The pivotal 2002 CELA conference that established landscape architecture as a legitimate research discipline
Imagine a room filled with creative minds who usually think about aesthetics, form, and beauty suddenly debating research methodologies, statistical significance, and knowledge claims.
Before 2002, landscape architecture was primarily viewed as an artistic discipline focused on aesthetics and form rather than systematic research.
The GroundWork conference marked a shift toward establishing landscape architecture as a research-based discipline with measurable outcomes.
This was the scene in September 2002 at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, where the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA) held its annual meeting under the theme "GroundWork." Far from just another academic gathering, this conference represented a pivotal identity crisis for an entire profession—the moment landscape architecture had to prove it wasn't just an art, but a legitimate research discipline worthy of academic respect.
"How does designing landscapes actually generate new knowledge?" This question would reshape how landscape architects are trained, how they work, and how they contribute to solving complex environmental problems 7 .
At the heart of the GroundWork discussions was a methodological breakthrough: the formalization of "Research Through Designing" (RTD) as a legitimate academic approach. Unlike traditional scientific methods that seek to eliminate researcher bias, RTD recognizes that the act of designing itself can be a robust research method when properly structured and documented 7 .
Think of it this way: when a landscape architect designs a park to manage stormwater runoff, they're not just creating something beautiful—they're essentially testing a hypothesis about how water flows, how plants filter pollutants, and how people interact with natural systems. The finished design becomes both a solution to a practical problem and a knowledge-generating experiment that can be studied and learned from 7 .
For decades, landscape architecture had existed in an academic no-man's-land—too scientific for the arts, too artistic for the sciences. This identity crisis had real consequences. Faculty in landscape architecture programs often found themselves at a disadvantage in university settings that valued traditional research outputs like publications in peer-reviewed journals .
The data tells a sobering story: a study of landscape architecture faculty research productivity found that only 6% averaged one or more peer-reviewed articles per year over a ten-year period, while 20% published just one article per decade. A staggering 46% didn't publish any peer-reviewed articles at all . This publication gap wasn't necessarily due to laziness—it reflected a fundamental confusion about what constituted legitimate research in their field and how to evaluate it.
To understand what Research Through Designing looks like in practice, consider a hypothetical study that might have been presented at GroundWork—one examining how different landscape designs reduce urban heat island effect. This was precisely the type of pragmatic, problem-focused research that the conference championed.
The methodology would be straightforward but rigorous:
The key innovation here isn't just in the data collection, but in viewing the landscape designs themselves as experimental treatments. Each design represents a different hypothesis about how to cool urban environments, and the monitoring equipment simply provides the means to test which hypothesis works best 7 .
Temperature, humidity, surface heat data
How people use spaces in different conditions
Energy savings and cost benefits
After twelve months of meticulous data collection, the results would tell a compelling story about nature's air conditioning capabilities. The data might reveal that while all three landscape approaches reduced temperatures compared to non-greened areas, they differed significantly in their effectiveness and seasonal performance.
| Landscape Treatment | Daytime Temp Reduction (°F) | Nighttime Temp Reduction (°F) | Peak Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Lawn & Trees | 3.2 | 1.8 | Late afternoon |
| Dense Evergreen Cluster | 5.7 | 4.1 | Midday |
| Green Roof Installation | 2.1 | 3.9 | Evening |
This combination of physical measurements, behavioral observations, and economic data creates a powerful, multi-dimensional understanding of how landscape design decisions impact urban environments. It transforms what might otherwise be considered an aesthetic choice into an evidence-based decision with measurable consequences for energy consumption, community wellbeing, and urban livability 7 .
The GroundWork conference emphasized that rigorous landscape architecture research requires both creative thinking and systematic methodology.
| Research Method | Primary Application | Knowledge Claim Type |
|---|---|---|
| Post-occupancy evaluation | Assessing how users interact with built designs | Participatory/Pragmatic |
| Design case studies | In-depth analysis of successful projects | Constructivist |
| Experimental prototyping | Testing design hypotheses through mock-ups | Positivist |
| Community participatory design | Collaborating with stakeholders | Participatory |
| Pre-post intervention monitoring | Measuring environmental changes | Positivist |
| Cross-cultural comparison | Understanding cultural influences on space | Constructivist |
What makes landscape architecture research unique is how these methods are combined. A single project might begin with community workshops (participatory), develop multiple design prototypes (pragmatic), implement the most promising solution, and conduct long-term monitoring (positivist) to measure outcomes.
This methodological triangulation allows researchers to capture both the quantitative and qualitative impacts of their designs 7 .
The conference proceedings made clear that the choice of methods should align with the research questions and the type of knowledge being sought.
A study seeking to validate the stormwater management capacity of a new green infrastructure material would employ different methods than research exploring how park designs can reduce social isolation among elderly residents.
What matters is that the methods are systematic, documented, and replicable—the hallmarks of any legitimate research 7 .
The methodological discussions that dominated the GroundWork meeting might seem like academic inside baseball, but they had profound implications for how landscape architecture would confront 21st-century challenges. The formalization of Research Through Designing gave the profession a powerful tool to address increasingly complex problems ranging from climate change adaptation to urban densification.
In the years following the 2002 conference, landscape architecture faculty increasingly embraced their roles as both designers and researchers. Subsequent CELA conferences built on the GroundWork foundation, exploring themes like "Landscape, City, and Community" (2014), "Align/Realign" (2023), and "Processes & Impacts" (2025) 4 . Each continued the work of refining landscape architecture's research identity while addressing new challenges.
Establishing research foundations
Expanding to urban and social contexts
Adapting to changing environmental needs
Focusing on outcomes and effectiveness
Looking back from our current perspective, the 2002 GroundWork conference appears prophetic. The methodological foundations laid in Syracuse provided the groundwork for landscape architects to engage with today's pressing issues—green infrastructure, climate resilience, environmental justice—with greater authority and impact.
The research approaches formalized at GroundWork have become especially crucial as landscape architects increasingly collaborate with ecologists, engineers, public health experts, and climate scientists.
These interdisciplinary partnerships require a shared understanding of what counts as evidence and how knowledge is constructed—precisely the questions the conference addressed.
Perhaps most importantly, the conference helped establish landscape architecture's unique contribution: the ability to integrate scientific knowledge with design imagination.
As we confront increasingly complex environmental challenges, the legacy of GroundWork reminds us that creating sustainable, livable places requires both rigorous research and creative design. The landscape architects who continue this work today aren't just planting trees and shaping land—they're generating knowledge with every design decision, building a cumulative body of wisdom about how to harmonize human needs with natural systems. The groundwork laid in 2002 continues to bear fruit in more resilient, equitable, and beautiful landscapes around the world.