Abstract
Are women underrepresented in landscape architecture? Two panel discussions at the 2022 and 2023 Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA) annual conferences reported findings on women’s representation within landscape architecture education and on their inclusion and recognition in the profession. While recent data collected by the Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) reveals a significant female presence in landscape architecture education programs across the United States, women lag behind in career achievements such as awards, fellowships, and leadership positions. To address this disparity, the authors, who previously served on CELA’s Executive Board, surveyed CELA members to gauge perceptions of male and female representation across different realms of professional success. The survey findings, combined with historical data obtained from CELA, LAAB, the Council of Landscape Architecture Registration Board (CLARB), and the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), shed light on women’s journeys from education to working in the profession. By analyzing the survey responses and collected data, the authors gained valuable perspectives on women’s challenges and opportunities in achieving equal representation and advancing their careers in landscape architecture. The findings also delved into participants’ perceptions of barriers and prospects affecting women’s representation in professional leadership and landscape architecture education. This article aims to stimulate discussions and support women’s career success and leadership in landscape architecture by addressing the perceptions of women in the field and examining advanced career metrics. Through these efforts, it strives to foster a more inclusive and equitable landscape architecture community.
Introduction
Women as Leaders in Landscape Architecture
Throughout U.S. history, women have collectively worked to gain their rights and freedoms to vote, to become educated, and to work. The first official women’s rights gathering, the Seneca Falls Convention, was held in 1848. The group of five women leading it, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Mary Ann M’Clintock, Martha Wright, and Jane Hunt, drafted an outline for the convention to discuss the “social, civic, and religious conditions of women” (Seneca Falls Convention, 2017). The Declaration of Sentiments manifesto, developed and signed by 300 men and women, proclaimed in words inspired by the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self‐evident; that all men and women are created equal.” The document called out nineteen violations of its core principles, including men’s monopoly on profitable employment while women earned much less when they were permitted to work, denial of women’s right to receive a college education, and the imposition of different codes of morality on men and women (National Park Service, 2021). The Seneca Falls Convention continued to meet annually, leading the way for the women’s suffrage movement. In 1920, after 70 years of organized struggle, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed, allowing women the right to vote. In 1972, the Title IX Education Amendment was passed, prohibiting sex discrimination and harassment in all aspects of education that received federal funding.
These struggles are mirrored in women’s advances in landscape architecture. Throughout the 19th century, women were relegated to work in areas related to the home, including horticulture and residential gardening. “Thought to be guardians of virtue and morality,” women during the Victorian era were “naturally associated . . . with efforts to cleanse and purify municipal, state, and federal houses and to upgrade the quality of life for their fellow Americans” (Way, 2006, 190).
In the early 20th century, women began to make their mark in various professions as job opportunities outside the home became more available. This transition allowed women to pursue career paths, mainly as factory workers, secretaries, and nurses. The arts also offered opportunities for women, and landscape architecture proved to be a highly respected professional art form for both men and women. Pioneer female leaders in the field included Beatrix Farrand (b. 1872), renowned for her work on the White House grounds and the Dumbarton Oaks estate; Martha Brookes Hutcheson, who became the first woman elected to the ASLA Board of Directors in 1916; and Marian Cruger Coffin, who designed for many prominent clients in the 1930s, including the Fricks, Vanderbilts, Huttons, and DuPonts (Osburn, 2014). The first female African American landscape architect, Ruth Shellhorn, received her degree in the 1940s and was hired by Disney, where she was responsible for the comprehensive pedestrian circulation system and other parts of Disneyland (Cultural Landscape Foundation, 2023).
Opportunities to pursue higher education and advance professionally also began to be available to women. In 1901, Judith Eleanor Motley Low directed the Lowthorpe School of Landscape Architecture, Gardening, and Horticulture for Women, which described its requirements for enrollment as follows: “Requirements for admission to the school are equivalent to high‐school education and normal health. The curriculum now comprises work in Landscape Architecture, Drafting, Planting Design, Study of Vignola’s Orders, Elementary Architectural Drawing, Free‐hand Drawing, Principles of Construction, History of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Surveying and Engineering, Soils, Trees and Shrubs, Hardy Herbaceous Perennials and Annuals, Elementary Forestry, Botany, Entomology, Greenhouse Work and Gardening, Pomology, and Object Lessons in Agriculture” (Tripp, 1912).
As women gathered in workplaces, they developed organizations dedicated to their areas of interest and became instrumental in the creation of societal organizations. Beatrix Farrand, for instance, was one of the founding members of the ASLA in 1899. Other organizations, such as the Garden Club of America in 1913, were started by women to raise awareness of the natural environment and engage in conservation efforts while advocating for “civic planting” (National Park Service, 2023). These organizations played a crucial role in advancing the field of landscape architecture and promoting environmental stewardship.
The modest presence of women in the field of landscape architecture, despite the early involvement of women in the related areas of horticulture and conservation, is a legacy of the cultural context of the late 1800s through the early 1900s. As Napawan et al. recently shared in Decolonizing the Language of Landscape Architecture, “the dearth of female landscape architects within the profession’s history is the result of exclusionary systems and practices that have prevented the acknowledgment of female contributions to the field, not merely on omission of individuals based on gender: in other words, the criteria by which greatness is defined in the field have been limited to characteristics that are historically male‐dominated” (Napawan et al., 2023). Given the rich history of women working in the landscape architecture profession or in education and organizational development related to the field, it seems reasonable to expect women to represent a larger proportion of practitioners. This article aims to stimulate discussion around this topic and support the career and leadership successes of women in landscape architecture by addressing the perceptions of women in the field and examining advanced career metrics. The ultimate goal of these efforts is a more inclusive and equitable landscape architecture community.
Literature Review
A growing body of literature has focused on gender equality and the opportunity gap between men and women in landscape architecture. In addition to research focused largely on the evolution of women in landscape architecture (Clements, 2012; Way, 2006; Komara, 2000; Madsen & Furlong, 1994, Nassauer, 1985), an increasing number of studies have tapped data from ASLA, CELA, LAAB, CLARB, and private surveys to produce a robust picture of the current status of women in practice and academia (Mortice, 2021; VELA Project, 2023; Clements, 2012; Hennigan & Carpenter, 1998; Browne, 1994; Nassauer, 1985; Rutz, 1977).
Early Profiles of Women in Landscape Architecture
In her article “Early Social Agendas of Women in Landscape Architecture,” Thaisa Way describes how female professional landscape architects in the 19th and early 20th centuries designed “diverse landscapes,” with a strong focus on residential design “to improve the lives of American residents.” Landscape architecture was considered an appropriate profession for women as many upper‐ and middle‐class women were well‐versed in drawing skills (Clements, 2012; Way, 2006) as well as botany and horticulture (Way, 2006; Komara, 2000). Women often shared their knowledge and skills by writing and editing garden publications. They gained additional gardening knowledge and expertise through reading and engaging in “grass‐roots exchange” with other amateur gardeners (Komara, 2000). Women were credited with having “expertise in domestic issues and, thus, authority in the design of such spaces and their use” and embracing a shared idea for a better quality of life (Way, 2006, 202). However, most women in practice didn’t succeed in designing beyond “the domestic garden scale” (Komara, 2000). The perception of suitability for such employment “was tied to the domesticity of the garden, a sort of outdoor branch of household management” (Madsen & Furlong, 1994; Komara, 2000). Women often became trapped in co‐ed offices doing only planting plans (Clements, 2012; Madison & Furlong, 1994), limiting the scope of their work and involvement with the ASLA (Komara, 2000).
Few schools readily trained women in landscape design. Those included the Lowthrope School of Landscape Architecture and the Cambridge School of Architectural and Landscape Design for Women in Cambridge, MA (Clements, 2012; Way, 2006; Komara, 2000). Women gained more notoriety in landscape architecture between 1920 and 1937, but much of this was lost in the Great Depression and during World War II, and after the war, many women were sent back into the home (Clements, 2012; Madsen & Furlong, 1994; Nassauer, 1985).
In the 1950s and 1960s, few women were studying landscape architecture, but the 1970s rebirth of the women’s movement and an emerging interest in ecology and the environment brought women back to landscape design programs (Clements, 2012; Madsen & Furlong, 1994). The ASLA became interested in the status of women in landscape architecture in the late 1960s, and in 1973, Darwina Neal, the first woman president of the ASLA, wrote the first report on women in the profession (Clements, 2012; Hennigan & Carpenter, 1998 Nassauer, 1985). Encouraged by Neal’s report, the ASLA initiated additional studies on women landscape architects, including the 1975 report by the ASLA Task Force Council on Education chaired by Miriam Rutz (Hennigan & Carpenter, 1998).
Women as Landscape Architecture Educators and Practitioners
In 1977, Miriam Rutz, an assistant professor of landscape architecture at Michigan State University, presented the paper “Where are the Women Educators?” at the CELA 1977 Annual Conference, held at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis (Rutz, 1977). Her paper reported on a 1974 survey by the joint CELA and ASLA Task Force on Women in Landscape Architecture, which surveyed landscape architecture schools to find out how many women were teaching landscape architecture and where they taught. The survey reported that only nine full‐time and eight part‐time educator positions were held by women nationwide. The survey also reported that over 500 women had received master’s degrees in landscape architecture. The task force issued a similar survey in 1977, revealing that only 15 women were teaching full‐time and 11 part‐time. It was reported that over 50% of the landscape architecture programs had no women on their faculty, even though department chairs claimed they were searching specifically for women to fill jobs. Rutz reported that according to the 1974 ASLA task force, 20% of the undergraduate students in landscape architecture were female, and 30% of the graduates were female. In 1977, 25% of the undergraduate students were female, and 39% of the graduates were female. Overall, the percentage of women teaching was reported to be below 5%.
In the 1985 Landscape Journal article “Managing Career and Family: The Experience of Women Landscape Architects,” Joan Nassauer focused on “the family experience of women landscape architects as it related to their career patterns” (31). In 1982, Nassauer surveyed women landscape architects and found that “respondent groups were stratified on family experience variables (age, marital and parental status).” Key findings included that “parental status was found to be most clearly related to career variables, including career behaviors, achievements, and perceptions, and that while married, ‘non‐parents’ reported that their family status affected their careers, the career achievements of this group were comparable to those of their non‐married peers” (Nassauer, 1985, 31). Married women who were parents tended to have lower incomes and less managerial responsibilities than other women in their age groups. Also, fewer women in the 25–29 age group practiced part‐time, but nearly two‐thirds of the women over age 54 were found to be part‐time practitioners. Nassauer said that “at least 52% of licensed female practitioners began their careers later” and that both men and women practitioners “struggle to mesh career ambitions with time and energy they want to give to their families” (31).
In the Fall 1994 special issue of Landscape Journal, Charlene Browne’s article “The Status of Women in Landscape Architecture: Findings, Perspectives and Strategies for the Future” focused on a survey of women’s career perceptions. During this time, Browne was the co‐chair and founder of the ASLA Open Committee on Women in Landscape Architecture (now the Women in Landscape Architecture Professional Practice Network), established in 1991. A professional and educator for more than a decade, Browne, together with her committee, developed a survey in 1992 to “obtain information about the perceptions, concerns and status of women in the profession of landscape architecture.” About 26% of the ASLA female members responded (688 responses). This survey included questions addressing 1) members’ general and professional backgrounds, 2) the importance of female mentor role models for professional development, 3) the adequacy of visibility and recognition for women in the profession, 4) the salary‐parity‐of‐pay issue, 5) women’s perceptions of discrimination in the workplace (its existence, the experience of it, and areas where it is prevalent), 6) job advancement issues (the existence of a glass ceiling), and 7) perceptions of management‐style differences between genders and the effects of these difference on job advancement. A summary of results included:
The longer women stay in the field, the more likely they are to be in the upper salary brackets.
Sixty‐five percent felt that a “glass ceiling” existed and that starting one’s firm was a way to deal with “glass ceiling” issues.
Most women were “somewhat satisfied” with their work environment.
In general, salaries were improving, but most respondents thought their salary was less than that of a man doing comparable work.
Approximately half of the respondents had experienced discrimination or harassment on the job, and 86% thought it was an ongoing issue.
Twenty‐three percent of respondents reported having a female role model.
Strategies for the future included:
Women taking a more proactive role in their professional development, including self‐promotion of their work, and pressing the issue that work and family life are not in competition.
Exploring more daycare options and opportunities for flexible work hours.
Developing strong networks of women in design professions.
Supporting ASLA’s efforts in ensuring that women are represented on boards and committees.
The 1994 report produced by the ASLA Women in Landscape Architecture Open Committee reported that the “glass ceiling” may have been cracked but remains in place as many biases still exist, including salary disparity between men and women for comparable work (Komara, 2000, 29; Browne, 1994, 102).
More Emerging Trends
In 1998, Valorie Hennigan, a Master of Landscape Architecture thesis student, and Jot D. Carpenter, a professor of landscape architecture, both at Ohio State University, conducted a study that assessed ASLA’s annual membership and governing structure at the national level. The thesis study, which reported on data collected between 1899 and 1995, indicated “that women have been members of ASLA since its beginning and have steadily increased their numbers.” It stated that women entered ASLA’s governing structure in the 1930s through state chapter offices and advanced to national‐level offices by the late 1970s. However, the study also reported a disproportionately low number of women who achieved elevation to the status of fellow during this time frame.
In 2012, Terry Clements repeated the question “Where are the women in landscape architecture?” in her essay by the same name. Clements provided a short timeline, historical narrative, and statistics (1997) of women in the landscape architecture field as reported by CLARB. Survey respondents were registered landscape architects from the United States and Canada. An item of interest was that “at least 52% of licensed female practitioners began their careers later.” Women were following a different career track than men. Clements’s essay states that “between 56% and 65% of women 55 to 65 years of age in 1997 began their landscape architecture careers after turning forty.”
The VELA Project
In 2020, the team of T. J. Marston, principal at PLOT Studio and visiting instructor at Florida International University, and Samantha Solano, principal at Juxtopos and assistant professor at the University of Las Vegas, created the VELA Project, a women‐led research collaborative focused on data about women in landscape architecture. They collected data from multiple landscape architecture sources, including ASLA and the LAAB. The VELA Project reported on the fact that even though 55% of landscape architecture graduates are women (2021), only 15% of firms identify as women‐led. Furthermore, data examined from 1981–2018 showed that “less than 10% of the ASLA Professional Awards have gone to women‐led firms.” In total, the team aggregated over 17,000 data points on women.
In 2021, Solano and Marston examined academia and found that it “may be a more equitable environment for women than professional practice” (Mortice, 2021). The researchers found that 45% of tenure‐track assistant professors (2020) identified as women, but only 28% of full professors identified as women. Also, “across all faculty levels, more women were nontenured than tenured (43% versus 39%, respectively).” They attributed this disparity to the need for more career flexibility. Nevertheless, they did note that academic salaries were comparable between women and men in the survey’s setting of public universities, which must adhere to regulations and transparency rules (Mortice, 2021).
Methods
Perceptions of Women in the Landscape Architecture Survey
The authors of this article served together as officers on the CELA Executive Board between 2015 and 2021. When their terms ended, the board had no female representation. Out of curiosity for the lack of female representation on the board, the authors created a survey and distributed it through CELA. The survey asked the same six questions across four different sectors of male and female educators: 1) educators in landscape architecture programs, 2) educators who have held an executive office in CELA, 3) educators who have received CELA awards, and 4) educators who have been elevated to the CELA Academy of Fellows. The following yes/no, multiple‐choice, and open‐ended questions were asked:
Do you believe there is a difference between the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture programs? (Yes/No)
If “yes,” how would you describe the difference in the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture programs? (Significantly more males/ More males/ Equal/ More females/ Significantly more females)
What beliefs and social trends (e.g., lack of family support) do you think might have constrained the number of women in landscape architecture programs? (open‐ended response)
What beliefs and/or social trends (e.g., diversity hire initiatives) do you think have enhanced the number of women in landscape architecture programs? (open‐ended response)
What interventions (e.g., mentorships) do you believe need to happen to increase the number of women in landscape architecture programs? (open‐ended response)
Do you know of any evidence that supports the efficacy of these interventions? (open‐ended response)
The survey was accessible through the CELA website from January 17, 2021, to February 07, 2022. In addition, CELA sent three emails to all of its members urging them to participate in the survey. The authors presented the survey findings at the CELA 2022 Annual Conference. In 2023, historical data was collected from CELA, ASLA, and CLARB, including on the demographics of the field’s academic and professional positions and leadership, awards, and fellows. The researchers reformulated all of the collected data into an interactive presentation for the CELA 2023 Annual Conference and used Mentimeter (an online app with real‐time feedback) to ask the audience additional questions concerning the data they presented.
Survey Results
Demographics
The first part of the survey focused on participant demographics. The gender distribution of the respondents was 67% female and 31% male (Figure 1).
Gender of survey respondents.
The survey revealed that 19% of the respondents held an assistant professor position, 38% were associate professors, and 43% were full professors (Figure 2); 68% of the respondents held a master’s degree, while 31% held a PhD. Most survey respondents had taught in higher education for 10–19 years, followed by 20–29 years and 5–9 years. Among the respondents, 78% held tenured positions, while 22% were nontenured. Most professors were primarily engaged in teaching at the bachelor’s and master’s levels, with over 80% of them being full‐time faculty.
Rank of survey respondents.
Data on 2023 ASLA membership also reveals that the number of female members surpasses male members only in the student and associate categories (Table 1). While the gender distribution of male and female full members is 62% versus 35%, a select group of full members who are elevated to the fellowship status, called the ASLA Council of Fellows, are 77% male versus 23% female.
ASLA membership gender distribution (ASLA 2023)
Since 2017, CLARB has been collecting and tracking demographic data voluntarily. This data encompasses all current CLARB Council Record holders, including exam candidates and licensees. The candidate population appears more diverse than the licensee population (Figure 3). In 2019, CLARB added the gender response option of “non‐binary,” which has thus far been selected solely by members of the candidate population, comprising less than 1% of the total population.
CLARB data on gender distribution of candidates and licensees (CLARB, 2023).
Survey respondents demonstrated a strong commitment to service. Although representatives from almost all allied organizations participated, notable involvement was seen in CELA and ASLA. More professors served in ASLA than CELA. Additionally, less than half of the respondents engaged in state‐level service, with participation ranging from 41% to 59%.
Education
The survey included questions regarding the perception of the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture programs. This section includes survey results on the perceived differences in male and female faculty, data collected by LAAB on actual female and male faculty, and student enrollment data. Tracking faculty in education is important because the recruitment of students is often linked to relatability with the faculty body in a program. The student data is important because it serves as an indicator for the long‐term health of the profession.
The survey asked if respondents believed a difference exists between the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture programs. Eighty‐nine percent of the survey respondents selected “yes,” and 11% selected “no” (n = 93). In addition, 27% of the respondents indicated that they thought there were “significantly more males,” 61% of respondents thought there were “more males,” and 10% thought there was an “equal” number; .09% indicated there were “more females” among educators in landscape architecture programs (Figure 4).
Percent of responses on the perceived disparity in the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture programs.
Looking at what beliefs or social trends may have constrained women in landscape architecture programs (Figure 5), the top responses included:
Women in leadership positions and female role models are lacking in the field.
The burden of childcare and family obligations falls on women, leading to delayed or interrupted careers.
Landscape architecture spaces are male dominated, and the perception that men are more likely to hire and/or mentor men can lead to women feeling less comfortable in those spaces.
Unequal pay for women is often the result of late career starts or restarted careers because of family obligations.
Delaying one’s career because of other obligations is a personal choice.
Beliefs and social trends that have constrained women in landscape architecture programs (image courtesy of Helena Starnes).
Social trends and interventions that have increased the number of women in landscape architecture programs include:
Having more women in leadership roles.
Utilization of diversity hires.
Mentoring opportunities for women.
Flexible work that accommodates childcare and family.
During the 2023 CELA panel discussion, attendees were asked through Mentimeter about social trends and interventions to increase the number of women in landscape architecture programs. Based on the survey results, most attendees chose flexible work, followed by more women in leadership roles.
LAAB collected data on faculty in its 2022 annual report (LAAB, 2023). The results were based on 1,110 total faculty members at accredited U.S. institutions. The information was broken down by non‐tenure‐track faculty and tenure‐track faculty. The data revealed that 42% of non‐tenure‐track positions were held by women, and 58% were held by men. LAAB reported 470 tenure‐track positions broken down by rank. Out of 141 professors, 39% were female. Of 208 associate professors, 40% were female, and out of 121 assistant professors, 60% were female (Figure 6).
LAAB 2022 annual data showing the percentage of male and female tenure‐track faculty by rank (LAAB, 2023).
While the increase in the number of assistant professors is promising for advancing women in landscape architecture programs, Mentimeter results indicated that the factors most constraining women from advancing in rank were a lack of support from hiring committees and upper administrations and a lack of mentoring and role models. These trends could lead to fewer women becoming associate and full professors over time.
LAAB also collected student data in its 2022 annual report. Out of 5,821 enrolled students, 50% of undergraduates were female, and 66% of graduates were female. Like the increase in female assistant professors, this is a positive indicator for women entering the profession. However, the gap in women who achieve advanced career metrics, such as rank, is a glaring one.
Leadership
Another career metric in professional organizations is leadership, which indicates that someone has the experience and ambition to lead. The survey looked at perceptions of leadership within CELA, and data was collected on actual leadership in both CELA and ASLA. Information was also collected through Mentimeter during the CELA panel discussion. For the purposes of this article, leadership includes serving as an executive officer or president of a national or international organization. The survey asked whether respondents believed there was a difference between the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture that had been elected to office within CELA. Ninety percent of the survey respondents selected “yes,” and 10% of the survey respondents selected “no” (n = 95). In addition, 21% of the respondents indicated that they thought there were “significantly more males” in office, 58% of respondents thought there were “more males,” and 7% thought there were “more females,” while 5% thought there had been an “equal” number (Figure 7).
Percentage of respondents on the perceived difference between the number of male and female educators elected to office within CELA.
When asked what social trends have constrained female educators from holding a leadership role within CELA, the top responses included programs or people failing to make CELA a priority, its male‐dominated leadership, the needed time commitment for such a role, and a lack of female nominations for positions. Social trends and interventions that might increase the number of women landscape architecture educators in CELA’s leadership roles included (Figure 8):
Having more women in the industry.
Providing benefits or career growth opportunities in support of leadership.
A change in the culture and perception of CELA.
Nominating more women.
Social trends and interventions that might increase the number of women in landscape architecture to serve as leaders in CELA (image courtesy of Helena Starnes).
Mentimeter data asked attendees at the presentation to indicate what they thought might be preventing women from taking CELA leadership roles. Options for the Mentimeter survey were offered according to the top answers from the survey. An equal number of respondents indicated that CELA is male‐dominated and that it represents a significant time commitment. Two respondents indicated they have never been nominated to these positions. When asked whether attendees or women they worked with had the support they needed to advance in leadership, the responses were equally split between “yes” and “no.”
A search of executive officer records for both CELA and ASLA was conducted. From 2005 to 2021, the percentage of female CELA presidents was 43%, but women occupied only 24% of executive officer positions such as treasurer, VP for awards, secretary, and VP for research. For ASLA, the VELA Project reports that between 2016 and 2019, only 31% of chapter presidents were female; between 1901 and 2018, only 12% of ASLA presidents were female (Marston et al., 2018) (Figure 9).
Number of male and female leaders in ASLA and CELA. Considering that more than half the students in landscape architecture are female, women lag behind their male peers in leadership roles and career advancement.
Awards
In academia, awards have always been significant. They are indicators of outstanding academic performance and contributions. Awards have also played an important role in individuals’ evaluation, tenure and promotion, and pursuit of higher academic positions. The survey investigated perceptions of awards recipients in CELA. The data was then collected to compare and contrast CELA and ASLA award recipients, after which Mentimeter provided additional insights from panel discussion attendees during the CELA 2023 Annual Conference. The survey asked whether respondents believed there was a disparity in the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture receiving CELA awards. Seventy‐seven percent of the respondents said “yes,” and 23% selected “no.” Of those selecting “yes,” 48% believed there were more male recipients of CELA awards, and 33% indicated that there were significantly more male recipients. In comparison, 19% believed there were equal numbers of male and female CELA award recipients (Figure 10).
Responses (in percentages) on the perceived differences between the number of male and female CELA award recipients.
When asked what social trends have resulted in fewer female landscape architecture educators receiving CELA awards, the most cited responses included the view that the current nomination process may be biased or political, men may be more likely to nominate themselves, women lack support from organizations and institutions, and more women are constrained by family obligations. When prompted to indicate what social trends are needed to improve the number of female recipients of CELA awards, the most frequently cited responses included more female representation in CELA, support from other women and administrations, and increasing female faculty mentorship (Figure 11).
Building bridges for professional development through awards for women in landscape architecture (image courtesy of Helena Starnes).
The research investigated actual data on award recipients within ASLA. Overall, the data indicated a higher number of male recipients in the different categories of ASLA awards, confirming similar trends in the perceptions of CELA survey respondents. The ASLA Medal is the highest honor the ASLA bestows upon a landscape architect whose lifetime achievements and contributions to the profession have had a unique and lasting impact on the welfare of the public and the environment. The ASLA Medal recipients as of August 2022 were 85% (n = 44) male compared to 15% (n = 8) female (ASLA, 2022).
The gender distribution of the other ASLA Honors recipients is as follows:
The ASLA Design Medal: 75% (n = 15) of the recipients were male compared to 25% (n = 5) female.
The Jot D. Carpenter Medal: 77% (n = 17) of the recipients were male compared to 23% (n = 5) female.
The Community Service Award: 79% (n = 11) of the recipients were male compared to 21% (n = 3) female.
The Lagasse Medal: 78% (n = 47) of the recipients were male compared to 22% (n = 13) female.
The ASLA Emerging Professionals: 67% of the recipients were female (n = 2) compared to 33% (n = 1) male.
The Bradford Williams Medal indicates a consistent trend of a higher number of male recipients: 59% (n = 30), compared to 41% (n = 21) of female recipients.
Women are underrepresented in all ASLA awards categories except for the Emerging Professionals Award (67%). Looking at all of the ASLA categories of landscape architects receiving honors as of August 2022, a significant disparity exists between male and female award recipients, with 75% (n = 200) male recipients compared to 25% (n = 66) female.
Mentimeter provided further insights from attendees during the interactive panel presentation at the CELA 2023 Annual Conference. When asked their opinion of the most significant impediments to women being nominated for CELA awards, the most cited factor was a lack of administrative support, followed equally by high workloads and a lack of mentorship. Another question asked of audience members who identified as female was whether they would feel comfortable asking to be nominated for CELA awards; 62% (n = 5) indicated “yes,” and 38% (n = 3) indicated “no.” When asked their opinions about how to increase the number of women receiving CELA awards, the audience provided a number of insights, including:
A cultural shift toward a nonbinary way of understanding DEI.
Encouraging women in both professional practice and education to pursue award nomination.
More mentorship and support.
More efforts to nominate women.
Requiring male and female nominees for each award.
Encouraging more men to advocate for and nominate women.
Fellows
The survey asked about the perception of male and female equality within the CELA Academy of Fellows and the ASLA Council of Fellows. What is a fellow? A fellowship is among the highest honors CELA bestows on its members. The designation of “fellow” is conferred upon senior faculty in recognition of exceptional accomplishments over a sustained period of time. Elevation to the status of fellow recognizes faculty contributions based on teaching, research, and service. The survey asked whether respondents believed there was a difference between the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture that had been elevated to the CELA Academy of Fellows. Ninety percent of the survey respondents selected “yes” (n = 93). In addition, 9% of the respondents indicated that they thought the numbers were equal, 34% indicated that “more males” were made fellows, and 49% indicated that there were “significantly more male” fellows (Figure 12).
Percent of responses on the perceived differences in the number of male and female members of the CELA Academy of Fellows.
In looking at what beliefs or social trends have constrained the number of women in landscape architecture from being elevated to the CELA Academy of Fellows, the top responses included that men nominate more male colleagues. It was also mentioned that women may be less familiar with the process. It was also stated “that the problem can/will resolve itself.” Additionally, several respondents wanted to know, “Where are the fellows? What do they do? How do you become a fellow?” The researchers thought that it was interesting that 10+ survey respondents indicated in some way that they didn’t know what a CELA fellow was, what they did, or how a CELA member became a fellow. Using Mentimeter, the panel asked the audience if they knew how a CELA member is nominated and elected to become a fellow. The majority indicated that they were not familiar with the process. So, how are the CELA fellows elected? A short description of the process was described to the audience:
Nominees should demonstrate teaching, research, and/or service excellence.
They must have been faculty members for at least ten years at a CELA member school (or schools) in good standing.
CELA fellows may nominate up to two faculty members each.
The CELA Board of Directors may nominate up to two faculty members.
The Academy of Fellows Executive Committee may nominate up to two faculty members.
CELA fellows in good standing may vote for up to five nominees.
Up to five new fellows are elected each year.
The audience thought that more men were chosen to be CELA fellows primarily because there are more men in the landscape architecture field. Additional responses included that fewer women meet the requirements, and women are less likely to seek recognition and elevation to the Academy of Fellows. When asked, “What beliefs and/or social trends have enhanced the number of women in landscape architecture programs?” and “What interventions do you believe need to happen?”, “Increasing mentorship for women” was the number one comment, followed by “Increasing the presence of women in the CELA.” Additional comment themes being chosen in high numbers included: changes to the nomination process to be more inclusive, increasing awareness of what a fellow is, and female fellows’ use of FCELA in their signature lines.
The survey also asked about the ASLA Council of Fellows. Did the respondents believe there was a difference between the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture that have been elevated to ASLA fellow? Here, 90% of the survey respondents indicated “yes,” they did think there was a difference; 7% indicated “no,” they did not think there was a difference; and 3% indicated that they were unsure (n = 68). Those indicating “yes” were asked to describe the difference in the number of male and female educators in landscape architecture that have been elevated to ASLA fellow. Of the 66 respondents, 8% (n = 5) perceived the number of males and females as “equal,” 66 % (n = 44) indicated there were “more male” ASLA fellows, and 26% (n = 17) indicated that there were “significantly more male” fellows (Figure 13).
Responses (in percentages) on the perceived differences in the number of male and female ASLA fellows.
The survey compared the number of active ASLA and CELA female and male members elevated to fellow from 2006 to 2021. It was a surprise that the number of male fellows for both organizations was approximately 70%, and the number of female members for both organizations was approximately 30%. These numbers are interesting due to the large difference in membership numbers. ASLA shows 475 active fellows between 2006 and 2021, and CELA shows 82 active fellows between 2006 and 2021. These are two landscape architecture organizations with two very different fellowship processes. The common denominator is the shared profession of the two organizations, whether the fellow is an educator or professional. The key assumption is that “women (in general) are underrepresented in landscape architecture.” The number of active ASLA and CELA female and male members elevated to fellow from 2006 to 2022 was also compared. Could one year make a difference? In the ASLA, the percentage of female fellows dropped from 31% in 2021 to 28% in 2022, and the percentage of male fellows rose from 69% to 72%. However, in CELA, the percentage of female fellows rose from 30% to 33% in 2022, and male fellows dropped from 70% to 67% (Figure 14). The reason for these decreases and increases needs to be clarified. Still, the CELA board did make a concerted effort in 2021 to increase the awareness of gender equity in the board’s composition, the CELA awards, and the CELA Academy of Fellows. These percentages fluctuate from year to year (Figure 15).
Gender distribution of ASLA and CELA fellows, 2022.
Average percentages (combined) of ASLA and CELA fellows who are men and women, 2022 (image courtesy of Helena Starnes).
The final Mentimeter question was how CELA could support qualified members (men and women) to be nominated for CELA fellowships. A multi‐tiered approach was suggested that included CELA holding networking sessions for those men and women who would like to become fellows. Another suggestion is the use of CELA membership data to organize and make a list of those who are qualified to become fellows and having the CELA Academy of Fellows plan information sessions on becoming a fellow.
In summary, CELA and ASLA have more male than female fellows, possibly due to the higher number of males in the profession. It may also be that not everyone knows the road to becoming a fellow. As women advance in the profession, strategies to make membership selection more equitable include holding information and networking sessions at annual conferences.
Conclusion
Preparing the Next Generation of Women Leaders
As represented in this article, barriers and challenges to gender equity persist, hindering the progress toward achieving true parity in landscape architecture. Preparing a diverse generation of landscape architecture leaders will entail support and mentorship from current leaders, more equitable selection for recognition, and more flexible work arrangements for work‐life balance.
Mentorship as a catalyst for success
Our research indicates that one of the key factors contributing to the professional growth of women in landscape architecture is the availability of mentorship opportunities. While mentoring relationships can be valuable for any individual at any stage of a career, they hold particular importance for women, who often encounter unique obstacles. Establishing mentorship programs and fostering supportive networks can assist women in navigating the profession’s intricacies, providing guidance, and offering significant help, particularly during the early years of their careers. Encouraging current leaders to actively engage in mentorship initiatives for women could help pave the way. Allied organizations have moved forward with mentoring programs. For example, the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) offers mentorship programs with various criteria related to stage of career, focus, and mentee expectations. They also offer a mentorship program specifically geared toward doctoral students and workshops for faculty seeking to be full professors. It is unclear how successful these programs are. Another similar program is by Mentorship for Women in Architecture, which offers a seminar series to encourage young women in architecture to stay on track to thrive in the profession. ASLA’s Women in Landscape Architecture Professional Practice Network (WILA PPN) provides informal mentorship on how women can find a network of other women landscape designers. ASLA also recently introduced the Women of Color Licensure Advancement Program, with mentoring and financial support for minority women seeking to become licensed. More programs, including those focusing on mentoring professionals in academia, are needed for improved gender diversity within the profession.
Promoting equitable recognition and pay
Achieving gender equity in landscape architecture necessitates addressing the issue of unequal pay. Women continue to face wage disparities compared to their male counterparts. Awards and leadership positions play an important role in pay rate. Recognizing, nominating, and celebrating the contributions of women professionals through awards, promotions, and leadership opportunities are important measures toward establishing a more inclusive profession.
Navigating family obligations and ensuring work‐life balance
The balance between work and family obligations remains a significant challenge for women in landscape architecture. The external pressures associated with caregiving responsibilities often place added strain on women, impacting their career trajectories and overall well‐being. Providing flexible work arrangements, implementing family‐friendly policies, and promoting a culture of work‐life balance can alleviate the burden faced by women.
In conclusion, this research emphasizes the need to address the challenges faced by women’s representation in landscape architecture. By recognizing and understanding issues related to mentorship, office environments, equitable pay, family obligations, and work‐life balance, the profession can achieve greater inclusivity and diversity. Although we lack consistent documentation of the metrics for women in the profession and at advanced stages of their careers, the authors intend to continue this research to create longitudinal data for improved diversity.
Summary
The general perception across all sectors of advanced career metrics in landscape architecture is that women are underrepresented. While female students comprise over 50% of those pursuing degrees in the field and women make up 60% of assistant professors of landscape architecture, various gaps still exist in professional development. Women are underrepresented among those achieving licensure (32%), associate professor rank (40%), and full professor rank (39%). Mentorship and networking are perceived as playing a key role in gaining equality across all sectors. Professional organizations such as ACSP’s Faculty Mentoring Program, ASLA’s Women in Landscape Architecture Professional Practice Network, and the Women of Color Licensure Advancement Program serve as positive signs that mentorship opportunities are being developed for women in the profession. More nominations of women to become leaders, receive awards, and attain fellow status should help increase female representation. Better pay and diverse working conditions that allow for childcare and family obligations may be key to increasing the representation of women in academia and the profession. Ideas such as the CELA fellow networking sessions for those (men and women) who would like to become fellows, the use of CELA membership data to organize and make a list of those who are qualified to become fellows, and having the CELA Academy of Fellows plan information sessions on becoming a fellow would go a long way toward increasing the total number of female CELA fellows and building a path toward equity in the profession.
Peer Review Statement
Landscape Journal uses a double‐blind peer review process for research manuscripts, systematic literature reviews, and other article types.
Websites
https://www.acsp.org/page/MentoringApplication
https://www.acsp.org/page/WorkshopDoctoral
https://www.acsp.org/page/MentoringWorkshop
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Helena Starnes from Auburn University and Maryam Ansari from the University of Georgia for their contributions to this manuscript.
This open‐access article is distributed under the terms of the CC‐BY‐NC‐ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) and is freely available online at: https://lj.uwpress.org