This report presents a synthesis of the preliminary research conducted in 2025 and early 2026. It addresses the current situation of European landscape architecture research in relation to landscape architecture archives within the framework of COST Action CA23128, Connecting Landscape Architecture Archives to enhance European landscape practice, research and education (ConnectLAA). It has been prepared within Working Group 2, whose role is to enhance the use of landscape architecture archives for research and practice by deepening the network and identifying research gaps that can be addressed to further support scholarly output.The report should be understood as an interim and exploratory document. As stated in the methodological description prepared for this deliverable, it does not claim to provide a final or statistically exhaustive account of the addressed subject matter. Rather, since it is based on a qualitative approach, it offers a structured overview of the research topics, archival conditions, and knowledge gaps that emerged through WG2 activities and that may serve as a basis for future research and collaborative outputs.This orientation is consistent with the wider objectives of ConnectLAA. The Action aims to create a sustainable European knowledge and exchange platform for landscape architecture archival records, to bridge the gap between archival research and landscape practice, to improve archival and digital accessibility, and to support research, education, heritage practice, conservation, sustainable management and public understanding. It also responds to the fact that landscape architecture archives are unevenly established across Europe, especially in Inclusiveness Target Countries which is also connected to the uneven professional conditions and status of landscape architecture in the participating countries (IFLA Report 2021, Gkoltsiou and Forczek-Brataniec, 2024). This study confirms that many collections and fonds remain endangered by fragmentation, physical deterioration, unclear or contested ownership, and the absence of dedicated institutional custodianship, further compounded by insufficient archival processing and the vulnerabilities of born-digital collections.
Staniewska et al. (Fri,) studied this question.