風景園林設計項目的經濟績效評估德克薩斯州案例研究的經驗與教訓

撰文：（美國）塔納爾·奧茲迪爾 （美國）迪倫·斯圖瓦特

翻譯：馮藝佳 任維

校對：劉京一 吳丹子

風景園林設計項目的經濟績效評估德克薩斯州案例研究的經驗與教訓

撰文：（美國）塔納爾·奧茲迪爾 （美國）迪倫·斯圖瓦特

翻譯：馮藝佳 任維

校對：劉京一 吳丹子

通過研究德克薩斯州5個項目/案例的經濟績效成果，評估了風景園林與經濟活動之間的關系。5個項目/案例分別為：克萊德·沃倫公園（Klyde Warren Park）、凱蒂步道（Katy Trail）、德州大學達拉斯分校校園特色景觀概念性規劃（UT Dallas Campus Identity and Landscape Framework Plan）、阿狄森公園（Addison Circle）和布法羅河灣散步道（Buffalo Bayou Promenade）。研究采用了定量和定性相結合的實證調查法，首先評價了風景園林設計及相關設計領域的經濟評估和績效研究情況。之后重點研究了所選項目的景觀類型、過程和結果，以突出在經濟績效研究中，確定統一標準和全面框架的重要性。最后，討論了通過實證證據和系統性調查對經濟活動進行研究的價值，并將經濟活動作為景觀績效的一部分?？傊?，綜合標準、方法與案例研究的結果來說明不同城市風景園林設計類型項目的經濟影響，還討論了通過統一標準方法來獲得可靠實證結果的價值。結果表明，從案例中可以看到，經濟績效并不總是容易被量化的，同樣也并非所有的設計改進均與經濟活動直接相關。因此，這項研究強調了記錄指定的景觀項目中所有直接、間接和連鎖的經濟效應，并突出其經濟價值的重要性。這也表明，未來的風景園林設計將對社會產生更大的經濟影響和價值。

景觀績效；經濟活動；案例研究；設計評估；價值

修回日期：2014-11-27

1 引言

“第一是區位，第二是區位，第三還是區位”是房地產領域公認的準則，它決定著項目的經濟利益和成敗。最近，建筑的經濟含義已通過實證研究和詳實數據得到了各界的充分認可。事實上，在最近幾十年的建筑中，設計在房地產開發中逐漸成為一個增值項（費格斯.地段，地段，建筑師.華爾街日報，2005）。建筑研究的一個關鍵因素是理解建筑績效，從而認識到設計項目的效用和成功之處（普賴澤爾，1988；霍爾，1966）。因此，近幾十年中社會、環境、經濟、生理和美學因素逐漸成為規劃和設計著作中的焦點。具體說來，近年來設計項目的經濟績效開始逐漸被關注，有了更多直接、間接和/或間接連鎖反應的評估研究（德格魯特等，2002；中心城市政策研究，1999）。

相對于建筑的相關標準，人們較晚才認可將項目經濟績效的措施和報告納入衡量風景園林價值的必要標準?？赡苡腥藭庌q說風景園林設計項目的經濟意義一向難以界定，綠色空間的位置也一向被認定為房地產開發區域（例如中央公園的引進和成熟，以及它對周邊房地產市場的影響）。在大多數情況下，規劃設計領域并沒有對風景園林設計的價值進行科學系統的實證研究。這不像建筑，一個建筑物或一個建筑群可以直接刺激經濟活動，而景觀設計的價值則通常更難衡量，因此，景觀設計項目的經濟績效通常需要通過間接價值和/或連鎖反應來衡量。

本文評價了城市景觀設計項目的經濟績效，并通過回顧德州5個項目中與經濟績效相關的過程和結果，著重評價了風景園林設計與經濟活動的關系。這些項目/類型有：克萊德·沃倫公園，達拉斯（城市公園）；凱蒂步道，達拉斯（城市步道）；德州大學達拉斯分校校園特色景觀概念性規劃，理查森（校園景觀）；阿狄森公園，阿狄森（混合型開發）和布法羅河灣散步道，休斯頓（線性公園/水系統修復）。此外，該研究還參考了與風景園林經濟價值相關的風景園林設計學文獻，并重點關注了與當今設計實踐關系密切的風景園林類型（布蘭德等，2011；希勒，2006；康普頓，2001）。研究的關聯性源于風景園林設計師分析與理解動態城市風景的能力，這些景觀項目可以促進經濟活動（凡德穆倫等，2011；奧茲迪爾，2008；佐拉斯等，2007；本格齊亞，2003；德格魯特等，2002）。

2 文獻綜述

2.1 評估與績效

項目評估與績效在規劃設計過程中十分重要，它便于人們學習以往經驗并引導未來實踐。早期評估領域的學術著作源于關注建設環境和行為的建筑文獻（例如霍爾，1966；索默，1966）。20世紀80年代，聯合設計領域開始在用后評估（POE）框架下調整這些評估技術。POE被簡單地定義為在一個給定的、使用中的設備上對其結構設計元素進行性能評價（貝爾瑟等，1988）。項目的評估與績效受POE框架影響，并在上世紀90年代初期的風景園林文獻中進一步得到修改，例如布考特 等，1994。特別是《人性場所》、《景觀設計案例研究方法》等開創性著作提升了系統文獻和景觀項目評估的價值（馬庫斯&弗朗西斯 1998；弗朗西斯，1999）。過去20年的風景園林文獻開始關注評估景觀項目的價值（奧茲迪爾，2008；弗朗西斯，2003；馬庫斯&弗朗西斯，1998；布考特等，1994；懷特，1990）。盡管這些早期研究的參數和方法有限，但它推動了近些年的綜合評價研究，包括各種社會、經濟和環境因素。最近，更廣泛的設計文獻反映了評估案例研究方面的突破性進展，包括城市土地學會做出的努力，美國綠色建筑協會對綠色建筑評估體系（LEED）的研究，美國風景園林基金會（LAF）的案例研究調查（CSI）計劃，環境保護機構的最佳管理實踐，可持續網站倡議活動以及文化景觀基金會的最新倡議，例如EPA，2014；LAF，2014；SSI，2014；TCLF，2014；ULI，2014。

Biography：

Taner R. OZDIL， who is a PhD and a member of ASLA， is an associate Professor at the School of Architecture in The University of Texas at Arlington， and an Associate Director for Research for The Center for Metropolitan Density.

Dylan M. STEWART who is a MLA of School of Architecture， the University of Texas at Arlington， is a Landscape Designer at Hocker Design Group， Dallas Texas.

About the Translators：

FENG Yi-jia， born in 1989， is a PhD. Candidate at Beijing Forestry University.

REN Wei， born in 1988， is a PhD. Candidate at Beijing Forestry University.

Proofreading：

LIU Jing-yi， born in 1989， is a MLA Candidate at Beijing Forestry University .

WU Dan-zi， born in 1988， is a PhD. Candidate at Beijing Forestry University.

2.2 案例研究方法

與其他設計領域類似，對風景園林設計的評價和績效研究通常采用案例研究法（殷，2009；弗朗西斯，1999）。案例研究法比較適合設計專業，其靈活的特性便于深入研究獨特的項目。這種方法同樣適用于景觀設計，強調績效研究的價值和相關性。文獻綜述表明，除了過去幾年中獨立進行的大量案例研究，還有許多針對項目績效評估的系統性研究，如城市土地學會發起的ULI案例研究和LAF發起的CSI計劃（LAF，2014；ULI，2014）。這些案例研究著眼于一個更加全面的績效指標，包括但不限于對社會、環境和/或經濟因素的評估。迄今為止，大多數調查仍專注于使用一系列主觀的定性標準和指標對特殊案例進行研究。對大多數案例來說，其研究的方法的有效性和可靠性只能通過研究程序所暗示出來的特性來進行審視。除了極少數案例，用統一標準對大量項目進行實證系統調查仍基本空白。過去10年的文獻重點提出了多種可根據經濟因素進行績效研究的指標。以往的研究為風景園林設計行業提供了豐富的實踐經驗參考，尤其是本研究采用的指標和變量列表就是早期研究的成果，例如LAF，2014；ULI，2014；奧茲迪爾，2008?；仡櫼酝难芯亢臀墨I，并將他們應用于所有的案例研究中，可以保證標準統一，且方法具有可復制性（表1）。

1 克萊德·沃倫公園主場館和噴泉游樂區（圖片來源：T.R.奧茲迪爾）Klyde Warren Park Pavilion and Fountain Play Area （Photo Credit： T.R. Ozdil）

2.3 經濟活動、績效和影響因素

城市景觀是經濟、社會和環境活動的中心，能夠容納人們的行為和需求。文獻表明，近年來與提高改進風景園林設計和城市設計相關的經濟因素和方法正在引起越來越多的關注。在一些互補的領域，定性和定量的評估技術經改編，被用于研究設計的經濟影響（普雷科索維奇等，2011；奧茲迪爾，2008 & 2012；杰爾克，2008；希勒，2006；麥金杜等，2005；本格齊亞，2013；卡莫納等，2001 & 2002；康普頓，2001）。大多數經濟績效指標和方法由城市土地學會發展案例研究（ULI，2014）和美國風景園林基金會（LAF，2014）歸類。文獻也表明，由于風景園林設計項目的復雜性和經濟活動收益的模糊性，績效通常表示為直接，間接和/或連鎖反應以及市場估價（德格魯特等，2002；城市政策研究中心，1999）。直接影響通常表現為經濟活動最初的改變，間接影響是指產品和服務的供應商所經歷的直接改變。連鎖反應則是最初的購買對更大范圍經濟的影響（城市政策研究中心，1999）。城市景觀項目的經濟評估方法似乎可以得出直接和間接的市場估值（德格魯特等，2002）。直接的經濟績效價值可以通過風景園林設計項目本身元素（如付費停車，小賣部/餐廳，或者通過可持續材料來節省開支）所產生的經濟價值來得到驗證。間接的經濟績效價值體現在相近產業和/或周邊城市環境出現的經濟活動。而連鎖反應則是反映在（舉例說明）安裝太陽能燈具之后為太陽能行業創造的就業機會。本研究的重點是通過研究所選擇的城市景觀類型、過程和結果來突顯研究經濟績效的重要性。

3 研究方法

這項研究遵循定量和定性的方法（LAF，2014；戴明等，2011；奧茲迪爾，2008；墨菲，2005；莫廷，1999，弗朗西斯，1999；馬庫斯等，1998；貝爾瑟等，1988）來記錄和評價5個城市景觀設計項目，以評估其經濟績效優勢并獲得啟示。在過去3年中，作者記錄了在德州廣受贊譽的城市景觀設計項目的經濟活動和效益以完成這一研究。這些項目/類型有：克萊德·沃倫公園，達拉斯（城市公園）；德州大學達拉斯分校校園特色景觀概念性規劃，理查森（校園景觀）；凱蒂步道，達拉斯（城市步道）；阿狄森公園，阿狄森（多功能開發）和布法羅河灣散步道，休斯頓（線性公園/水系統修復）。這些案例研究的方法論基礎主要是對績效指標和變量進行了系統評價，這些數據來自于：（1）ULI案例研究和LAF景觀績效系列案例研究簡報（LAF，2014），（2）經濟績效文獻中面向設計師和規劃師的案例研究方法（奧茲迪爾，2008；麥金杜等，2005；卡莫納等，2001；康普頓，2001），以及（3）從項目公司，項目利益相關者，地方、州和/或聯邦的公共資源和數據庫收集的相關間接數據（表1）。

調查開始后，研究小組在5個項目中開展了系統性研究，采用了可復制的績效標準和方法。這種實證的方法讓小組受益匪淺。在所有的實例中，衡量標準均在第一時間敲定。接下來，這些績效指標被分配給每個研究案例，以更好的記錄和報告他們各種經濟績效的質量。最初的目標是要在所有案例研究中，確定一套衡量績效收益的統一標準。在對經濟活動有更加充分的了解后，也會制定更詳細的績效標準。這也幫助研究小組打消了對數據可用性，不同的項目類型、項目目標和結果的擔心。

案例研究審查從項目公司、項目利益相關者、公共資源以及私人數據庫獲得檔案數據和間接數據。經濟數據則取自文獻（表1），經過系統的收集、組織和審查以保證數據的嚴謹和完整。研究設備取得的數據經分析后，綜合概括為5個研究案例的經濟績效收益。場地觀察、拍照、場地調研和技術分析也可應用在大多數案例調查中，來記錄和顯示經濟活動和績效。

對所有案例的調查分析集中在：首先是與場地相關的績效收益，之后是最接近的鄰里區域，最后是項目街區群/鄰里/社區或郵政編碼來掌握其經濟活動和績效。例如，直接的績效收益與間接的績效收益和項目的四周鄰里相比會更受重視?？傊?，這些數據經過了系統性的審查，并通過適當的分析得出了績效評估的具體標準。這些在下面的詳細結果中均有呈現。這項研究的目的是在客觀的標準下，通過記錄和評價績效來突出5個城市風景園林設計項目的價值和意義，并對未來的城市景觀產生啟示作用。

4 案例研究結果

4.1 克萊德·沃倫公園，達拉斯

克萊德沃倫公園（KWP）（圖1）建造在8車道的伍德爾羅杰斯高速公路上方，占地5.2英畝（約21 043m2）。2012年10月之前，這塊用地一直處于閑置狀態。這個革新性的公園由詹姆斯·伯內特工作室設計，擁有積極規劃管理的景觀元素，成為連接達拉斯住宅區和市區的樞紐。通過公共/私人合作伙伴關系，公園成功籌到約1.15億美元資金來實現愿景。KWP案例研究表明，經濟績效有直接和間接2種結果。在開始建設的時候，公園大約提供了170個工作崗位（畢爾克，2013），這對KWP的經濟收益產生了直接影響。目前，KWP雇傭了8個全職人員和5個兼職人員來進行后續的維護和運作（巴肖普，2013）。餐廳、小賣部、食品售賣車以及重要活動時的戶外租金不僅增加了公園基金會的收入，也通過交稅增加了城市的收入?？沙掷m的實踐如LED照明燈具每年為公園節省11 279美元（畢爾克，2013），土工泡沫的使用減輕了180噸的甲板負荷，每年可節省開支約6 600美元。人們保護鄰里社區意識的覺醒則是該項目間接績效的體現。公園建成后，麥金尼大道的電車載客量增加了61%（弗里克，2012），該區域上升的人氣所帶動的城市主要街區公共交通基礎設施投資約為990萬美元（達特，2013）。分析人口普查數據可以看到，距離公園2個街區以內的范圍內，人口增長了8.8%，住房增加了4.1-4.8%，空置率下降了12.1-13.1%。公園北部住宅區的出租率增長了44%，南部藝術區的出租率則增長了18.9%。最后，兩個地標性房地產項目——博物館大樓和麥金尼2000均建在KWP附近，其總價值達到2.91億美元（2013年）（麥金尼2000，2013；DCAD，2013；博物館大樓，2013；格林，2012；威隆斯基，2013）。對于KWP，經濟績效因素包含對其自身空間、社區空間以及整個達拉斯的有益作用。但由于公園建成時間不長，某種程度上限制了經濟效益的研究。公園附近的住房和辦公建筑均在不斷增長，使房地產市場持續增值?？梢哉f，KWP的設計將一個曾經看似毫無希望的邊緣地段轉變為一個機遇。它是綠色基礎設施和娛樂設施可以為城市景觀增加經濟價值的有力例證（LAF，2013a）。

4.2 布法羅河灣散步道，休斯頓

薩賓-巴格比散步道（又名布法羅河灣散步道）（圖2）位于德克薩斯州休斯頓，是一個23英畝（約93 078m2）的城市濱水公園和休閑區，由SWA景觀設計公司設計。場地位于45號州際公路的立交橋下方。公園于2006年落成，它成功地將布法羅河灣由一個硬化地段轉變成一個有效的綠色基礎設施和繁榮的城市濱水區。該項目將一條曾經被人忽視、雜草叢生、有礙觀瞻的硬質河道變成了一個3 000英尺（0.9144km）長的城市公園。這個1 500萬美元的標志性項目（一期）是公共/私人合作的結果，目的是恢復和振興布法羅河口走廊。布法羅河灣散步道（BBP）案例的研究產生了與經濟績效相關的多種結果。由于間接數據較為充分，且提供了對該項目創造的價值的考察，我們可以深入了解項目產生的經濟效益。在這個案例中，幾乎所有的經濟影響均是間接或連鎖的效應。BBP打破了被約束的邊界，為連接休斯頓中心區（downtown）和中城區（midtown）創造了可能。人口普查數據（美國2000年和2010年人口普查）的前后審查顯示，BBP對城市核心區的復興有間接作用。2000年至2012年，隨著布法羅河灣環境的不斷改善，人口增加了34%，這對就業和房地產市場有著間接作用。與此同時，項目對住房的影響包括使用中的居住單元達961個，使用中的50個單元以上的構筑物達787個，出租的單元達470個。2008年至2012年，就業人數增加10 454人，中心區機構單位數量增加182個，中城區機構單位則從3個增加到30個。另外一個間接作用是零售銷售額的變化——中心區增長了4 680萬美元，中城區增長了1 540萬美元。除此之外，與BBP相鄰的住宅小區新開發了198個住宅單元，市值已增長40%（HCAD，2013）。盡管大多數經濟績效指標在早期研究中已有記載，但這個項目仍面臨著地理位置、目標和任務等一系列挑戰，且與工程相關的檔案和間接數據均十分有限?？傊?，本調查距BBP開放已有7年時間，這為經濟效益的研究提供了更加科學的樣本。清晰的前后數據對比有力證明了 BBP對休斯頓市中心區復興產生了間接作用。

表1 經濟績效指標文獻綜述表Table 1 Literature Review Matrix for Economic Performance Indicators

2 薩賓-巴格比散步道人行天橋（圖片來源：T.R.奧茲迪爾）Sabine-to-Bagby Promenade Pedestrian Bridge Crossing （Photo Credit： T.R. Ozdil） Katy Trail， Dallas達拉斯凱蒂步道

3 凱蒂步道（圖片來源：D. 斯圖爾特）Katy Trail with Adjacent Uses （Photo Credit： D. Stewart）

4.3 凱蒂步道, 達拉斯（圖片來源：斯圖爾特）

凱蒂步道（圖3）是一條位于達拉斯上城區的人行步道。其規劃始于20世紀80年代，由SWA公司主持設計，并于2000年建成向公眾開放。作為“鐵軌變為步道”項目的一部分，該項目建造在得克薩斯州至密蘇里的一條廢棄的鐵路之上。1997年凱蒂步道之友組織的成立，刺激了2 300萬美元的總體規劃資金及后續運營資金的籌備工作。凱蒂步道的落成正是達拉斯城市組織、達拉斯地區捷運組織（DART）與區域電力供應商（ONCOR）之間成功開展公私合作伙伴關系的結果。步道沿線1英里（約1.61km）范圍內擁有著30萬潛在使用者，凱蒂步道通過設置雙向自行車道和人行步道促進連通，通過本土植物設計保證可持續發展，通過增強沿線開發刺激經濟（洛克伍德，2007；斯圖爾特，2014年）。對凱蒂步道沿途經濟績效的研究表明其經濟價值有著顯著提升。凱蒂步道的經濟影響力是它與周圍地塊良性互動及沿途土地多樣化利用開發的產物。廊道間接經濟效益的研究從3個層次的緩沖區進行：緊鄰步道廊道邊緣的地塊，大約0.25英里（約0.40km）范圍內的區域以及0.5英里（約0.81km）范圍內的區域。土地利用數據的分析集中在2000年、2005年和2010年之間的土地使用面積百分比變化上。沿途相鄰地塊的商業價值從2000年-2010年增長了約7%。此外，同時段內沿途住宅土地使用增長了近13%（NCTCOG & US Census，2014）。綜上所述，商業用地的增加表明潛在經濟活動的增加，而多樣的住宅用地的增加表明密度的增加，更多的居民也將有助于地方稅收和經濟的發展。達拉斯房產評估中心（The Dallas Central Appraisal District，簡稱DCAD）提供了大量2004年以來可用于這項研究的房產價格數據。沿途周邊地塊從2004年至2013年間，附近地塊均價大約增長了38%。其中，位于0.25英里（約0.40km）緩沖區內的地塊均價增長約43%（DCAD，2014；斯圖爾特，2014）。我們還研究了銷售總額、營業稅收入、機構數量及就業率，并記錄了每段步道各種積極的變化。但由于存在干擾因素，研究者認為結果還不夠充分。這些數據為區域或人口普查層面上的，在地理范圍上比地塊層面的數據要大得多，因而在比較中關注了更多大范圍的數據所造成的干擾因素。凱蒂步道經濟績效的研究表明了數據的可用性的重要性（斯圖爾特，2014）。

4.4 德克薩斯大學達拉斯分校校園特色景觀框架規劃，理查德森

4 德克薩斯大學達拉斯分校中央廣場（圖片來源：T.R.奧茲迪爾）The University of Texas at Dallas Campus Central Mall（Photo Credit： T.R. Ozdil）

5 阿狄森公園街景（圖片來源：T.R.奧茲迪爾）Addison Circle Streetscape （Photo Credit： T.R. Ozdil）

德克薩斯大學達拉斯分校的校園特征和景觀框架規劃的一期規劃（UTD）（圖4）已經完成于2010年。PWP景觀事務所給出了這樣一個設計目標，即將校園從一個以汽車為中心的環境轉變為支持步行的校園景觀。最初，這個33英畝（約133 546m2）的項目由德克薩斯大學投資，初期的投資為600萬美元，后來的3 000萬美元私人捐款使項目得以推進和擴大。通過大量鄉土植物以及5 000株自然喬木的種植，校園景觀得到了提升。景觀幫助了校園的形象轉變，并使學校成為了學生、教師、工作人員以及周邊社區的驕傲。UTD案例的研究還揭示出與經濟因素（包括直接和間接）相關的多種景觀績效的發現。規劃刺激了經濟活動，對招生率和捐贈產生了直接的影響。這一嶄新的項目使得2010到2012年的招生率增長了13%。根據預計，到2018年，每年招生率將增加4%（UTD年報，2012）。景觀更新的新鮮感吸引了3 120萬美元的私人捐助用以資助建設和實現未來校園愿景。這個項目直接的直接影響是從2008年10月到2010年10月間一共創造了設計、施工和咨詢等72個工作機會（UTD Construction Facts，2010）。對UTD來說，經濟收益沒有那么明顯，主要是環境和美學價值創造的間接影響。由于校園面積巨大，因而附近區域并沒有開發項目，這是該研究一大局限。雖然未來的規劃和建設還在進行中，例如即將建成的達拉斯快速交通（Dallas Area Rapid Transit，簡稱DART）的棉花帶線（Cotton Belt Line）位于學校附近，預計將會對緊挨校園北部的交通廣場產生影響?？偠灾?，環境的改善在推動間接經濟價值增加的同時，勾勒了大學可持續性發展計劃的輪廓。

4.5 阿狄森公園，阿狄森

20世紀90年代末，阿狄森公園（圖5）作為阿狄森的城市中心而建。在20世紀90年代的早期和中期，阿狄森市與RTKL一起合作，選擇了一塊面積達80英畝（約323 749m2）［到2011年已經增至124英畝（約501 810m2）］的土地，作為他們最后一次創造社區心臟的機會。設計是公共與私人合作的成果。開發計劃包括結合了居住、商業、辦公、公共和市政等部分的規劃。規劃詳細規定了用地類型和尺度、允許的密度和相關的綠色基礎設施；設計集中在4個區域：收費公路對面區域、阿狄森城市中心、達拉斯快速交通樞紐區和鄰近的城市住宅區。設計對各部分元素進行了物質與功能上的結合，包括相對緊張的土地使用狀況與能促進不同區域活動的連貫步行空間從城市延期償付花園式公寓住宅的方面考慮，設計富有遠見地創造一個包含城市居住、辦公、酒店和零售的高密度混合功能空間。更重要的是，一個方便步行街道網絡、一系列公園和地標雕塑定義了社區生活的焦點。開發計劃在創造了北德州最早的“生活-工作-娛樂”多類型開發模式案例，這個開發模式創造了自給自足的城市空間（奧茲迪爾等， 2011；RTKL，2010）。研究阿狄森公園案例研究在揭示景觀項目直接和間接經濟績效方面表現出更強的復雜性和挑戰性。截至2011年，公園124英畝（約501 810m2）的土地中有71英畝（約287 327m2）屬于私人所有，53英畝（約214 483m2）屬于公有。2011年，規劃于20世紀90年代晚期的居住區已經從3 500個單元變為含有4 800個單元的470萬平方英尺（約436 644m2）的混合住宅。同年，商業機構（包含辦公室、酒店和零售空間）的混合商業已經從400萬平方英尺（約371 612m2）增加到600萬平方英尺（約557 418m2）。阿狄森市給阿狄森公園項目投入1 070萬美元來修建基礎設施，包括提升道路和開放空間。2009年，阿狄森公園的私人投資總額達到3.2億美元，與公共融資的比率接近29：1。2008年，物業稅年收入估值超過100萬。從2000年到2014年阿狄森市的人口密度從2 387人/平方英里預計增加至3 769人/平方英里。同一時段，家庭平均收入從45 998美元預計增至71 636美元，阿狄森市人口普查區域內的住宅空置率減少了1.2%，同時平均租金從751美元預計增至1 398美元。數據還表明，從2006年到2009年，在人口普查地段（包含阿狄森公園）的就業率幾乎翻了一番（奧茲迪爾，2012； RTKL，2010；韋弗，2008；奧茲迪爾等，2011）。盡管數據的可用性限制了研究者直接描述景觀組成的直接影響，但阿狄森公園經濟績效研究仍闡述了總體發展規劃中綜合性結構的影響，并以此為例說明經驗數據和良好的經濟績效結果。

5 結論與討論

本文通過相關文獻的綜述及5個德克薩斯州項目與案例的經濟績效研究，對風景園林與經濟績效之間的關系進行了評估。這些景觀項目包括：達拉斯的克萊德·沃倫公園，達拉斯的凱蒂步道，理查森的德克薩斯大學達拉斯分校校園特色景觀框架規劃，阿狄森的阿狄森公園，休斯頓的布法羅河灣散步道。更廣泛的文獻綜述表明，近年來關于風景園林經濟績效的研究已經取得了顯著的進展。尤其是20世紀90年代末至21世紀初，隨著可持續發展理念和綠色設計實踐愈發深入人心，工藝技術更加成熟，人們對于規劃設計項目的了解更加深入，評估也趨于嚴格。近年來，有關經濟績效研究評價方法的關注也更為廣泛，由通過描述與認知驅動的案例研究轉為通過數據驅動的、全方位的、實證的以及系統的研究。雖然在績效研究中存在關于“衡量什么”與“如何衡量”等諸多模糊之處，但是它可以囊括所有社會的、環境的和經濟的因素（參見美國風景園林基金會案例研究調查計劃的案例研究）。研究從曾經的僅注重諸如經濟等單一問題或因素轉變為注重深層細節并包含可復制方法、可靠結論的復雜程序。這一經濟績效研究是與景觀績效研究中一些最新發展相對應的。它表明在大多數情況下，經濟活動一直是所有規劃設計活動的預期成果中的一部分。另一方面，基于共同的指標和研究框架的景觀經濟績效的實證性研究還處于起步階段，有待更多相關研究來豐富這一領域。

審視以上案例研究可以發現，當涉及到經濟活動的調查與記錄時，景觀項目的復雜本質決定了景觀績效的研究需要更加綜合與全面。結果表明了尋找經濟上所有直接的、間接的以及進一步連鎖反應的重要性（德格魯特等，2002；城市政策研究中心，1997），即便如此，由于地理尺度和項目本身存在差異，研究的結論仍具有一定的局限性。

5個案例研究的結果表明，大多數項目均能發起某一類直接經濟活動。例如，幾乎在所有的情況下，項目的建造、使用和維護均能增加就業。在克萊德·沃倫公園案例與阿狄森公園案例當中，景觀項目中諸如餐廳、小賣部、餐車以及重要活動時的戶內外出租等也開始作為項目的直接產出而產生經濟收益（銷售額或稅收）。而像凱蒂步道這樣的項目由于其受線性空間限制，在場地內部實現直接經濟活動幾乎是不可能的。另一方面，如果研究專門針對諸如吸收二氧化碳、清潔空氣或通過景觀手段過濾水等環境改善所轉換成的經濟影響，這些也可被視為城市景觀項目的直接經濟影響的一部分。

正如以上案例研究所揭示的，大多數由城市景觀項目帶動的經濟活動是對其周圍環境、社區、地區甚至整個城市間接影響的產物。正如凱蒂步道、布法羅河灣散步道與克萊德·沃倫公園的案例研究所表明的那樣，記錄的經濟績效指標大多是間接的，不如說是緊鄰的周圍用地的一種功能。作為景觀改善結果而產生的間接經濟活動主要表現為房地產開發、地價、土地租金、零售額、稅收以及能產生更廣泛經濟發展的公私合作等的增加（表2所示為本研究報告涉及的所有指標）。幾乎在所有情況下，直接和間接的活動都很容易產生連鎖反應。例如，從布法羅河灣散步道中太陽能供電照明設施的安裝到太陽能經濟引起的就業崗位數量的增加就是一種連鎖反應。

研究結果表明，如果在某個案例的研究過程中，由于需要進行更加細致的研究而特別制定了專門的（唯一的）經濟績效因子，那么在這種情況下，該研究在方法、度量和指標上的橫向一致性和可復制性也是可以達到的?；仡櫚咐芯靠梢园l現，經濟績效研究比可能的社會和環境研究更易于得到可量化的實證研究數據。正如下面的表格所示，一組具有一致性的經濟變量能精確描述一個項目的經濟績效（表2）。在上述每個案例研究中，文獻綜述為我們提供了可用的指標，這些指標都可以提供經驗數據，而某個指標反應的是直接、間接還是連鎖的影響，這在每個案例研究中卻有所不同。如果一個項目有一個特殊的有別于其他項目的性質，方法就需要進行微調。例如，德克薩斯大學達拉斯分校案例研究需要諸如入學情況及私人捐贈等額外的經濟變量。該項討論的旨在確保，對多個案例研究的審視能夠推進這些典型的經驗性和系統性的研究，這些研究與眾多景觀項目具有一致的評價標準。

通過對這5個城市景觀項目的綜述，我們還能發現某些領域和復雜性必須在未來的經濟績效研究中加以認知。一個項目的實體品質，如項目類型，大小，形狀，位置和落成時間是影響經驗性的經濟績效研究框架的關鍵問題。正如本研究所示，上述品質在這些項目間的差異性對本研究構成了一定挑戰，但最終豐富了研究結果。例如，一個項目的區位似乎是一種確定的品質，因為其經濟價值已被充分論證。在這種情況下，選擇城市景觀的案例研究就產生了一組具有一致性的項目。景觀項目的尺度與形式對經濟效益有直接影響。從研究程序性方面來看，經濟績效研究數據的可得性就成為了所有評估中的一個關鍵因素。對于風景園林而言，雖然收集原始數據（而不是檔案和間接數據）似乎可以確保知識創造的科學嚴謹性且更具有效性和可靠性，但是為每一個項目收集這些原始經濟數據需要耗費大量的人力物力以及時間成本。因此，除非能夠持續對一個景觀項目進行評估和記錄，否則，可靠和詳實的二級數據可以作為經濟績效研究的一個重要部分。

總之，本文試圖借鑒過去的研究以及5個落成項目中的經驗以討論城市景觀項目的經濟績效，并在一定程度上展現了該領域存在的諸多議題與成果。然而，它并沒有對“為什么需要測量景觀項目的經濟績效”這一問題做出回應。但它有力地論證了績效研究是風景園林學的一個必要組成部分，它能使我們從以往的項目中吸取教訓進而指導將來的設計。它有助于未來對從業者的教育，并預示著未來的風景園林研究與理論將作為一項以知識為基礎的活動。研究者認為，對于此類研究的關注應當超越對風景園林師自我實現的關注……運用實證證據和系統性的研究評估景觀經濟績效可以確保我們與非專業人士間的交流能夠基于邏輯清晰的語言以及詳實可靠的數據和方法。最終，這種經濟績效的綜述可以成為績效研究的一個重要方面，并促進未來的風景園林取得更大的社會影響力與價值。最后一個問題在更大的層面上——“通過景觀促進健康與充實、吸收二氧化碳與凈化空氣、清潔或過濾水體的經濟價值是什么？”，這些問題的答案尚未確定，這必將成為未來風景園林學研究的重要課題。

表2 所有案例研究中經濟績效結果的總結Table 2 Summary of Economic Performance Findings for All Case Studies

致謝：

特別感謝詹姆斯·伯內特公司、SWA集團、PWP景觀和RTKL公司促進了風景園林行業的發展以及為本文提供了關鍵項目的背景資料。

1 Introduction

“Location， location， location” is the accepted nomenclature in real estate fields that economic benefits and the success of a project loosely can be induced to its location. Not until recently， the economic implication of architecture is widely recognized with empirical research and hard data. Indeed， within the more recent decades architecture，design has started to be recognized as a value adding property of real estate development （See“Location， Location， Architect” article by Fergunos at The Wall Street Journal， 2005）. A critical element of architectural studies is to understand building performance to appreciate the utility and success of a given design project （Preiser， 1988； Hall，1966）. As a result， social， environmental， economic，physiological， or aesthetic factors became the focus in design and planning literature within the recent decades. Specifi cally， the economic performance of a design project started to be scrutinized as direct，indirect， and/or indirect ripple effects valuation （de Groot et al.， 2002； The Center for Urban Policy Research， 1999） more within the recent years.

The measure and report of economic performance of a project as a necessary dimension of communicating landscape architecture value（Bookout et.al.， 1994） received recognition later than the architectural community. One may argue that the economic implication of a landscape architecture project has always been implicitly evident， and the location of a green space has always been considered in real estate fields （see examples like the introduction and maturation of Central Park and its effect on the adjacent real estate market）. In most instances， though， it has not been scrutinized as scientific and systematic empirical research in design and planning fields. Unlike architecture， where a building or groups of buildings directly stimulate economic activity，the value of landscape architecture is often more complex to capture. This is a result of the fact that the economic performance of a project in landscape architecture is often measured through its indirect value and/or ripple effects.

This paper reviews the economic performance of urban landscape architecture projects. Specifically， it reviews the relationship between landscape architecture and economic activity through a review of procedures and findings relevant to the economic performance of five projects in Texas. The projects/typologies reviewed are： Klyde Warren Park， Dallas （urban park）； Katy Trail， Dallas （Urban Trail）； UT Dallas Campus Identity and Landscape Framework Plan， Richardson （campus landscape）； Addison Circle， Addison （mixed-use development） Buffalo Bayou Promenade， Houston （linear park/stream restoration）. Additionally， the research builds upon relevant landscape architecture literature in concern to the economic value of landscape. Specifically，the focus occurs upon a landscape typology that is germane to today’s design practice （Brander et.al， 2011； Sherer， 2006； Crompton， 2001）. The research’s relevancy stems from the landscape architect’s ability to analyze and understand dynamic， urban landscapes as they stimulate economic activity （see such as Vandermeulen et al.，2011； Ozdil， 2008； Tzoulas et al.， 2007； Bengochea，2003 de Groot et al.， 2002）.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Evaluation and Performance

Project evaluation and performance are considered as the critical dimensions of design and planning processes to inform future practices and learning with past lessons. Early scholarly work in the area of evaluation stem from architectural literature with a focus on the built environment and behavior（see for example Hall， 1966； Sommer， 1966）. Allied design fields began to adapt these evaluation techniques in the 1980’s under the Post Occupancy Evaluation （POE） framework. POE is defined simply as the assessment of the performance of physical design elements in a given， in-use facility（Preiser et al.， 1988）. Project evaluation and performance， influenced by the POE framework，gained greater adaptation in landscape architecture literature in the early 1990’s （see example Bookout，et.al， 1994）. Specifically， seminal works such as People Places and A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture elevated the value of the systematic documentation and evaluation of landscape projects （Marcus & Francis 1998；Francis， 1999）. Landscape architecture literature from the past two decades notes the value of evaluating landscape projects （Ozdil， 2008； Francis，2003； Marcus & Francis 1998； Bookout et. al.， 1994；Whyte， 1990）. These earlier studies， with limited number of variables and methods， set the stagefor comprehensive evaluation studies within the recent years scrutinizing various social， economic，environmental factors. Recently， broader design literature witnesses a significant spike of such evaluative case studies， including efforts by Urban Lands Institute， US Green Building Council’s studies on LEED projects， Landscape Architecture Foundation’s （LAF） Case Study Investigation （CSI）program， Environmental Protection Agencies Best Management Practices， Sustainable Sites Initiatives，and the Cultural Landscape Foundation’s recent initiatives （See such as EPA， 2014； LAF， 2014； SSI，2014； TCLF， 2014； ULI， 2014）.

2.2 Case Study Approach

The evaluation and performance studies in landscape architecture typically adopted the case study approach （Yin， 2009； Francis， 1999） similar to other allied design fields. The case study approach has appeal to the design profession due to its accommodating qualities to study singular projects with greater depth. This approach is also adopted in landscape architecture to stress the value and the relevance of performance studies. The literature review reveals that in addition to numerous case studies produced independently within the past decades more structured attempts such as ULI Case Studies initiated by Urban Land Institute and the CSI Program， initiated by LAF （LAF， 2014； ULI， 2014） found its place in project performance and evaluation. These case studies focus on a more comprehensive set of performance indicators including， but not limited，to the evaluation of social， environmental and/ or economic factors. Most inquiry to date focus on singular cases studied independently with a subjective set of qualitative criteria and indicators. The validity and reliability of the methods of most case studies can be scrutinized due toimplicit and project specific nature of adopted procedures. Other than a handful of cases， the empirical and systematic inquiry with consistent criteria on numerous projects is minimally tested up to date. Literature of the past decade highlights a variety of indicators which can be organized under economic factors for performance studies. Previous research sets the stage for broader empirical applications to inform landscape architecture scholarship and profession. In particular， the list of indicators and variables adopted in this research are a product of a systematic review of earlier research （see such as LAF， 2014， ULI， 2014， Ozdil， 2008）. The review of previous research and documentation，and adaptation of them to all case studies assured a level of consistency and replicability in methodology initially set forth for this research （see Table.1）.

2.3 Economic Activity， Performance， & Factors

Urban landscapes are epicenters of economic，social and environmental activity to accommodate human behaviors and needs. The review of the literature reveals a greater focus on understanding economic factors and methods in relation to design improvements in landscape architecture and urban design within the recent years. The review illustrates an adaptation of both qualitative and quantitative evaluation techniques to study economic implications of design in these complementary fields. （Prekosovich et al.， 2011；Ozdil， 2008 & 2012； Jerke， 2008； Sherer， 2006； McIndoe et.al， 2005； Bengochea， 2013； Carmona et al.， 2001 &2002； Crompton， 2001）. The review also reveals that most economic performance indicators and methods are cataloged by the Urban Land Institute Development Case Studies （ULI， 2014）and the Landscape Architecture Foundation （LAF，2014）. The literature seem to also suggest that due to the complex nature of landscape architectural projects and intangible benefits of the economic activity， （performance） is typically illustrated as an amalgamation of direct， indirect， and/or indirect ripple effects and market valuation （de Groot et al.， 2002； The Center for Urban Policy Research，1999）. Direct effect is typically defi ned as the initial change in economic activities/purchases whereas indirect effect is the change directly experienced by the suppliers of the products and services. Ripple effect is the impact of initial purchases to greater economies （The Center for Urban Policy Research，1999）. The economic valuation methods for urban landscape architecture projects seem to produce direct and indirect market valuation （de Groot et al.， 2002）. The direct economic performance value can be exemplifi ed by the economic value initiated by the programmatic elements （such as paid parking， a kiosk/restaurant， or cost savings through sustainable materials） of landscape architecture project itself. Indirect economic implications would be the economic activity created in adjacent properties and/or surrounding urban context. Ripple effect is exemplifi ed by （as an example） the impact of the installation of solar powered lighting to number of jobs created in solar economy. It is a partial focus of this research to review selected urban landscape typologies， procedures and findings to highlight the importance of studyingeconomic performance.

3 Methodology

This research followed quantitative and qualitative methods （LAF， 2014； Deming et. al.， 2011； Ozdil，2008； Murphy， 2005； Moughtin， 1999； Francis，1999； Marcus et. al. 1998； Preiser et. al.， 1988）to document and review five urban landscape architectural projects， to assess their economic performance benefits and to draw lessons. These studies have been completed by the authors within the past three years to document economic activity and performance of well recognized urban landscape projects in Texas. The projects/ typologies reviewed are： Klyde Warren Park， Dallas（urban park）； UT Dallas Campus Identity and Landscape Framework Plan， Richardson （Campus）；Katy Trail， Dallas （Urban Trail）； Addison Circle，Addison （Mixed-use development）； Buffalo Bayou Promenade， Houston （linear park/stream restoration）. Methodological underpinnings of these case studies were primarily derived from a systematic review of performance criteria and variables from： （1）ULI Case Studies and the LAF’s landscape performance series Case Study Briefs （LAF， 2014）， （2）The case study methods geared for designers and planners in economic performance literature （Ozdil， 2008； McIndoe et.al，2005； Carmona et al.， 2001； Crompton， 2001）， and（3）project related secondary data collected from project fi rms， project stakeholders， public resources and databases from local， state， and/or federal sources （see Table 1）.

At the start of the investigation， the research team benefi ted from empirical methods to conduct a systematic research that produces replicable performance criteria and methods in all fi ve sites. For all instances the measurable criteria were identifi ed fi rst. Next， these performance indicators were appropriated for each case study site to better document and report their various economic performance qualities. While identifying consistent set of performance benefits in all case studies was the initial goal， customization of detailed performance criteria later in the process allowed more detailed understanding of economic activity. This also helped the research team to overcome the concerns about data availability and， varying project typologies， project goals and outcomes.

The case study reviews seek out archival and secondary data attainable from project firms， project stakeholders， public resources， and private databases. The economic data， consistent with literature （see Table.1）， were systematically collected， organized， and reviewed for their content rigor and integrity. The data gathered from all the research instruments were later analyzed，synthesized and summarized as the economic performance benefits for each of the five case studies under investigation. Passive observations，photography， site inventory and analysis techniques were also utilized in most instances to document and visualize economic activity and performance of the case study sites （Gehl et. al.， 2013； Marcus & Francis 1998）.

The analysis of the investigations in all cases focused on fi rst， site related performance benefi ts，then its immediate adjecencies， and finally on the project block group/neigborhood/district or zip code to economic activity and performance. For example， direct performance benefi ts retain higher emphasis in comparison to indirect performance benefi ts and fi ndings about the project adjacencies，or neigborhoods. In conclusion， the data were systematically reviewed and appropriate methods for analysis for specifi c performance criteria were highlighted in the detailed findings below. The research was designed to highlight the values and the signifi cance of fi ve urban landscape architecture projects by utilizing objective measures and by documenting and evaluating their performances to inform future urban landscapes.

4 Case Study Findings and Results

4.1 Klyde Warren Park， Dallas

Klyde Warren Park （KWP）（Fig.1） is a 5.2 acre urban park created over an existing 8-lane Woodall Rogers freeway on a suspended infrastructure in October 2012. Designed by the Office of James Burnett this innovative park has been a vehicle to connect Uptown and Downtown of Dallas with actively programmed and managed landscape elements. The project achieves its vision through a collaborative public/private partnership to help fund the approximately $115 millionpark. KWP case study produced various direct and indirect economic landscape performance results. As a direct impact KWP’s economic benefits began during construction where estimated 170 jobs were created during construction （Bjerke， 2013）Presently， KWP employs 8 full time and 5 part time positions to conduct the ongoing maintenance and operations （Barshop， 2013）. Restaurants， kiosks，and food trucks as well as outdoor rental for specific events also start generating revenue not only for the Park foundation but also for the city through taxes. Sustainable practices such as LED lighting allowed the park to save $11，279 annually（Bjerke， 2013） and the use of geo foam lowered the deck load by 180 tons through the use of geo foam with a cost saving of approximately $6，600. Indirect impact has been witnessed in the form of increase demand to project neighborhood and district. As a result of the impact of the park， the McKinney Avenue Trolley witnessed a 61% bump in ridership since KWP’s opening （Flick， 2012） and popularity of the area influenced the projected $9.9 million investment into the city’s Main Street District public transit infrastructure （DART， 2013）. The analysis of census data shows a projected population increase of 8.8% （within two block groups where KWP resides）， housing increases by 4.1-4.8%， vacancy decreases by 12.1-13.1% and the Uptown District block group （north of KWP）shows a projected increase in ‘renter occupied units’ of 44.0% while the Arts District block group（south of KWP） shows a projected increase in‘renter occupied units’ of 18.9%. Finally， through two key real estate projects， Museum Tower and 2000 McKinney， and total property value of $291 million （as of 2013） are found on the adjacencies of KWP （2000 McKinney， 2013； DCAD， 2013；Museum Tower， 2013； Greene， 2012； and Wilonsky，2013）. For KWP， economic performance factors contain unique benefits to the space itself， to the district， and the city of Dallas. The relative newness of KWP is a limitation in the study of economic benefits. On the adjacencies， real estate market value is consistently increased in both housing and office structures. In conclusion， KWP’s design turns a once perceived impenetrable edge condition to a design opportunity. This project was a signifi cant example of how green infrastructure and recreational amenity can add economic value to urban landscape （LAF， 2013a）.

4.2 Buffalo Bayou Promenade， Houston

Sabine-to-Bagby Promenade （also known as Buffalo Bayou Promenade）（Fig.2） is a 23-acre urban water front park and a recreation area designed by the SWA Group beneath the Interstate 45 overpass in Houston， Texas. The park is completed in 2006 and has transformed an impermeable segment of Buffalo Bayou into a functioning green infrastructure and a thriving urban waterfront. The project converts a neglected， overgrown， eyesore channelized stream into 3，000 linear feet of urban park. The $15 million landmark project （1stphase）was the result of a public/private partnership to restore and revitalize the Buffalo Bayou corridor. Buffalo Bayou Promenade （BBP） case study research produced various results concerning economic performance. The review of economic indicators seems to be more informative where secondary data was attainable and provided insight to the value created as results of this project. Almost all the economic impacts recorded in this case were through indirect or ripple effect. BBP turns a constrained edge condition into an opportunity to connect the downtown and midtown districts of Houston. A before and after review of census data （US Census 2000 and 2010）displays the indirect effect of the introduction of BBP and its impact on the city core’s revival. 34.0% change in population from 2000 to 2012 along with improvements in Buffalo Bayou seems to impact employment， real estate market and value. The housing impact， during the same time frame，includes values of change for ‘occupied housing units’ of 961， ‘occupied structures with 50+ units’ of 787， and ‘renter occupied units’ of 470. Employment （population in work force） increases by 10，454 between 2008 and 2012. During the same time frame， the number of establishments increase by 182 （downtown block group） and from 3 to 30 （midtown block group）. An indirect impact is the increase in retail sales by $46.8 million（downtown block group） and by $15.4 million（midtown block group）. Finally， a development adjacent to BBP introduces 198 additional housing units and has seen a property value increase by 40% （HCAD， 2013）. Although most economic performance indicators identified earlier in the research were documented for BBP， this project offered a different set of challenges due its location and project goals and mission. The availability of archival and secondary data concerning its engineering was minimally available. In conclusion，the seven year time frame between BBP’s opening and the time of the research allowed for a stronger economic benefits study. Clear before and after data is available to create a stronger argument for BBP’s indirect effect on Houston’s downtown renaissance （LAF， 2013b）.

4.3 Katy Trail， Dallas

The Katy Trail （Fig.3） is an urban， pedestrian trail within Dallas’ Uptown District. While planning for the trail began in the 1980’s， the SWA Group design， opened for use in the year 2000. The project arose as part of The Rails to Trails Conservancy project and has overlaid on an abandoned Texas to Missouri right-of-way. In 1997， the establishment of the Friends of the Katy Trail stimulated funding for the proposed $23 million dollar master plan and continues to generate funding for its ongoingoperation. The Katy Trail is a result of a successful public-private partnership among the City of Dallas， Dallas Area Rapid Transit （DART）， and ONCOR the regional electricity provider.With 300，000 potential users within a 1 mile radius of the trail， the Katy Trail promotes connectivity with dual bike and pedestrian trails， sustainability through native plant design and economic stimulus with a noted increase in development along the trail （Lockwood， 2007； Stewart， 2014）. The performance study illustrated that The Katy Trail，along its adjacencies， experiences a notedincrease in economic value.The economic impact of Katy Trail is a product of its interaction with surrounding parcels and varying land uses along its path. The trail corridor is primarily studied through indirect impacts in three buffer zones； adjacencies（properties/parcels touching the boundaries of the trail corridor， 0.25 mile buffer area， as well as the area defi ned by 0.5 mile from the trail. The analysis of land use data concentrates on percent change in land use square footage between the （years） 2000，2005 and 2010 data-sets. Positive economic change occurs with commercial growth at approximately 7% （from 2000 to 2010） along adjacent parcels. Additionally， 13% multi-family land use growth is noted during this time frame along adjacent parcels（NCTCOG & US Census， 2014）. In summary，commercial land use increases signify increase potential for economic activity and multi-family land use increases signify an increase in density which corresponds to a larger population that contributes to the tax base and local economy. The Dallas Central Appraisal District offers substantial property value data back to 2004 that this research can utilize. Adjacent parcels along the trail display an approximate 38% mean value increase in value between 2004 and 2013. Additionally， parcels within the 0.25 mile buffer display an increase in mean value by approximately 43% （DCAD， 2014；Stewart， 2014）. The study of gross sales， sales tax revenue， number of establishments， employment are also conducted and varying positive changes are recorded in various portions of the trail but results deemed limited by the researchers due to confounding factors. These data are attainable only for Zip Code or Census Track level， much larger geographies than parcel level data. Confounding factors created greater concerns with these large scale geographies for data in comparison. The Katy Trail economic performance study illustrates the importance of the availability of data to produce robust economic performance results （Stewart，2014）.

4.4 The UT Dallas Campus Identity & Landscape Framework Plan， Richardson The University of Texas at Dallas Campus Identity & Landscape Framework Plan Phase.1 （UTD）（Fig.4） was completed in 2010. PWP Landscape Architecture led the design vision to transition the campus from a car-centric environment to a pedestrian friendly campus landscape. The 33 acre project was initially funded through the University of Texas system， additional sources enabled the original $6 million plan to move forward and later be augmented through a $30 million private donation. The campus enhancements were aided through substantial native plantings and through an increase of the canopy tree count by adding 5000 natural trees on-site. The landscape has helped transform the image of the campus and become a source of pride to student， faculty， and staff as well as to the surrounding community. UTD also revealed various landscape performance findings in concern to direct and indirect economic factors. The Phase 1 plan indirectly impacts enrollment and donations in a positive manner which believed to stimulate economic activity. While as a fairly new project， there has been an observed enrollment increase of 13% from 2010 to 2012. To 2018，the annual enrollment was projected to increase 4% as well （UTD Annual Report， 2012）. The excitement of the updated landscape stimulated $31.2 million in private donations to fund the construction and future university initiatives. As a direct impact the project created approximately72 design， construction and or consultations jobs from October 2008 to October 2010 （UTD Construction Facts， 2010）. For UTD， economic benefi ts were more implicit， and the indirect effects were created through the environmental and aesthetic value of the Phase 1 landscape design. A limitation in the economic study comes from the large footprint of the campus thus the lack of adjacent development in close proximity. Although future plans exist and evolving， such as Dallas Area Rapid Transit （DART）’s Cotton Belt Line comes to fruition are in the adjacencies the UTD enhancements is assumed to impact the proposed transit plaza directly north of the campus grounds. In conclusion， the environmental improvements drive the indirect economic value increases while outlining the university’s sustainable initiative （LAF，2013c）.

4.5 Addison Circle， Addison

Addison Circle （Fig.5） was built as the town-center for the City of Addison in late 1990s. In collaboration in the early and mid-1990’s with RTKL， the Town of Addison identifi ed an 80-acre（reached 124 acres in 2011） site as its last chance to create a heart for the community. The design is evolved as an outcome of a unique public/ private partnership. The development includes residential， commercial， office， public and civic components in conformance with a coherent plan. The design/plan specifi es the type and scale of uses， permitted densities， and related green infrastructure. The design concentrates on four sub-districts； the toll way fronting zone， Addison Town Center， the DART station area， and adjacent，urban residential neighborhoods. The design has significant functional and physical integration of project components， a relatively intense use of land， and uninterrupted pedestrian spaces and connections to stimulate activity across subdistricts. Respecting the Town’s moratorium on garden-style apartments， a high-density， mixed-use urban residential district， office， hotel and retail space are created in this visionary development. More importantly， a pedestrian-friendly street grid，a series of public parks and a landmark sculpture have defined a focus for community life. The development presents one of the earliest examples of multimodal live-work-play development creating self-sufficient urban environment in North Texas（Ozdil et.al， 2011； RTKL， 2010）. Addison Circle presents added complexities and challenges to reveal direct and indirect impacts of landscape architecture project’s economic performance. Of the 124 acre developed by the year 2011， 71 acres is noted private and 53 acres public/row. Residential district planned for 3500 units in late 1990s is cited as 4，800 and 4.7 million SF mixed-residential in 2011. The commercial component （including office， hotel and retail space） initially created up to 4 million SF is cited as 6 million SF mixedcommercial in 2011. The City of Addison invested $10.7 million for in the Addison Circle project to infrastructure， including roads and open space improvements. As of 2009 private investment in Addison Circle totals 320 million dollars and the ratio of public fi nancing the total estimated to be 1：29. Estimated annual property tax revenue from the assessed values equated over $1 million in revenue in year 2008. Population density per square mile in Addison increased from 2，397 in 2000 to est. 3，769 in 2014. Median household income for the same time period increase from $45， 998 to $71，636. Housing vacancy in Addison Census Track reduced by 1.2% percent while median rent increased from $751 to est. $1，398 for the same time period. Data also illustrate that number of employment within the Census track including Addison Circle nearly doubled between 2006 and 2009 （Ozdil， 2012； RTKL， 2010 &Weaver， 2008 in Ozdil et.al， 2011）. Although data availability prevents researchers to illustrate direct impacts of landscape components， Addison Circle economic performance study demonstrates the impact of combined structural components of master planned development to exemplify empirical data and robust economic performance results.

5 Conclusions & Discussions

This paper evaluated the relationship between landscape architecture and economic activity by reviewing relevant literature and the economic performance findings from five projects/case studies in Texas. The landscape architecture projects/typologies reviewed are： Klyde Warren Park， Dallas； Katy Trail， Dallas； UT Dallas Campus Identity and Landscape Framework Plan，Richardson； Addison Circle， Addison； Buffalo Bayou Promenade， Houston. The review of the broader literature illustrated that the significant progress is being made in performance studies within the recent years in landscape architecture. Especially， the rising awareness concerning sustainability and green design practices in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s， with improved technological capabilities， seem to encourage a rigorous assessment and understanding of design and planning projects. The focus of the evaluation techniques for performance studies also seem to be broadening from descriptive and perception driven case studies to data driven， comprehensive，empirical， and systematic research within the recent years. Although many ambiguities exist in ‘what to measure’ and ‘how to measure’ in performance studies， they start to become more inclusive of all social， environmental， and economic factors（see LAF CSI case studies）. Those performance studies that focus on singular issue/factor such as economics， start scrutinizing deeper level of details and complex procedures encouraging replicable methods and reliable results. This economic performance study is responding to some of these recent developments in landscape performance studies. This study illustrates that economic activity in most cases has been at least one of the intended outcomes of all design and planning activities. On the other hand， the empirical studies with consistent indicators and research framework to study economic performance is more of a recentactivity and it is an area open to more research in landscape architecture.

The examination of the case studies reveal that the complex nature of landscape architectural projects， and their inherent， intangible qualities，require such performance studies to be more comprehensive and inclusive when it comes to documenting economic activity. The results suggest the importance of seeking all direct， indirect， and ripple economic effects （de Groot et al.， 2002； The Center for Urban Policy Research， 1997） even if such studies produces limited results for varying geospatial scales and projects.

The review of five case studies illustrate that most projects initiated a level of direct economic activity in one form for another. For example， in almost all instances jobs are created during the construction， and/or after the completion of the projects as part of maintenance and operations. In the case of Klyde Warren Park and Addison Circle， the programmable elements of landscape projects such as the restaurants， kiosks， or food trucks as well as indoor/outdoor rental for specifi c events also start generating revenue （sales or tax）as a direct outcome of the projects. Projects like Katy Trail illustrates thata chieving direct economic activity within the site is next to impossible due to its spatial limitations as a linear space. On the other hand if the research was to specifically focus on converting the economic implications of environmental improvements such as sequestering carbon dioxide for cleaner air， or filtering water through landscape features， these items would also be considered as part of the direct economic impacts of all urban landscape projects.

As it is revealed in the case study briefs above， the majority of the economic activity generated as a result of urban landscape projects was a product of their indirect effect in their adjacencies，neighborhoods/ districts， and even their cities. As the Katy Trail study， Buffalo Bayou Promenade，Klyde Warren Park studies specifically illustrate，the economic performance indicators recorded are mostly indirect and are more of a function of the immediate adjacencies. The documented indirect economic activities generated as a result of landscape improvements was mostly in the form of increases in real estate development， property values， property rentals， retail sales and tax revenue as well as public private partnerships that generate broader economic developments （see Table 2 below for all indicators reviewed in this research）. Almost in all instances， direct and/or indirect activities are prone to produce ripple effects. For example， the impact of the installation of solar powered lighting in Buffalo Bayou Promenade to the number of jobs created in solar economy is considered as a ripple effect.

The fi ndings illustrate that a level consistency and replicability in methodology， as well as performance measures/indicators， can be achieved，if the case specifi c （unique） economic performance factors are customized later in the process for greater detail. The review of the case studies reveals that economic performance studies are more prone to produce quantifiable data for empirical research than perhaps social and environmental studies. As it is illustrated in the table below， a consisent set of economic variables can detail the economic performance of a project （Table 2）. In all case studies， most of the pre-determined variables， as result of literature review， produce empirical data. The variation occured whether the performance indicators illustrate direct， indirect，or ripple effect one case to the other. Fine-tuning of the methodology occurred when a project had a very specifi c quality unlike the others have. For example， the UTD campus study required additional exploration of economic variables such as enrollment or private donations. The review was assuring that the study of multiple case studies leads to a promotion of cross-sectional empirical and systematic research with consistent criteria on numerous projects in landscape architecture.

The review of five urban landscape projects also reveals certain areas and complexities one must recognize in future economic performance research. The physical qualities of a project such as project type， size， form， location，and project time on the ground are some of the key issues that impact the empirical economic performance research framework. As it is illustrated in this study，such variation among the projects reviewed was challenging but ultimately enriched the findings. For example， the location of a project seems to be a deterministic quality in arguing economic value through strong evidence. In this instance， choosing urban landscape architecture case studies produce a more consistent set of projects to review. The size or the form of a landscape project infl uenced the directness of the economic impact. On the more procedural side， the availability and/or attainability of economic performance study data was a critical factor in all of the evaluations. Although collecting primary data （as opposed to archival and secondary data） seems to assure greater validity and reliability to promote the scientific rigor for knowledge creation， in landscape architecture，it is an exhausting/costly endeavor to collect primary economic data for every project over long periods of time. Unless continuing evaluation and documentation of a project is a mission of a landscape architecture project， the inquiry of reliable and robust secondary/archival data is found to be an essential dimension of economic performance studies.

In conclusion， this paper is an attempt to draw lessons from the review of past research as well as five completed projects to discuss the economic performance of urban landscape projects. The paper up to a point revealed many results and issues on the topic. Yet， it did not respond to the question “why one should measure economic performance of landscape architectural projects？”It can be validly argued that studying performance is a necessary dimension of landscape architecture to inform future designs with lessons from the past. It helps in the education of future practitioners，and/or inform landscape architecture research and theory in the future as a knowledge-based activity. Researcher’s believe that the concerns of such studies should be inclusive beyond the selffulfilling prophecy among landscape architecture academics and professionals. The value of assessing economic performance of landscape architecture with empirical evidence and systematic research communicates the value of the profession to other “non-landscape architects” with valid language and reliable and robust data and methods. Ultimately， such economic performance review is belied to be a critical dimension of performance research and landscape architecture in the future to communicate the greater impact and value to the society. One final question is that in the greater scheme of things is “what is the economic implications of creating environments to promote healthy and fulfilling life， sequestering carbon dioxide for cleaning air， or cleaning or slowing the water through landscapes？” yet to be determined. These difficult questions must be the topic for future landscape research to validate the scholarship and profession of landscape architecture.

Acknowledgment：

Special thanks to project firms Office of James Burnett，SWA Group， PWP Landscape Architects， and RTKL for promoting performing landscapes and sharing critical project background information.

/Reference

［1］2000 McKinney Avenue［Z/OL］. 2000 McKinney Avenue，2013.［2013-07-01］http：//www.2000mckinneyavenue.com/

［2］Barshop C. （2013， June）. The Park Foundation（Operations & Maintenance）. （terviews）［z］.

［3］Bengochea Morancho A. A hedonic valuation of urban green areas［J］. Landscape and Urban Planning，2003：35-42.

［4］Bookout L W， Beyard M D， Fader S W.Value by design：Landscape site planning and amenities［M］. Washington DC：The Urban Land Institute，1994.

［5］Bjerke， K. （2013， June 21）. Klyde Warren Park（Construction Man-Hours）. （D. Stewart， Interviewer） ［z］.

［6］Carlisle Stepahanie，Pevzner Nicholas. NYC High performance Landscape Guidelines Retrieved January 20，2014［Z/OL］.. from： http：//landscapeurbanism.com/article/ high-performance-landscapes/

［7］Carmona， M.， Punter， J.， & Chapman， D. （2002）. From Design Policy to Design Quality： The treatment of design in community strategies， local development framework and action plans［M］. Cardiff City： RTPI.

［8］Carmona， M.， Maghalhaes， C. d.， Edwards， M.， Awour，B.， &Aminossehe， S. （2001）. The Value of Urban Design［M］. London： Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

［9］CPC. （2011）. Report on the Public Use in Central Park［M］. New York： Central Park Conservancy.

［10］Chiesura， A.（2004）. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city［J］. Landscape & Urban Planning， 68， 129-138.

［11］City of Dallas Parks and Recreation. （2012）. How Do We Rate？［M］. Dallas： City of Dallas.

［12］Crompton， J.L. （2001， November）. Parks and Economic Development［Z］. American Planning Association.

［13］DallasCounty Appraisal District. （2013）. DCAD Property Map. Retrieved July 2013［Z/OL］. from Dallas Central Appraisal District： http：//www.dallascad.org

［14］DallasCounty Appraisal District. （2014）. DCAD GIS Exchange. Retrieved February 2014［Z/OL］. from Dallas Central Appraisal District： http：//www.dallascad.org

［15］DART. （2013， July） ［Z/OL］. Retrieved from Dallas Area Rapid Transit： www.dart.org

［16］de Groot， R. S.， Wilson， M. A.， & Boumans， R. M. （2002）. A typology for the classification， description and valuation of ecosystem functions， goods and services［J］. Ecological Economies， 393-409.

［17］Deming， M. E.， &Swaffield， S. R. （2011）. Landscape architecture research： Inquiry， strategy， design［M］. Hoboken， N.J： Wiley.

［18］EPA- Environmental Protection Agency （2014）. Case Studies & Best Practices［Z/OL］. Retrieved on August 25st，2014 from http：//www.epa.gov/lean/environment/studies/

［19］Flick， D. （2012， December 10）. Klyde Warren Park boosts McKinney Avenue trolley ridership. Retrieved July 2013［N/OL］. from Dallas News： http：//www.dallasnews. com/news/transportation/20121209-klyde-warren-parkboosts-mckinney-avenue-trolley-ridership.ece

［20］Francis， M. （2003）.Urban Open Space： Designing for User Needs［M］. Island Press.Washington， D.C.

［21］Francis， M. （1999）. A case study method for landscape architecture［Z/OL］. Landscape Architecture Foundation，Washington， D.C. （Last Accessed http：//www.lafoundation. org/research/case-study-method/）

［22］Frangos， Alex （April 20， 2005）. “Location， Location，Architect” ［N］. The Wall Street Journal.

［23］Gehl， J. &Svarre， B. （2013）. How to study public life：Methods in urban design［M］. S.l.： Island Press.

［24］Greene， M. （2012）. Klyde Warren Park landscape review： 'Right plant， right place'， The Dallas Morning News［N/OL］.. Retrieved from http：//www.dallasnews. com/lifestyles/headlines/20121026-klyde-warren-parklandscape-review-right-plant-right-place.ece

［25］Harris County. （2013） ［Z/OL］.. Retrieved July 2013， from Harris County Appraisal District： http：//www.hcad.org

［26］Jerke， D.， Porter， D.， &Lassar， T. （2008）. Urban design and the bottom line： Optimizing the return on perception［M］.. Washington D.C.： The Urban Land Institute.

［27］LAF-Landscape Architecture Foundation （2014）. Case Study Briefs［N/OL］. （Last Accessed， August 5， 2014） http：// www.lafoundation.org/research/landscape-performanceseries/case-studies/

［28］LAFOzdil， Taner R.， & Modi， S.， & Stewart， D. （2013a）.“Case Study Investigation 2013： Klyde Warren Park”. OJB. Landscape Performance Series［N/OL］. Landscape Architecture Foundation， Washington D.C. （Peer-reviewed）. http：//www.lafoundation.org/research/landscapeperformance-series/case-studies/case-study/612/

［29］LAFOzdil， Taner R.， & Modi， S.， & Stewart， D.（2013b）. “Case Study Investigation 2013： Buffalo Bayou Promenade”. SWA Group. Landscape Performance Series［N/OL］. Landscape Architecture Foundation，Washington D.C. （Peer-reviewed）. http：//www.lafoundation. org/research/landscape-performance-series/case-studies/ case-study/623/

［30］LAFOzdil， Taner R.， & Modi， S.， & Stewart， D. （2013c）.“Case Study Investigation 2013： University of Texas at Dallas Campus Identity and Landscape Framework Plan”. PWP Landscape. Landscape Performance Series［N/OL］. Landscape Architecture Foundation， Washington D.C.（Peer-reviewed）. http：//www.lafoundation.org/research/ landscape-performance-series/case-studies/casestudy/624/

［31］Marcus， C. C.， & Francis， C. （1998）. Peoples place：Design guidelines for urban open space［M］. London： Van Nostrand Reinhold.

［32］McIndoe， G.， Chapman， R.， McDonald， C.， Holden，G.， &Howden-Chapman， P. （2005）. The value of urban design［M］. Wellington， New Zealand： Ministry for the Environment.

［33］Minecozzi， （2011）. The value of downtown. A Profitable investment for the community［M］. Retrieved on August 25，2014 from http：//www.friendsmidcoast.org/documents/ planningtools/

［34］Moughtin， C. （1999）. Urban design： Methods and techniques［M］. Boston， MA： Architectural Press.

［35］Murphy， M. D. （2005）. Landscape architecture theory：An evolving body of thought［M］. Long Grove， Ill： Waveland Press Inc.

［36］Museum Tower. （2013， July） ［N/OL］. Retrieved from Museum Tower Dallas： www.museumtowerdallas.com

［37］North Central Texas Council of Governments. （2014）. GIS Clearinghouse［N/OL］. Retrieved from NCTCOG： http：// www.nctcog.org

［38］Olin， L. （1988）. Form， Meaning， and Expression in Landscape Architecture［J］. Landscape Architecture Journal， 149-168.

［39］Ozdil， Taner R. （2008）. Economic Value of Urban Design［Z］. VDM Verlag Dr. Muller， Munich.

［40］Ozdil， Taner R. Edt. （October， 2011）. 10 North Texas Case Studies as Regional Best Practices［N/ OL］. Case Studies are individually published on Vision North Texas Website http：//www.visionnorthtexas. org/2011Casestudies/2011studies.asp

［41］Ozdil， Taner R. （June， 2012）. Searching for Value Creation Indicators and Mixed-Use Environments in North Texas［Z］. Environmental Design Research Association（EDRA 43 Seattle）.

［42］Ozdil， Taner R.， & Modi， S.， & Stewart， D. （March， 2014）.“‘Texas Three-Step’ Landscape Performance Research：Learning from Buffalo Bayou Promenade Klyde Warren Park， and UT Dallas Campus Plan” Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture （CELA-2014） ［Z］. Proceedings. Baltimore. MD.

［43］Preiser， W. F.E.， Rabinowitz， H. Z.， & White E. T. （1988）. Post occupancy evaluation［M］. New York： Van Nostrand Reinhold.

［44］Pogodzinski， J.， & Kos， R. M. （2013）. Economic Development & GIS［M］. Redlands： Esri Press.

［45］Prekosovich， M.， Martinez， H.， Sierra， A.， Bian， C.， & Re No， Y. （2011）. Woodall Rodgers Park， "The Park" Dallas［M］. College Station： Texas A&M University.

［46］RTKL （2010）. Addison Circle Data［Z］. Provided by the Firm.

［47］PWP Landscape Architecture. （2010）. Campus Site Development Plan 2008-2050［M］. Richardson： The University of Texas at Dallas.

［48］Sherer， P. （2006）. The Benefits of Parks： Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space［M］. San Francisco： The Trust for Public Land.

［49］Sommer R. （1969）. Personal space： The Behavioral basis for design［M］. Englewood Cliffs， NJ： Prentice-Hall.

［50］Stewart， Dylan （2014）. Assessing the Economic Value of Linear Landscapes： Learning from The Katy and Santa Fe Trails in Dallas， Texas［Z］. Non-published Thesis， The University of Texas at Arlington.

［51］SSI —Sustainable Sites Initiative （2014）. Certifeid Sites［Z/OL］. Retrieved on August 15 2014 fromhttp：//www. sustainablesites.org/

［52］SWA Group. （2013）. Katy Trail. Retrieved 2013［Z/OL］，from SWA： http：//www.swagroup.com/project/katy-trail.html

［53］TCLF —The Cultural Landscape Architecture Foundation（2014） ［N/OL］. Retrieved on August 15st， 2014 from https：// tclf.org/news/features/whats-out-there-texas-programofficially-launched

［54］The Center for Urban Policy Research. （1999）. Historic preservation at work for the Texas economy： A report［R］. New Jersey， Austin： Texas Historical Commission.

［55］Tzoulas， K.， Korpela， K.， Venn， S.， Yli-Pelkonen， V.，Kazmierczak， A.， Niemela， J.， & James， P. （2007）. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure： A literature review［J］. Landscape and Urban Planning， 167-179.

［56］U.S Department of Transportation， F. H. A. （March 2013）. Highway Statistics 2011［Z/OL］. From http：//www. fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/vm1.cfm

［57］U.S. Environmental Protection Agency （2012）. Water Trivia Facts［Z/OL］. From http：//water.epa.gov/learn/kids/ drinkingwater/water_trivia_facts.cfm

［58］ULI - Urban Land Institute. （2014）. ULI Development Case Studies［Z/OL］. Retrieved July 2014， from ULI Development Case Studies： http：//casestudies.uli.org/

［59］US Census Bureau. （2013）. Retrieved July 2013［Z/OL］，from United States Census Bureau： http：//www.census.gov/

［60］USGBC-LEED （2014）. Us Green Building Council［Z/ OL］. Retrieved on August 15st， 2014 from http：//www. usgbc.org/leed

［61］Vandermeulen， V.， Verspecht， A.， Vermeire， B.， Van Huylenbroeck， G.， & Gellynck， X. （2011）. The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas［J］. Landscape and Urban Planning， 198-207

［62］Weaver， Karla （2008）. National Association of Industrial and Official Properties： Sustainable Development Properties［Z/OL］ . Retrieved on August 2010， from http：// www.nctcog.org/trans/sustdev/landuse/NAIOP_062408. pdfRTKL， 2009； Weaver， 2008

［63］Wilonsky， R. （2013）. City hopes Klyde Warren Park improvement district will improve everything from Perot Museum to Arts District［N/OL］.The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from http：//cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/ city-hopes-klyde-warren-park-improvement-district-willimprove-everything-from-perot-museum-to-arts-district. html/

［64］Whyte， H. W. （Writer/Director）. （1990）. The social life of small urban spaces ［Video Recording］ ［N］. New York： Municipal Art Society.

［65］Yin， Robert K. （2009）. Applied social research methods series， 4th ed［Z］.Los Angeles， Sage Publication.

Assessing Economic Performance of Landscape Architecture Projects Lessons Learned from Texas Case Studies

Text by： Taner R. OZDIL （US） Dylan M. STEWART （US）
Translation： FENG Yi-jia REN-wei
Proofreading： LIU Jing-yi WU Dan-zi

This paper evaluates the relationship between landscape architecture and economic activity by reviewing the economic performance findings from five projects/case studies in Texas. The landscape architecture projects/typologies reviewed are： Klyde Warren Park； Katy Trail； UT Dallas Campus Identity and Landscape Framework Plan； Addison Circle； Buffalo Bayou Promenade. The research is an empirical inquiry on project evaluation which combines quantitative and qualitative methods. First， the paper reviews economic evaluation and performance studies in landscape architecture and relevant design fields. Second， the paper focuses on the selected landscape typologies， procedures and findings to highlight the importance of identifying consistent criteria， and comprehensive framework to study economic performance. Finally， it discusses the value of studying economic activity as part of landscape performance with empirical evidence and systematic research. In conclusion， the paper synthesizes criteria， methods， and findings from the case studies to illustrate the economic implications of varying urban landscape architecture project typologies. The paper also discusses the value of utilizing consistent set of criteria and methods to acquire reliable empirical results. The results reveal that economic performance is not always easily quantifiable， nor that all design improvements directly tie to economic activity in landscape architecture based on the case studies reviewed. Therefore， this research emphasizes the importance of documenting all direct， indirect， and ripple economic effects of a given landscape architecture project to highlight its economic value. Such emphasis also denotes a critical dimension of landscape architecture’s future to communicate the greater economic impact and value to the society.

Landscape Performance； Economic Activity； Case Study； Design Evaluation； Value

P901

A

1673-1530（2015）01-0070-17

10.14085/j.fjyl.2015.01.0070.17

2014-03-18

塔納爾·奧茲迪爾/博士/美國風景園林師協會會員/德州大學阿靈頓分校建筑學院副教授/大都會密度研究中心副主任迪倫·斯圖瓦特/德州大學阿靈頓分校建筑學院風景園林碩士/德克薩斯州達拉斯霍克設計事務所景觀設計師

譯者簡介：

馮藝佳/1989年生/女/河南人/北京林業大學園林學院博士生（北京100083）

任維/1988年生/男/浙江人/北京林業大學園林學院博士生（北京100083）

校對簡介：

劉京一/1989年生/男/江蘇人/北京林業大學園林學院碩士生（北京100083）

吳丹子/1988年生/女/北京人/北京林業大學園林學院博士生（北京100083）