Landscape design, as a design practice that unfolds within dynamic natural and human contexts, possesses an inherently complex and multilayered character, and can be regarded as one of the most complex forms of design. In such contexts, the designer’s thinking does not develop through a linear sequence of predefined steps; rather, it emerges as a reflective, iterative, and situation-oriented flow grounded in the continuous perception, interpretation, and redefinition of the design problem. Over recent decades, advances in cognitive sciences have led to increased scholarly attention toward the cognitive and reflective dimensions of design thinking across various design disciplines. Despite this development, landscape design literature has paid comparatively limited attention to the internal cognitive mechanisms of designers’ thinking. A substantial portion of theoretical and educational studies in landscape architecture has instead focused on prescriptive methods, analytical tools, and techniques for data collection. While these approaches have proven useful in certain respects, they often lack the capacity to explain the inner cognitive processes by which designers think, reflect, and make decisions.
Focusing on this theoretical gap, the present study seeks to conceptualize the fluid process of thinking in landscape design and to offer a coherent understanding of how designers’ thinking takes shape within complex and dynamic design contexts. The central research question guiding this study is: How does the designers’ thinking in landscape design proceed, and through what mechanisms does it unfold during the interaction between an overall understanding of the problem, its components, and potential design responses? More specifically, the study aims to clarify how the landscape designer’s mind navigates complexity, uncertainty, and contextual dynamism without relying on linear sequences or predefined stages, and how the path of thought is continuously constructed through reflective engagement with the design situation.
This research is qualitative and theoretical in nature and employs an analytical–comparative approach. The study is grounded in a conceptual analysis of authoritative theoretical sources in design studies and landscape architecture. Within this framework, three influential perspectives have been selected for analysis, comparison, and synthesis: Donald Schön’s theory of reflection-in-action, Bryan Lawson’s model of the intertwined interaction between problem and solution, and Tom Turner’s metaphor of the fluid, bee-like movement of the designer’s mind. Although these perspectives differ in analytical focus and theoretical emphasis, they share a fundamental rejection of linear design models and a strong emphasis on the exploratory, recursive, and fluid nature of design thinking.
The research process was organized into four main stages. First, the key concepts of each theory were identified and extracted through a close conceptual analysis of primary texts and related literature, allowing the cognitive mechanisms of design thinking within each perspective to be understood independently. Second, these concepts were subjected to a comparative analysis in order to identify shared principles, conceptual differences, and meaningful connections among the three theories. Third, based on conceptual synergy rather than the imposition of an external structure, the extracted concepts were synthesized into a unified theoretical framework capable of explaining the reflective and fluid nature of landscape design thinking. Finally, this integrated framework was articulated through a conceptual visualization designed to clarify the relationships among the core dimensions of the thinking process. The internal validity of the proposed framework was assessed based on its conceptual coherence, logical consistency among theoretical premises, and alignment between the synthesized model and the original theories.
Within the theoretical framework of the study, Donald Schön’s perspective serves to explain the nature of the design trajectory itself. Schön conceptualizes design as a reflective process in which thinking and action occur simultaneously. Through cycles of framing selected aspects of the situation, engaging in an ongoing dialogue with the design context, and responding to feedback from the situation, designers continuously reinterpret and redefine the problem they are addressing. From this standpoint, a design problem is not a fixed entity defined in advance, but rather an evolving construct that gradually takes shape through reflective action. The concept of framing plays a central role in this process, as designers temporarily impose an interpretive structure on the situation in order to act, while remaining open to revising that structure as new insights emerge.
Building on this foundation, Bryan Lawson’s theory elucidates the internal structure of the design trajectory. Lawson explains design thinking as a continuous and simultaneous interaction between problem and solution, unfolding through a recurring triad of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In this view, understanding the problem is not a prerequisite for design but develops progressively alongside tentative solutions. Provisional design responses function as cognitive tools that help designers explore, test, and deepen their understanding of the problem. As such, the design process advances through a constant back-and-forth movement rather than through a linear progression from analysis to solution. Lawson’s framework thus clarifies how designers move between parts and wholes, gradually shaping both the problem and its possible responses.
Tom Turner’s theory further enriches this account by foregrounding the fluidity and rhythm of the designer’s mental movement, particularly within the context of landscape design. Turner likens the movement of the designer’s mind to the flight of a bee—purposeful yet irregular, recursive, and oscillatory. In this metaphor, the designer’s attention shifts selectively among different components of the problem, guided by design ideas rather than by a predetermined analytical order. The significance of this perspective lies not in the structural organization of design elements, but in highlighting the variable and selective attention through which designers navigate complexity and uncertainty. This bee-like movement allows designers to adapt their focus in response to evolving design intentions.
A comparative reading of Schön, Lawson, and Turner demonstrates that each theory addresses a distinct yet complementary dimension of design thinking. Schön provides the epistemological foundation by explaining how reflective engagement with the situation shapes the path of thought; Lawson clarifies the internal structure of this path through the interaction between problem and solution; and Turner emphasizes the fluidity, selectivity, and nonlinearity of mental movement within that path. Together, these perspectives offer a comprehensive response to the research question by revealing how designers’ thinking in landscape design emerges as a fluid, reflective process rather than a sequence of predefined stages.
Through the analytical–comparative method adopted in this study, the key concepts of these theories have been extracted, compared, and synthesized into a coherent conceptual framework for explaining the reflective nature of landscape design thinking. The relationship between the foundational theories and the research response is thus synergistic rather than additive. The findings indicate that landscape design thinking is neither the result of an initial, fixed problem definition nor the outcome of step-by-step procedural advancement. Instead, it arises from the continuous, fluid, and reflective movement of the designer’s mind among an evolving understanding of the problem as a whole, selectively emphasized components of the situation, and tentative design ideas and responses that function as tools for exploration.
This movement is inherently recursive, non-linear, and evolutionary. Through ongoing interpretation, re-understanding, and redefinition of both problems and responses, the design trajectory takes shape within a reflective and situation-oriented context. Consequently, landscape design can be understood as a fluid stream of thought in which the boundaries between analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are constantly shifting, and in which decision-making unfolds through reflective engagement rather than procedural certainty.
Within the proposed framework, designers’ thinking is conceptualized as a continuous flow articulated through four interrelated dimensions. First, the problem is understood as a gradual, unstable, and evolving perception rather than a fixed definition. Second, the components of the problem emerge as elements that gain prominence through the designer’s selective attention. Third, design ideas and conjectures operate as exploratory instruments that help clarify and probe the problem rather than serving as final solutions. Fourth, the path of thought itself is conceived as a dynamic and recursive flow that interconnects these dimensions and enables movement among them.
To clarify the relationships among these dimensions, the framework is presented through a conceptual visualization. In this visualization, the problem is depicted as a fluid and shifting background, problem components are represented as elements with varying weights and degrees of importance, and design responses are shown as lights with fluctuating intensity and duration. The movement of the designer’s mind is illustrated as an entangled thread, symbolizing the possibility of return, reconsideration, and revision throughout the design process. Although this visual representation necessarily involves a degree of simplification, it effectively conveys the reflective, indeterminate, and dynamic nature of landscape design thinking.
By offering an integrated interpretation of the fluidity of thinking in landscape design, this research provides a theoretical foundation for analyzing decision-making processes in the field and contributes to the ongoing tradition of reflective design theory. The proposed framework may serve as a complementary approach alongside existing studies, helping to clarify the cognitive and mental dimensions of landscape design processes. Furthermore, it opens opportunities for rethinking educational practices and professional action in landscape architecture by emphasizing the importance of understanding fluid, recursive, and evolutionary modes of thinking when engaging with the complexity and uncertainty inherent in landscape design contexts.