1. 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

2. Copyright by
Lisa L. Russell
2012

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.)

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 11
Figure 1. The sixteen landscapes presented in the survey.

20. 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.

21. 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).

22. 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);

23. 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

24. 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
POP-3
POP-5
POP-8
POP-2
POP-4
POP-7
POP-6
POP-1
HI-7
HI-4
HI-1
HI-6
HI-5
HI-3
HI-8
HI-2
Unattractive-Attractive
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.

25. 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.

26. 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).

27. 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
POP-5
POP-8
POP-4
POP-2
POP-1
POP-6
POP-3
POP-7
HI-7
HI-8
HI-1
HI-6
HI-4
HI-3
HI-2
HI-5
Boring-Exciting
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.

28. 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.

29. 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
POP-3
POP-2
POP-7
POP-5
POP-4
POP-8
POP-6
POP-1
HI-7
HI-4
HI-1
HI-6
HI-5
HI-2
HI-8
HI-3
Disturbing-Restful
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).

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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)

38. 30
Appendix A: The Survey

39. 31

40. 32

41. 33

42. 34

43. 35

44. 36

45. 37

46. 38

47. 39

48. 40

49. 41

50. 42

51. 43

52. 44

53. 45

54. 46

55. 47

56. 48

57. 49