A Nationwide Survey of Landscape Architecture Professionals’ Perception and Implementation of Sustainable Design

Quenton Bortmas; Wonmin Sohn; Guanqi Lu; Jun‐Hyun Kim

doi:10.3368/lj.44.2.1

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1
Spatial distribution of survey respondents across the United States. Note: The numbers depict sample size by region.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 2
Research design.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 3
Response distribution of the perceived importance of five sustainable design themes. Note: X indicates the mean. The box plot depicts the minimum, maximum, first quartile, and third quartile. For each category, the letters a through c denote similar groups.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 4
Perception of importance and application frequency of sustainable practices for: a) heat reduction, b) CO₂ sequestration, c) stormwater management, d) habitat restoration, and e) social justice. Note: X indicates the mean. The box plot depicts the minimum, maximum, first quartile, and third quartile. For each category, the letters a through c or a’ through c’ denote similar groups.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 5
The results of the OLS models predicting the perceived importance of the five sustainable design themes, based on sociodemographic and firm characteristics. Note: The scale represents the nonstandardized coefficients. The degrees of freedom range from 180 to 200. ∙p < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 6
The results of the OLS models predicting the perceived importance and application frequency of the sustainable design practices of (a) heat reduction, (b) CO₂ sequestration, (c) stormwater management, (d) habitat restoration, and (e) social justice, based on sociodemographic and firm characteristics. Note: The scale represents the nonstandardized coefficients. The degrees of freedom range from 170 to 210. ∙p < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Tables

Figures

View popup

Table 1.

Research Construct

Construct	Variables	Measurement
Perception of Importance of Five Sustainable Design Themes	Perception of Design Themes	Likert Scale (0–10)
Importance and Application of 23 Sustainable Design Practices per Theme	Perception of Importance of Design Practices for the Theme of:
	Heat reduction	Likert scale (0–10)
	CO₂ sequestration	Likert scale (0–10)
	Stormwater management	Likert scale (0–10)
	Habitat restoration	Likert scale (0–10)
	Social justice	Likert scale (0–10)
	Application Frequency of Design Practices for the Theme of:
	Heat reduction	Likert scale (0–10)
	CO₂ sequestration	Likert scale (0–10)
	Stormwater management	Likert scale (0–10)
	Habitat restoration	Likert scale (0–10)
	Social justice	Likert scale (0–10)
Facilitators and Barriers for Five Sustainable Design Themes	Facilitators	Nominal
	Client interest/Demand	Recognition for work
	Government incentives	Marketing differentiation
	Resource availability	Long‐term cost savings
	Networking	Environmental stewardship
	Barriers	Nominal
	Lack of knowledge	Uncertain cost savings
	Practice too new	Resource availability
	Tight timeline	Maintenance
	Political pushback	Budget constraints
	Public awareness	Regulatory hurdles
	Client interest/Demand	Competition

View popup

Table 2.

Facilitators for Practicing Sustainable Design Themes

Facilitator	Heat Reduction (n = 225)	CO₂ Sequestration (n = 225)	Stormwater Management (n = 225)	Habitat Restoration (n = 225)	Social Justice (n = 225)
Client Interest/Demand	68.9% (155)	49.3% (111)	78.7% (177)	67.6% (152)	54.2% (122)
Government Incentives	45.8% (103)	43.6% (98)	66.7% (150)	48.0% (108)	40.0% (90)
Resource Availability	39.1% (88)	36.9% (83)	58.7% (132)	50.2% (113)	25.3% (57)
Networking	30.7% (69)	28.0% (63)	46.2% (104)	40.0% (90)	33.8% (76)
Recognition for Work	31.6% (71)	29.8% (67)	46.2% (104)	37.3% (84)	28.0% (63)
Marketing Differentiation	26.7% (60)	24.9% (56)	42.7% (96)	39.6% (89)	32.4% (73)
Long‐Term Cost Savings	53.3% (120)	36.0% (81)	72.0% (162)	36.0% (81)	19.1% (43)
Environmental Stewardship	67.6% (152)	63.6% (143)	82.7% (186)	82.2% (185)	35.1% (79)

Note: The count is in parentheses. Higher percentages denote a greater effect on landscape architecture.

View popup

Table 3.

Barriers to Practicing Sustainable Design Themes

Barrier	Heat Reduction (n = 225)	CO₂ Sequestration (n = 225)	Stormwater Management (n = 225)	Habitat Restoration (n = 225)	Social Justice (n = 225)
Lack of Knowledge	21.8% (49)	38.2% (86)	16.4% (37)	24.9% (56)	35.6% (80)
Practice Too New	14.7% (33)	27.6% (62)	9.8% (22)	16.0% (36)	23.6% (53)
Tight Timeline	20.4% (46)	29.8% (67)	18.2% (41)	29.3% (66)	32.0% (72)
Political Pushback	28.0% (63)	34.7% (78)	25.3% (57)	32.0% (72)	35.1% (79)
Lack of Public Awareness	41.8% (94)	52.4% (118)	36.0% (81)	43.6% (98)	48.9% (110)
Lack of Client Demand/Interest	60.0% (135)	72.9% (164)	50.2% (113)	66.2% (149)	61.3% (138)
Uncertain Cost Savings	83.6% (188)	52.9% (119)	35.6% (80)	45.8% (103)	48.4% (109)
Limited Resource Availability	21.3% (48)	34.2% (77)	16.4% (37)	21.3% (48)	12.9% (29)
Maintenance	32.4% (73)	31.6% (71)	52.0% (117)	61.3% (138)	16.0% (36)
Budget Constraints	62.2% (140)	70.2% (158)	58.7% (132)	68.9% (155)	48.0% (108)
Regulatory Hurdles	21.3% (48)	25.8% (58)	30.2% (68)	25.8% (58)	18.2% (41)
Competition	16.4% (37)	17.8% (40)	13.8% (31)	17.3% (39)	18.7% (42)

Note: The count is in parentheses. Higher percentages denote a greater effect on landscape architecture.

View popup

Table A‐1.

Sociodemographic and Firm Characteristics of the Sample of US Landscape Design Firms

Variable	Sample (n = 225)	Missing
Gender		2 (0.9%)
Male	122 (54.2%)
Female	84 (37.3%)
Other	17 (7.6%)
Age		2 (0.9%)
<30	14 (6.2%)
30–39	52 (23.1%)
40–49	53 (23.6%)
50–59	104 (46.2%)
60+	0 (0.0%)
Ethnicity		4 (1.8%)
White	187 (83.1%)
Nonwhite	34 (15.1%)
Highest Education		0 (0.0%)
Undergraduate Degree in Landscape Architecture	112 (49.8%)
Graduate Degree in Landscape Architecture	86 (38.2%)
Undergraduate Degree in a Related Field	5 (2.2%)
Graduate Degree in a Related Field	22 (9.8%)
Registered		1 (0.4%)
Yes	195 (86.7%)
No	29 (12.9%)
Unit/Department		0 (0.0%)
Landscape/Urban Design	179 (79.6%)
Architecture	1 (0.4%)
Construction	2 (0.9%)
Planning	13 (5.8%)
Other	30 (13.3%)
Role		1 (0.4%)
President or Principal	89 (39.6%)
Associate Principal	14 (6.2%)
Landscape Architect	78 (34.7%)
Landscape Designer	20 (8.9%)
Other	23 (10.2%)
Duration of Practical Experience		1 (0.4%)
<5 Years	21 (9.3%)
6–10 Years	26 (11.6%)
11–15 Years	33 (14.7%)
16–20 Years	31 (13.8%)
21–25 Years	26 (11.6%)
26–30 Years	16 (7.1%)
30+ Years	71 (31.6%)
Current Office Experience		0 (0.0%)
<5 Years	79 (35.1%)
6–10 Years	49 (21.8%)
11–15 Years	28 (12.4%)
16–20 Years	24 (10.7%)
21–25 Years	17 (7.6%)
26–30 Years	11 (4.9%)
30+ Years	17 (7.6%)
Employees in Office		1 (0.4%)
<5	60 (26.7%)
5–10	41 (18.2%)
11–20	27 (12.0%)
21–30	25 (11.1%)
31–40	9 (4.0%)
41–50	12 (5.3%)
51–60	7 (3.1%)
60+	43 (19.1%)
Office Years of Operation		2 (0.9%)
<5 Years	18 (8.0%)
5–10 Years	16 (7.1%)
11–20 Years	33 (14.7%)
21–30 Years	35 (15.6%)
31–40 Years	38 (16.9%)
40+ Years	83 (36.9%)
Primary Project Types		0 (0.0%)
Natural Environment	70 (31.1%)
Built Environment	190 (84.4%)
Social Environment	133 (59.1%)
Cultural or Historical Environment	69 (30.7%)
Other	34 (15.1%)
Area of Practice*		0 (0.0%)
Citywide	92 (40.9%)
Statewide	114 (50.7%)
Regional	130 (57.8%)
National	69 (30.7%)
International	35 (15.6%)
Primary Clientele		3 (1.3%)
Private Sector	101 (44.9%)
Public Sector	91 (40.4%)
Other	30 (13.3%)
Non‐LA Services Offered*		48 (21.3%)
Civil Engineering	74 (32.9%)
Architecture	43 (19.1%)
Interior Design	29 (12.9%)
Urban Design	102 (45.3%)
Urban and Regional Planning	96 (42.7%)
Landscape Management	34 (15.1%)
Other	47 (20.9%)
Region		0 (0.0%)
West	52 (23.1%)
Midwest	47 (20.9%)
South	105 (46.7%)
Northeast	21 (9.3%)
Division		0 (0.0%)
Pacific (West)	25 (11.1%)
Mountain (West)	27 (12.0%)
West North Central (Midwest)	12 (5.3%)
East North Central (Midwest)	35 (15.6%)
West South Central (South)	30 (13.3%)
East South Central (South)	17 (7.6%)
South Atlantic (South)	58 (25.8%)
Middle Atlantic (Northeast)	11 (4.9%)
New England (Northeast)	10 (4.4%)