale ...................19

8. Overall means by profession on the disturbing-restful scale .........................................20

9. Overall means on the disturbing-restful scale for high and popular trials.....................20

10. Interaction of profession and landscape type on the disturbing-restful scale ..............22

11. Frequency that participants would walk out of their way to visit a high style

landscape......................................................................................................................22

12. Frequency that participants would walk out of their way to visit a popular style

landscape......................................................................................................................23

vii

List of Figures

1. The sixteen landscapes presented in the survey.............................................................11

2. Means of the different trials on the unattractive-attractive scale, according to

profession.......................................................................................................................16

3. Means of the different trials on the boring-exciting scale, according to profession......19

4. Means of the different trials on the disturbing-restful scale, according to profession...21

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review

1. Introduction.

This study compares the responses of landscape architects and other professionals to

discover whether their preferences differ for landscape style. Previous studies found

differences between design professionals and others in preference for architectural style,

and other work studied the nature of landscape preferences and effects of natural

environments.

2. Literature review.

2.1 Differences between architects and non-architects, and explanations for preferences.

Differences in evaluative responses between professionals and laypersons have generated

much research. Studies found, in particular, that architects differ from non-architects

regarding preferences for building style. In these studies, photographs of buildings

represented recognizable architectural styles. Researchers grouped architectural styles

into high style and popular styles.

Two studies (Nasar 1989, Devlin & Nasar 1989) found that architects responded more

favorably to high style residential architecture than did non-architects. Devlin and Nasar

distinguished between high style and popular style single-family residential architecture

by measuring physical building features from photographic examples. They described

2

high style as architecture having features such as off-centered entrances, strong vertical

lines, and punched windows, and popular style was more traditional architecture with

hipped roofs, framed windows and horizontal lines. The study compared interpretive and

affective responses of architects to non-architects’ responses. Participants rated slides of

10 high and 10 popular style residences on eight bipolar adjective scales. Architects rated

the high style houses as more clear, coherent, meaningful, pleasant, and relaxing than the

popular style houses. Non-architects rated the popular styles more favorably on the same

scales. Both architects and non-architects favored designs they deemed coherent and

novel. However, architects preferred complexity and non-architects favored simplicity in

design.

Nasar (1983) advocates testing separately the emotional qualities of a scene and its

physical attributes. Nasar (1989) explored whether architects apply the same meanings to

house styles as do laypersons, or non-architects. Laypersons from two different cities in

differing climates had similar preferences for style and for inferred meanings associated

with style. Much like in other studies, laypersons preferred the familiar vernacular styles

of Tudor and Farm houses, while architects preferred Contemporary design. This study

tested for more than architectural style preferences. Non-architects ranked the Farm

house as friendly and the Colonial style as high in status. Architects rated the

Contemporary style as most desirable. The architects ranked the Tudor less desirable, and

the Farm and Colonial styles as less friendly than did the public. The architects were

tested on how well they could predict the meanings the public would apply to the styles,

and the predictions were inaccurate.

3

Purcell and Nasar (1992) propose explanations for differences in architectural preference

between architecture students and other students. There are distinct building types and

styles, and familiar types are pleasing. Small variations from the familiar can increase

interest, while large differences produce negative responses. Architects might have wider

ranges of knowledge structures because of their exposure to more examples of buildings,

and thus architects tolerate wider variations of type and style.

Wilson (1996) tested whether architecture students develop similar criteria for evaluating

buildings. Results showed architectural preferences are predictable for architecture

students within the four styles of Neo-vernacular, Post Modernism, High Tech, and

Modernism. As architecture students progressed through years of education, Wilson

noted how their views compared to those of laypersons. First year students evaluations

were most similar to lay people, and each year of architecture education moved their

preferences farther way from non-architects’. During the final year, the architecture

students preferences moved back somewhat. Wilson concludes that the Neo-vernacular

style is therefore likely to appeal to both architects and non-architects more so than other

styles.

Hubbard (1996) found that city planners differed significantly from the public in their

preferences for some post-modern commercial buildings. There was more agreement

between the groups for prototypical buildings or those with neo-vernacular styles.

Planners were more homogeneous than the public in their environmental preferences.

Hubbard suggests planners, like architects, are socialized through their professional

educations.

4

Fawcett, Ellington, and Platt (2008) propose a solution that reconciles the differing

preferences of architects and the public. Fawcett et al defend the need for architects to

make artistic statements, but maintain that buildings should appeal to those who use the

buildings. Preferences between architects and building users for suburban office building

type were compared. The architects had stronger preferences, while there was less

agreement among the users. The study found pronounced differences between architects

and building users for building attributes, which included roof shape (flat or pitched),

wall material (traditional or nontraditional), and architectural style (strong or weak). Roof

shape appeared to be most important to users, while the more complex attribute of style

had the most influence on architects. This is consistent with previous research suggesting

that experts or connoisseurs learn to appreciate attributes that laypersons do not. Because

the users also preferred traditional walling, the authors propose a design type that could

satisfy both architects and users or laypersons. The proposed ‘ordered preference model’

includes a pitched roof, traditional wall material, plus strong architectural style that

makes a design statement.

2.2 The nature of preferences and landscape preferences.

Other studies examine what qualities of natural settings were preferred. Kaplan (1987)

attempts to justify ongoing study of the human-landscape interaction. Kaplan maintains

there is a biological component to preference, rising from evolution. His work proposes a

bridge between evolutionary theory and psychology. Kaplan proposes a theory of

environmental preference that suggests aesthetic preference is not merely learned, nor

arbitrary. Environmental preference could be an intuitive guide to habitat selection. This

5

might be why studies get repeatable results, yet participants cannot explain why they

prefer certain components or qualities of natural scenes. Kaplan explains that previous

studies revealed water, trees, foliage, and savanna or park-like settings are most

preferred. These settings are also supportive of human life. Studies show people

intuitively prefer natural environments in which they are not completely exposed in open

spaces, where there is some refuge, but not completely in the woods.

Ozguner and Kendle (2004) note that we know from previous research that people prefer

natural landscapes (both formal and informal) to built environments and they examined

whether people prefer naturalistic or formal landscape design. Their study suggests

people can differentiate between landscape styles and general preference was for

naturalistic and informal landscape style. The survey results revealed that some people

view formal built and managed landscapes as natural. However, when compared to a

wilder naturalistic park, the formal garden was more calming. The study concludes that

both formal and wild landscapes have value for urban dwellers.

Herzog, Herbert, Kaplan, Crooks (2000) compared environmental preference ratings

from 250 American psychology undergraduates to various Australian groups, including

landscape architecture students. Additionally, the Australian groups were compared to

one another. Of six Australian natural landscape types Agrarian, Open Coarse, Open

Smooth, Rivers, Structures, and Vegetation, preference for Rivers and Open Smooth

landscapes reached across cultures. Landscapes in the Rivers category were most

preferred by all groups. There was further agreement among subjects grouped by age,

cultural heritage, and education or technical expertise. The Australian landscape

6

architecture students preferred structures more than other groups did, and Australian

aboriginal college students preferred structures the least. The authors of this study

suggest these findings echo other studies, and can be explained in the nature/nurture

framework presented by Kaplan (1987).

Kaplan, Kaplan, Brown (1989) examine environmental attributes for their ability to

predict environmental preference. Mystery in natural settings is always preferred.

Smoothness, ease of locomotion, and absence of openness were indicators of preference.

2.3 Effects of Natural and Preferred Environments.

Natural environments affect people positively and these environments are preferred.

Kaplan (1995) explains that studies show interaction with the natural environment not

only reduced stress but helps in recovery from focused attention fatigue. Focused directed

attention is important in problem solving tasks and in preventing accidents. Fascination,

being away, extent, and compatibility are components of a restorative environment.

Natural environments provide these components and are hence essential in maintaining

quality of life. van den Berg, Koole, van der Wulp (2003) substantiated that preference is

a function of adapting to an environment.

In recent years, design of public spaces by landscape architects has been criticized as too

metaphorical, and not attuned to the needs and preferences of users of the spaces. One

example is the debate between Project for Public Spaces and landscape architecture

professionals (Landscape Architecture Magazine, February 2008 Letters to the Editor.)

7

Our present study is not comparing preferences for built or natural environments. It is

comparing landscape architects to other professionals in their preferences for public place

landscape design style, broadly defined as either high or popular.

8

Chapter 2: Method

1. Participants

Thirty-five landscape architects (66 percent male, 34 percent female) and 38 non-

landscape architect professionals (47 percent male and 53 percent female) took part in the

study. Their reported ages were all between 23 to 54 years old. Table 1 below shows the

demographic characteristics of the sample. Their reported time working in their

professions ranged from one to ten years. The other professions included medicine, real

estate, city planning, engineering, and architecture. Both groups included students in the

professions. The landscape architect group had a higher percentage of males, people with

undergraduate degrees; it had a smaller percentage of students, higher reported age and

years in the profession than the other group.

VARIABLE Landscape Architects (n = 35) Percent

Non-Landscape Architects

(n=38) Percent

TOTAL (N = 73) Percent

Gender % % % Total %

Male 66 Percent 47 Percent 56 Percent

Female 34 53 44

Education % % Total %

Undergraduate 6 0 3

Continued

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.

9

Table 1 continued

Graduated 77 39 57

Graduate student 17 61 40

Years in profession

% Landscape Architects

% Non-Landscape Architects

Total Percent

0 - .99 9 29 19 1- 2.99 20 24 22

3 – 4.99 14 13 14

5 – 9.99 17 5 11

10 or more 37 29 33

Did not respond 3 0 1

Age in years Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 38 (11.25) 35 (11.16) 36

All of the respondents were contacted by email, which invited them to participate in a 15-

minute on-line survey. To get landscape architects, I telephoned local landscape

architecture firms and asked permission to send an email for distribution, sent emails

directly to landscape architects, and posted a request in the electronic newsletter of the

Ohio Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. To get other

professionals, I sent email to known medical, real estate and city planning professionals,

and asked them to forward the email to others in the professions, including students. I did

not seek out other design professionals, such as architects. However, one other

professional participant listed his profession as architect on the survey.

If a recipient indicated a willingness to take part in the survey, I sent them a survey. More

people took the survey than I contacted because the participants could forward the email

to others. For example, 26 landscape architects replied requesting a survey link, but 35

10

landscape architects completed the surveys. If a respondent did not indicate a profession,

I discounted the survey, because I needed the profession for the analyses.

2. Stimuli: High and Popular Landscapes

Recall the questionnaire had sixteen photographs of public landscapes, eight representing

high style designs and eight representing popular style designs. For high style landscapes,

I chose designs by a landscape architect known for making artistic statements in his or

her work, such as embracing minimalism or employing abstract metaphors. The high

style designs included several designs by Martha Schwartz and by Peter Walker. For

popular style landscapes, I used some well-known and well-liked places, several of which

came from the Project for Public Spaces website. These landscapes, while professionally

designed, are recognized for accommodating the needs of users over making a statement.

The popular style designs included Portland’s Courthouse Pioneer Square, San

Francisco’s Ghirardelli Square, Paley Park in NY, an outdoor seating area at a shopping

mall, and fountains and plazas in Mexico, Peru and Albania. I used photos of similar

sizes and views. Figure 1 shows the sixteen landscapes. The first eight are the high style

landscapes and the last eight are the popular style landscapes.

11

Figure 1. The sixteen landscapes presented in the survey.

12

The images are of these landscapes:

A. Public plaza at Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. Des Moines, Iowa. Peter Walker, FASLA. (High).

B. Floriade 2002 forest sculptures. Photo by Linda Paull Garrison. From Landscape Architecture Magazine 2003. (High).

C. Tanner Fountain. Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peter Walker, FASLA. (High).

D. Jacob Javits Convention Center Plaza. New York City. Martha Schwartz, FASLA. (High). images.businessweek.com

E. Constructed willow tree at the City of Tomorrow Exhibition. Malino, Sweden. Martha Schwartz, FASLA. (High).

F. Schwab Center. Stanford University. Stanford, California. Peter Walker, FASLA. (High)

G. Parking garage at Swiss Re Headquarters. Munich, Germany. Martha Schwartz., FASLA. (High).

H. [Cow sled] photograph by Len Jenshel, (High). I. Plaza de Armas. Cuzco, Peru. Project for Public Spaces, Inc. (Popular). J. Ghirardelli Square. San Francisco, California. Project for Public Spaces, Inc.

(Popular). K. Rockefeller Center. New York City. (Popular). L. Tirana, Albania. Albania Holidays, LTD. (Popular). M. Easton Town Center courtyard. Columbus, Ohio. Photo by Jane Turley (Popular). N. Paley Plaza. New York City. www.GreatBuildings.com. (Popular) O. Pioneer Courthouse Square. Portland, Oregon. Project for Public Spaces, Inc.

(Popular). P. Fountain on Plazuela de los Angeles, Guanajuato, Mexico. Photo by QT

Luong/terragalleria.com. All rights reserved. (Popular).

3. Questionnaire

The survey instructed respondents to imagine they were in the scene shown and not to

evaluate the quality of the photograph. It had them rate each of the sixteen landscapes on

three evaluative scales: unattractive-attractive, boring-exciting, and disturbing-restful.1

1 The boring-exciting scale was displayed in the survey as 1=very boring, and 7=very exciting. However, the two other scales were presented as restful-disturbing and attractive-unattractive. I reversed those when the data was transposed to Excel to match. Responses on all three scales then correlated 7 with the most positive value.

13

Survey Monkey randomly varied the order in which the scales were displayed for each

landscape. Respondents were also asked for each landscape scene, “Would you walk out

of your way to visit this place?” The survey also asked them to indicate their profession

as either landscape architect or “other professional (please state profession)”, the year

they were born, the length of time in their professions, and their student status

(undergraduate student, graduate student, already graduated).

14

Chapter 3: Results

For each of the three evaluative scales (unattractive-attractive, boring-exciting, and

disturbing-restful), three statistical tests are examined; the main effect of the professional

group, the main effect of landscape type (high or popular), and the interaction of

profession and landscape type. The main effect of professional group measures the

degree to which the respondents’ professions affected their ratings of the landscapes

overall, meaning both high and popular together as one set of 16. The main effect of

landscape type measures whether the ratings of popular style landscapes differed from

that of the high style landscapes, taking both professional groups together. The third test,

the interaction of profession and landscape type, reveals whether a significant difference

exists between landscape architects and other professionals in their ratings of the eight

high and eight popular landscapes. The p-value is the observed significant level of a test.

In this study with these trials, a p-value less than 0.05 represents a statistically significant

difference.

1. Unattractive-attractive scale.

Main effect of professional group.

On the unattractive-attractive scale, the evaluations of the landscapes were similar across

professional groups. Landscape architects and other professionals had similar mean

attractiveness scores across the sixteen landscapes (Landscape Architect: 4.93 (1.38);

15

Other Professional: 4.84 (1.39) (Table 2). These scores did not differ significantly from

one another (F (1, 63) = 0.51, p = .48).

Scale: Unattractive-attractive Landscape

architect Other

professional F df p

Mean score of 16 Landscapes, both high and popular

4.93 (1.38) 4.84 (1.39) 0.512 1,63 0.48

Table 2. Main effect of professional group on the unattractive-attractive scale. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1 = very unattractive and 7 = very attractive.

The main effect of profession did not achieve statistical significance on the attractiveness

scale.

Main effect of landscape type.

Taking both professional groups together, the mean attractiveness rating for the high style

scenes was M = 4.81, whereas the mean for the low style scenes was M = 4.96 (Table 3).

High and popular style landscapes received differing ratings, and this means only that the

types of scenes varied in attractiveness to both professions (F = (1, 63) = 25.28, p = 0.00).

Unattractive-Attractive scale Mean (SD)

Eight high trials – both professions 4.81 (.087)

Eight popular trials – both professions 4.96 (0.59)

Table 3. Overall means on unattractive-attractive scale for high and popular trials. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1 = very unattractive and 7 = very attractive.

However, the results show that overall the landscape architects and other professionals

did not differ significantly from each other in their ratings of the attractiveness of each

16

landscape. The mean attractiveness score for landscape architects and other professionals

were similar overall and were similar for each of the high and low landscapes (Figure 2)2.

There is a significant difference between the trials, because p < .05 (F (7, 441) = 14.481,

p = 0.00). This is to be expected because it suggests the various pictures were rated

differently on the unattractive-attractive scale. It means the survey presented a variety of

pictures on the attractiveness scale; some were very attractive and some were not.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PO

P-3

PO

P-5

PO

P-8

PO

P-2

PO

P-4

PO

P-7

PO

P-6

PO

P-1

HI-

7

HI-

4

HI-

1

HI-

6

HI-

5

HI-

3

HI-

8

HI-

2Un

attr

acti

ve -

Att

ract

ive

Landscape architect Other professional

Figure 2. Means of the different trials on Unattractive-attractive-scale, according to profession, where 1 = unattractive and 7= attractive.

Interaction of profession and landscape type.

The groups also did not differ significantly from one another in their evaluations of the

high and popular style landscapes. Table 4 shows the mean attractiveness scores for each

group in relation to each style, high or popular. The Profession/Style interaction was not

statistically significant (F (1, 63) = 0.50, p = .48).

2 In Figures 2, 3, and 4 in this section, numeric positioning is used as a convenience. The eight popular landscapes and the eight high landscapes are displayed from lowest to highest overall mean LA scores. Each dot represents an individual image ranking. The connecting lines offer legibility to the scores each landscape image received, as often the scores from the two professional groups land on the same place on the graph.

17

Scale Landscape architect mean

Other professional mean

Unattractive-attractive high trials 4.91 4.73

Unattractive-attractive popular trials 4.58 4.96

Table 4. Interaction of profession and landscape type on the unattractive-attractive scale. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1 = very unattractive and 7 = very attractive.

Although high and popular landscapes differed in attractiveness, the analysis found no

statistically significant difference for the effect of profession or for the interaction of

profession and landscape type on the unattractive-attractive scale.

2. Boring-exciting scale.

The two professional groups’ ratings were also similar for the level of excitement a scene

evoked.

Main effect of professional group.

The evaluations of the landscapes were similar across professional groups. Landscape

architects and other professionals had similar mean boring-exciting scores across the

sixteen landscapes (Landscape Architect: 4.10 (1.475); Other Professional: 4.15 (1.474)

(Table 5.)

Boring-exciting scale

Landscape architect Mean (SD)

Other professional Mean (SD)

F df p

Mean score of 16 landscapes, both High and Popular

4.101 (1.475) 4.150 (1.474) 0.12 1,61 0.73

Table 5. Overall means by profession for the boring-exciting scale. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1 = very boring and 7 = very exciting.

18

These scores did not differ significantly from one another (F (1, 61) = 0.12, p = .73).

Main effect of landscape type.

The mean boring-exciting scores for landscape architects and other professionals were

similar for the high and popular style landscapes (F = (1, 61) = 0.02, p = .88), as shown in

Table 6.

Boring-exciting scale Mean (SD)

Eight high trials – both professions 4.05 (0.31)

Eight popular trials – both professions 4.21 (0.33)

Table 6. Overall means on boring-exciting scale for high and popular trials. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1 = very boring and 7 = very exciting.

The results show that landscape architects and other professionals did not differ in their

ratings of the excitement on each landscape. There was no significant difference on the

overall boring-exciting ratings of the landscapes as either high or popular style, as p >

.05. The mean excitement score for landscape architects and other professionals were

similar overall and were similar for each of the high and popular style landscapes (Figure

3).

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PO

P-5

PO

P-8

PO

P-4

PO

P-2

PO

P-1

PO

P-6

PO

P-3

PO

P-7

HI-

7

HI-

8

HI-

1

HI-

6

HI-

4

HI-

3

HI-

2

HI-

5

Bo

rin

g

- E

xcit

ing

Landscape architect Other professional

Figure 3. Means of the different trials on boring-exciting scale, according to profession, where 1 = very boring and 7 = very exciting.

Interaction of profession and landscape type.

The groups also did not differ significantly from each other in their evaluations of the

high and popular landscapes. Table 7 shows the mean excitement scores for each group

in relation to each style, high or popular. The Profession/Style interaction was not

statistically significant (F (1, 61) = 1.07, p = .30).

Scale Landscape architect Mean

Other professional Mean

Boring-exciting high trials 4.14 3.96 Boring-exciting popular trials 4.06 4.34

Table 7. Interaction of profession and landscape type on the boring-exciting scale. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1 = very boring and 7 = very exciting.

20

3. Disturbing-restful scale.

Main effect of professional group.

The evaluations of the landscapes were similar across professional groups. Landscape

architects and other professionals had similar mean disturbing-restful scores across the

sixteen landscapes (Landscape Architect: 4.21 (1.483); Other Professional: 4.283 (1.482)

(Table 8). These scores did not differ significantly from one another (F (1, 62) = .45, p =

.51).

Disturbing-restful scale Landscape architect Mean (SD)

Other professional Mean (SD)

Mean score of 16 landscapes, both high and popular

4.21 (1.483) 4.283 (1.482)

Table 8. Overall means by profession on the disturbing-restful scale. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1 = very disturbing and 7 = very restful.

Main effect of landscape type.

Taking both professional groups together, the mean disturbing-restful scores differed for

the high and popular landscapes as shown in Table 9 (F = (1, 62) = 5.65, p = .02).

Disturbing-restful scale Mean (SD)

Eight high trials – both professions 4.39 (1.579 )

Eight popular trials – both professions 4.31 (1.387 )

Table 9. Overall means on the disturbing-restful scale for high and popular trials. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1= very disturbing and 7 = very restful.

21

This shows the types of scenes, high and popular, varied in restfulness across both

professions. The results show, however, the professional groups did not differ

significantly from one another. The mean disturbing-restful score for landscape architects

and other professionals were similar overall and were similar for each of the high and

popular landscapes (Figure 4).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PO

P-3

PO

P-2

PO

P-7

PO

P-5

PO

P-4

PO

P-8

PO

P-6

PO

P-1

HI-

7

HI-

4

HI-

1

HI-

6

HI-

5

HI-

2

HI-

8

HI-

3

Dis

turb

ing

-

R

estf

ul

Landscape architect Other professional

Figure 4. Means of the different trials on disturbing-restful scale, according to profession, where 1 = very disturbing and 7 = very restful.

Interaction of profession and landscape type on the disturbing-restful scale.

The groups also did not differ significantly from one another in their evaluations of the

high and popular style landscapes. Table 12 shows the mean disturbing-restful scores for

each group in relation to each style, high or popular. The Profession/Style interaction was

not statistically significant (F (1, 62) = 0.00, p = .99).

22

Scale Landscape architect Mean

Other professional Mean

Disturbing-restful high trials 4.46 4.33

Disturbing-restful popular trials 4.38 4.24

Table 10. Interaction of profession and landscape type on the disturbing-restful scale. Mean score (standard deviation) where 1 = very disturbing and 7 = very restful.

4. Walk out of the way question.

Recall the survey asked respondents whether they would walk out of their way to visit

each landscape. Tables 13 and 14 below show the frequency that each group overall

responded yes, they would walk out of their way or no, they would not.

Would you walk out of your

way to visit this place? Results for the eight high landscapes.

Landscape architect (n = 35)

Other professional

(n =38)

Total responses

No 91 (36%) 135 (46%) 226 (41%)

Yes 162 (64%) 159 (54%) 321 (59%)

Totals 253 responses 294 responses 547 responses

Table 11. Frequency that participants would walk out of their way to visit a high style landscape.

For the high style landscapes, the Pearson Chi square value is 5.34, p = 0.0208. The

differences in responses to this question are statistically significant.

23

Would you walk out of your way to visit this place? Results for the eight

popular landscapes.

Landscape architect

(n = 35)

Other professional

(n =38)

Total

No 104 (41%) 145 (49%) 249 (45%)

Yes 150 (59%) 149 (51%) 299 (55%)

Totals 254 responses 294 responses 548

Table 12. Frequency that participants would walk out of their way to visit a popular style landscape.

The Pearson Chi square value for the popular landscapes is 3.86, p = 0.0495. On 10 of the

16 landscapes images, the two groups gave similar responses to this question. For

example, the majority of both groups would walk to see Jenshel’s surreal landscape (85%

of the landscape architects and 73% of the other professionals), both groups would walk

to visit Plaza d’Armos (80% LA, 81% others), and Floriade (90% LA, 83% others). Both

groups would not make the effort to visit a grassy plaza with tables and chairs at Easton,

an outdoor shopping mall (84% LA and 81% others), and both would not walk to visit

Fountain on Plazuela de los Angeles (61% LA, 57% others).

On this question of whether a subject would walk to visit a landscape, the groups’

responses differed for six trials, and three of those trials resulted in p-values less than

0.05. For Paley Plaza, a popular style landscape for this study, 84 percent of landscape

architects responded yes, they would walk to see it, while only 46 percent of the other

professionals replied yes. The p-value is 0.001 for Paley Plaza. Two high style landscapes

produced differences. Tanner Fountain has a p-value of 0.007. Both groups affirmed the

desire to walk to visit it, but a greater percentage of the landscape architects would; 87

percent compared to 58 percent of the other group. The responses also differed

24

significantly for Swiss Re plaza, as p = 0.01. The percentage that would not walk out of

their way to visit it differed between groups (62 % LA and 89% others).

In summary, the results revealed no statistically significant differences in the ratings of

the high and popular landscapes on the three evaluative scales. However, there is a

significant difference between the landscape architects and the other professionals in their

expressed willingness to walk out of their way to visit the landscapes. This difference is

more pronounced in the responses to the high landscapes, with the landscape architects

more likely to walk out of their way.

25

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Extensions

Possible problems with the study: Should city planners have been included in the non-

landscape architect group? A previous study on preferences in residential scenes included

city planners with architects as design professionals (Nasar 1983). Although only five

practicing planners participated in the current study, the ‘other professional’ group

included those practicing planners and 21 planning students. This could be very

significant. To find out if the planners’ responses skewed the other professional group,

this survey could be shown to another group of other professionals and those results

could be compared to the landscape architect data here. Another way to check this factor

is to check the individual responses of the other professionals and see how the planners’

responses compare to the others in the group of other professionals.

Did the selected photographs fairly represent high and popular categories of landscape

architectural style? Could the preferences displayed actually be preferences to something

else, such as vivid color, tidiness, or clarity? The high landscapes had more trees and the

popular landscapes had more people shown. The landscape architects probably

recognized many of the scenes and this may have affected their preferences. Perhaps

more landscape architects would walk out of their ways to see Paley Plaza and Tanner

Fountain because they knew what they were. The least favored popular landscapes, by

both groups, were the Easton courtyard and Fountain on Plazuela de los Angeles. The

popular style Plaza de Armas and Pioneer Square received positive ratings by both

groups.

26

Future research can explore why studies offer differing results regarding preferences to

architectural style and landscape architectural style. One possible reason why studies

show that non-designers prefer traditional architecture yet favor abstract landscape design

is that the architectural research used residential houses while this landscape architecture

study used public landscapes. People might enjoy visiting an avant-garde public place but

wouldn’t want to live in one. Another factor might be that landscape architectural design

is more accessible to people outside that profession than is architectural design of

buildings. High style architecture incorporates abstract shapes made of inanimate

materials; while landscapes, even if artful, might remain more legible. People are familiar

with the materials. Further use of the data from this study might be interesting to those

involved in the debate between landscape architects and Project for Public Spaces. PPS

argued against design-driven projects that have limited public benefit and maintained that

public spaces should not be about design statements. asladirt (2/3/2010) echoed the

evolving preference for welcoming, comfortable, accessible, and green urban design. One

of the most favorably rated trials in this study was the high style forest-like landscape

with vertical abstract sculptures planted naturalistically with trees at Floriade 2002. There

was no path shown for a person to walk on, no bench or other site amenity, no people

shown, and no room for visitors to gather - yet 90% of the landscape architects and 83%

of the other professionals would walk out of their way to visit it. This scene was rated

positively on the evaluative scales as being very attractive, somewhat exciting, and

restful.

Perhaps landscape architects have a better connection to popular values than architects

do, or perhaps when experiencing outdoor landscapes, our values are similar. Possibly

27

non-designers appreciate elements of high-styled landscapes as much as landscape

architects because preferences for landscapes follow instinctive tendencies, being

associated with outdoor natural environments, and crossing over professional boundaries.

28

References

Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333-334.

Fawcett, W. (2008). Reconciling the architectural preferences of architects and the public: The ordered preference model. Environment and Behavior, 40, 599-618.

Herzog, T. R., Herbert, E. J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C. L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 323-346.

Hines, S. (2005). Icons revisited: Contested terrain. Landscape Architecture Magazine, 114-125. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from www.asla.org/lamag/lam05/may/feature2.html

Hubbard, P. (1996). Conflicting interpretations of architecture: An empirical investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 75-92.

Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3-32.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21, 509-530.

Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21, 235-257.

Nasar, J.L. (1983). Adult viewer preferences in residential scenes, Environment and Behavior, 15, 589-614.

Ozguner, H., & Kendle, A. D. (2006). Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the City of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning, 74, 139-157.

29

Purcell, A. T., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing other people’s houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199-211.

Thompson, W. T. (Ed.). (2008). Less can be beautiful (letter to the editor). Landscape Architecture, 98, 19.

Thompson, W. T. (Ed.). (2008). They put what in the hall of shame? (Letters to the Editor). Landscape Architecture, 98, 15.

van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146.

Wilson, M. A. (1996). The socialization of architectural preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 33-44.

http://dirt.asla.org/2010/02/03/jacob-javits-plaza-gets-a-redesign-with-recovery-funds/

Project for Public Spaces, Inc. (image capture)

www.GreatBuildings.com (image capture)

Landscape Architecture Magazine February 2003 (image capture)

http://www.soulofthegarden.com (image capture)

http://terragalleria.com (image capture)

images.businessweek.com (image capture)

30

Appendix A: The Survey

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49