A Systematic Review of Landscape Architecture and Garden Education in South Korea

Background and objective: Public interest in landscape architecture and gardening has been steadily increasing. However, except for academic programs within university departments of landscape architecture, the conceptual frameworks and contents of related educational programs remain fragmented and inconsistent. Existing research has addressed these areas, but it has primarily focused on individual case studies of educational programs. This study aims to identify research trends in landscape architecture and garden education and to propose future directions for research and professional training in these fields.Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted. Using the keywords “landscape architecture education,” “garden education,” “landscape architecture and garden college,” “citizen gardener,” and “gardening education,” a total of 5,339 bibliographic records were retrieved. Based on predefined selection criteria, 51 studies were initially screened, and through qualitative review, 27 journal articles and 15 theses were selected, resulting in a final analysis of 42 studies.Results: The majority of the studies, regardless of type, were published within landscape-related academic fields, such as university departments of landscape architecture and the Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture. The studies were categorized by their target group: general public education, education for majors, and practitioner training. Landscape architecture education primarily focused on majors and practitioners, while garden education centered on the general public. The findings indicate that research on landscape architecture education has concentrated on enhancing the professional knowledge and practical skills of students and practitioners, whereas garden education has emphasized civic engagement and the development of citizen experts.Conclusion: To foster professionals and ensure the continued development of landscape architecture and garden education, both the quantity and diversity of research must be expanded. At the programmatic level, landscape architecture education requires revitalized training for practitioners, while garden education needs a clearer definition of professional expertise.