撰文：（愛(ài)沙尼亞）西蒙·貝爾

翻譯：李正

從個(gè)人角度談風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科未來(lái)十年的發(fā)展

撰文：（愛(ài)沙尼亞）西蒙·貝爾

翻譯：李正

文章就風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科如何在未來(lái)10年得以發(fā)展而發(fā)表個(gè)人意見(jiàn)，是從教育角度而非行業(yè)角度出發(fā)的，所以其所呈現(xiàn)的方面可能和那些由就職于大型設(shè)計(jì)工程公司者撰寫(xiě)的文章不同。物理學(xué)家尼爾斯·玻爾（Niels Bohr）的名言“做預(yù)測(cè)很難，特別是關(guān)于未來(lái)的預(yù)測(cè)”所傳達(dá)的道理適用于我下面所寫(xiě)的文字。此外，未來(lái)動(dòng)向總是和我們的預(yù)期不同，世界總是由那些被市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家納西姆·尼可拉斯·塔雷伯（Nassim Nicholas Taleb）稱(chēng)為“黑天鵝事件”的意外所塑造的，僅具有事后而非事前預(yù)測(cè)性。在歐洲景觀教育大學(xué)聯(lián)合會(huì)2014年年會(huì)上，著名葡萄牙設(shè)計(jì)師若昂·努內(nèi)斯（Jo?o Nunes）說(shuō)了一句話：“未來(lái)并非一只潛伏在時(shí)間角落中的野獸”， 讓人印象深刻，卻也有待觀察。因此，你應(yīng)該對(duì)我的預(yù)測(cè)保持警惕！

站在歐洲景觀教育大學(xué)聯(lián)合會(huì)主席這個(gè)并非崇高的位置上看，我覺(jué)得當(dāng)下和未來(lái)的風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科狀況中有著很多不確定性和變化性，這種狀態(tài)在很多方面是常態(tài)。雖然行業(yè)也許參與全球各種項(xiàng)目，但學(xué)科并沒(méi)有像建筑或工程那樣被廣泛接受和理解。某些國(guó)家的保守勢(shì)力看似強(qiáng)烈抵制“風(fēng)景園林”這一名稱(chēng)，而這一名稱(chēng)也頑固拒絕融入任何常規(guī)框架。在歐洲研究門(mén)戶(hù)中，我們無(wú)法找到風(fēng)景園林這一分類(lèi)，只能將自己的專(zhuān)業(yè)置于某個(gè)未明確界定的環(huán)境或人文類(lèi)別之中。我們需要努力增加專(zhuān)業(yè)的可見(jiàn)性和認(rèn)可度，讓我們的工作為我們做宣傳。但是，說(shuō)的比做的容易，因?yàn)轱L(fēng)景園林并不像建筑那樣易于產(chǎn)生明星設(shè)計(jì)師，部分源于我們從沒(méi)有真正完成的項(xiàng)目，且這些項(xiàng)目并不像建筑的宏偉設(shè)計(jì)那樣引人注目。這個(gè)現(xiàn)象將會(huì)有所改善么？這取決于我們?cè)趯?zhuān)業(yè)各領(lǐng)域有多自信多成功。

我有時(shí)覺(jué)得風(fēng)景園林師的自我認(rèn)同有兩個(gè)相互矛盾的趨勢(shì)。一些人喜歡側(cè)重于公共空間和城市景觀設(shè)計(jì)的傳統(tǒng)領(lǐng)域，傾向于和建筑師、規(guī)劃師、工程師緊密合作。這類(lèi)并不必然發(fā)揮領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用的風(fēng)景園林師所從事的項(xiàng)目較易于識(shí)別，可在大城市顯著位置以當(dāng)代方式創(chuàng)造性展示材料和植物。一些研究項(xiàng)目也傾向于關(guān)注這類(lèi)領(lǐng)域（盡管不是唯一），且最終的主要設(shè)計(jì)通常成為了這類(lèi)項(xiàng)目最后所能企及的高度的重要部分。如果能就此提高專(zhuān)業(yè)的知名度，這樣做當(dāng)然就沒(méi)問(wèn)題。

另一個(gè)趨勢(shì)是把所有導(dǎo)致景觀發(fā)生創(chuàng)造性改變的活動(dòng)，看作風(fēng)景園林的合理涉及范圍，不管這種改變是通過(guò)規(guī)劃、設(shè)計(jì)還是經(jīng)驗(yàn)實(shí)現(xiàn)的。這一視角使風(fēng)景園林中多樣化分工得以發(fā)展——實(shí)際上這在一些國(guó)家發(fā)展了好幾十年了——并使專(zhuān)業(yè)化從業(yè)者得以從諸如能源景觀、森林、交通或大尺度景觀規(guī)劃等細(xì)分領(lǐng)域中涌現(xiàn)。這些專(zhuān)家所接觸的外專(zhuān)業(yè)人員可能和第一類(lèi)風(fēng)景園林師不同，更多是和林務(wù)員、生態(tài)學(xué)家、水文學(xué)家、能源與休閑娛樂(lè)學(xué)家合作。他們的工作也許并不那么炫目而易于識(shí)別，但卻涉及大尺度領(lǐng)域且影響更長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)。

在我看來(lái)，我們應(yīng)該鼓勵(lì)這種多元性，因?yàn)檫@可以拓展影響面，也為在那些競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈的市場(chǎng)中從業(yè)的風(fēng)景園林師提供更多生存技能并在經(jīng)濟(jì)上適應(yīng)不確定的狀況。比如，在2007年-2008年房市崩潰后，不少依賴(lài)房地產(chǎn)開(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)目的公司倒閉了。那些有著更多元技能而擁有可再生能源領(lǐng)域顧客的公司則依然能通過(guò)做景觀和視覺(jué)影響評(píng)價(jià)而賺錢(qián)，因?yàn)檫@些顧客可以享受政府補(bǔ)貼。這類(lèi)項(xiàng)目并不能在諸如Topos等雜志上刊登炫目的新景觀照片，但事實(shí)上它們?cè)诮?jīng)營(yíng)重要的、高價(jià)值的風(fēng)景方面扮演著關(guān)鍵角色。只要這個(gè)領(lǐng)域發(fā)展良好，那么它將可能持續(xù)提供項(xiàng)目來(lái)源，但在某些國(guó)家可能會(huì)達(dá)到飽和。

一些新近的景觀規(guī)劃方法有可能讓風(fēng)景園林師展示他們的價(jià)值，比如綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。這一概念將城市及其邊緣的綠地置于和道路、技術(shù)設(shè)施、越來(lái)越密集的城市同等的地位，這種角色可被盡量強(qiáng)調(diào)因?yàn)槠鋵⒃O(shè)計(jì)置于一個(gè)真正的景觀尺度之中。這個(gè)概念已經(jīng)為研究和主題會(huì)議提供了一個(gè)流行話題，顯示風(fēng)景園林師已經(jīng)在這一領(lǐng)域有了一席之地。這個(gè)領(lǐng)域至少在未來(lái)10年會(huì)持續(xù)發(fā)展。

景觀和綠色空間在促進(jìn)健康方面的角色在過(guò)去10年有了很大的提高，這個(gè)角色是通過(guò)改善身體活動(dòng)和心理健康兩方面實(shí)現(xiàn)的，比如減少壓力。這個(gè)領(lǐng)域需要時(shí)間成熟，也需要景觀相關(guān)專(zhuān)業(yè)與健康專(zhuān)家合作，由于涉及多元分歧的出發(fā)點(diǎn)、理論、實(shí)踐和研究證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這種合作并不容易。這個(gè)領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展也打開(kāi)了一個(gè)全新的市場(chǎng)，為風(fēng)景園林師帶來(lái)了新的合作伙伴。其對(duì)于土地的影響也許并不引人注目，但對(duì)生活質(zhì)量的影響也許會(huì)是巨大的。這個(gè)領(lǐng)域還有很長(zhǎng)的路要走。

另一個(gè)風(fēng)景園林師開(kāi)始涉足的領(lǐng)域是反設(shè)計(jì)。我指的是在一種動(dòng)態(tài)環(huán)境中工作，在這種環(huán)境中景觀極少進(jìn)入一種讓總體設(shè)計(jì)可以賴(lài)以完成的穩(wěn)定狀態(tài)。這種動(dòng)態(tài)環(huán)境包括擴(kuò)張型城市邊緣的動(dòng)態(tài)機(jī)制，也包括萎縮型城市的內(nèi)部瓦解。介入這類(lèi)環(huán)境需要理解和處理復(fù)雜的過(guò)程，側(cè)重將動(dòng)態(tài)過(guò)程往無(wú)害的方向引導(dǎo)。經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治手段至少和空間規(guī)劃手段一樣重要。臨時(shí)性、可移動(dòng)、彈出性景觀可能是用傳統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)語(yǔ)匯可以實(shí)現(xiàn)的所有形式，而這些形式是小尺度的。有跡象表明這一趨勢(shì)正在加速并可能在未來(lái)10年持續(xù)。

在諸如歐洲景觀公約等法律文件的推動(dòng)下，景觀規(guī)劃經(jīng)營(yíng)中的公眾參與和自下而上過(guò)程越來(lái)越影響全球。作為推動(dòng)者的風(fēng)景園林師在這一領(lǐng)域正扮演越來(lái)越重要的角色。這個(gè)領(lǐng)域也許看起來(lái)最不炫目，但卻對(duì)生活質(zhì)量、社會(huì)資本建構(gòu)、景觀意識(shí)提升有著巨大影響，因而會(huì)增加風(fēng)景園林師的可見(jiàn)度。

風(fēng)景園林教育需要呼應(yīng)這些挑戰(zhàn)并保證畢業(yè)生能勝任這些挑戰(zhàn)?；蛟S需要調(diào)整課程，或?yàn)槟切┫Ｍ麄?cè)重不同領(lǐng)域的高年級(jí)學(xué)生提供選擇。也許需要重新評(píng)估畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)的核心角色，并提供更多選修課。這種改變已在一些地方發(fā)生，并應(yīng)該被擴(kuò)展到那些需要的地方。風(fēng)景園林院系在全球各地被設(shè)置在不同的院系中，這種優(yōu)勢(shì)意味著并不存在所謂“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的”風(fēng)景園林師，在歐洲風(fēng)景園林院系委員會(huì)中我們無(wú)保留歡迎這種多元性和彈性。

總之，我認(rèn)為我們的未來(lái)掌握在自己手里，作為一個(gè)學(xué)科和行業(yè)，我們應(yīng)該去探尋和利用更大社會(huì)趨勢(shì)所提供的各種機(jī)會(huì)。未來(lái)10年我們應(yīng)該看到行業(yè)在某些地區(qū)變得更成熟，在一些地區(qū)興起，在另一些地方衰落。

This article is a personal perspective on how landscape architecture as a discipline could develop，looking ahead to the next decade. It is written from the point of view of the education sector， rather than the profession， and therefore may present a different picture than that of someone at the helm of a large office designing and constructing projects. However， as Niels Bohr the physicist is reputed to have said， “making predictions is very difficult， especially about the future” and this must apply to what I write below. In addition， what the future produces tends not to be what we expect -the major events which have shaped the world have been so-called “black swan events” as postulated by the market economist Nassim Nicholas Taleb -completely unexpected and not remotely predicted by anyone， except with the 2020 vision of hindsight. In the memorable words of Jo?o Nunes，the well-known Portuguese landscape architect at the 2014 ECLAS conference， “the future is not a savage beast lurking in a corner of time”， though this also remains to be seen. Therefore， YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED！

From the not-so-lofty viewpoint of the ECLAS president it seems to me that there is a lot of uncertainty and variability in the current and future state of landscape architecture - these states being in many ways the norm. While professionals may be involved in projects all over the world， the discipline is not universally accepted or understood in the same way that architecture or engineering are. It also seems that the forces for conservatism in some countries are arranged strongly against acceptance of the very name “l(fā)andscape architecture” and the term stubbornly refuses to fit into any convenient box. When entering theEuropean Research Portal one is asked to identify one’s disciplinary field and it is impossible to do so except by deciding whether to place it in an undefined environmental or humanities section. We need to work very hard to increase the visibility and awareness of what we do and to let our works speak for us. However， this is easier said than done as landscape architecture does not lend itself to“starchitects” in the same way as architecture does，in part because we never have any truly finished projects and none of them can be quite as “sexy”as architecture’s grands projets. Will it get any better？ This may depend on how confident and successful we are in all areas.

I sometimes feel that there are two competing tendencies when it comes to the self-identity of landscape architects. Some seem to prefer to focus on the traditional and classical areas of public open space and urban landscape design， tending to work closely with architects， planners and engineers and forming a kind of family with them. The projects undertaken by this suite of professionals，the landscape architect not necessarily taking the lead， tend to be more identifiable and allow for arguably the most creative opportunities and the display of use of materials and plants in a contemporary way which is also visible and can be found in prestigious places in major cities. Study programmes in place often tend to focus on this area （though not exclusively） and the final major design project usually forming a significant part of the final degree may tend to fall into this category. There is of course nothing wrong in such projects and if they raise the profile of the discipline so much the better.

The alternative approach is to look on any activity taking place with a creative outcome where the landscape is changed in some way through planning， design or management is the legitimate realm of landscape architecture. This view allows for a wide range of specialisms in landscape architecture to develop - and which have in many cases de facto developed over several decades already in certain countries - and for specialist practitioners to emerge who may work exclusively in these different fields， such as energy landscapes，forests， transport or large-scale landscape planning. These specialists may interact with a different set of professionals than those in the first group， perhaps more with foresters， ecologists， hydrologists， energy and recreational specialists. Their work may be less glamorous but it may cover larger-scaled territories and have long term consequences even if the end results cannot be so easily identified.

In my view we should encourage this diversity and variety for several reasons - not just to widen the range of influence but also to provide a wider palette to practitioners in what is in some places a crowded market and to ensure economic resilience in times of uncertainty. For example， in the UK after the 2007-2008 housing market crash the work of many firms reliant on residential projects disappeared and some firms went out of business. Others had a wider portfolio， with clients in the renewable energy field who remained very active due to the presence of subsidies which continued to be paid， primarily carrying out landscape and visual impact assessments. These projects do not provide fantastic new landscapes for inclusion in magazines like Topos but in fact have an important role in managing significant and often highly valued scenery for example. As long as this sector remainspopular then it will probably continue to provide work， although there may be a saturation point in some countries.

Some fairly recent approaches to landscape planning have the potential to enable landscape architects to demonstrate their worth， Green Infrastructure being one of them. This concept puts green areas in urban and urban fringe landscapes on a par with roads and technical infrastructure and with the growth of larger and also denser cities this role should be emphasised as much as possible as it opens up design on a truly “l(fā)andscape” scale. It is already proving to be a popular topic for research and in conferences where themed sessions are a magnet for presenters，showing how landscape architecture has staked a claim there. This must surely continue for another decade at least.

The role of landscape and green spaces in health promotion， through the twin aspects of physical activity and mental health improvement，such as stress reduction， has seen a major increase in the last decade. Research in this field needs time to mature and also for a synergy of landscape professions and health professions to come together - not an easy task given the widely divergent starting points， theories， practices and research evidence requirements. This also opens up a whole new market and range of collaborators for landscape architects. The results on the ground may not be very spectacular but the impact on quality of life has the potential to be massive. The trend for this still has a long way to run.

Another area which landscape architects are starting to become involved in is that of anti-design. By this I mean working in dynamic conditions where the landscape rarely if ever enters a stable state so that a master plan-type design does not get the chance to develop. This is typified by the dynamics of the urban fringe or peri-urban landscape of expanding cities and in the internal collapse of shrinking cities. This is all about understanding and working with complex processes and focuses on efforts to steer these dynamic processes into benevolent rather than harmful directions. The tools include economics and politics as much as if not more than spatial planning. Temporary， moveable and pop-up landscapes may be all that is possible in traditional design terms and these are small in scale. The signs are that this trend is accelerating so also likely to last for another ten years.

Increasingly， and promoted via instruments such as the European Landscape Convention，public participation and bottom-up processes in landscape planning and management are taking hold around the world. This is where the landscape architect as facilitator is becoming an increasingly important role. This may seem to be the least glamorous aspect but may also have a big impact on quality of life and on building social capital as well as raising awareness of what landscape is and what it has to offer and thereby increasing the visibility of landscape architects as a by-product.

Education in landscape architecture needs to respond to these challenges and to ensure that graduates are able to take advantage of the opportunities. It may be that the curricula need to be adapted or more choices offered to senior students wishing to focus on different areas. The central role of the final major design project may need to be reassessed and more elective courses offered. This is already happening in some places and should be expanded where the opportunity presents itself. One benefit of landscape architecture schools being located in different faculties or departments across the world means that already there is no such thing as a “standard”landscape architect and in ECLAS at any rate we welcome this diversity and the flexibility it offers.

In conclusion， I think that we hold our future in our own hands and it is up to us as a discipline and profession to seek out and take advantage of the various opportunities offered as a result of the broad trends in occurring in society and elsewhere. The next ten years should see the profession becoming more mature in some regions， emerging in others while possibly declining in some places.

The Outlook for Landscape Architecture in the Next Decade： A Personal Viewpoint

Text by： Simon BELL （ESTONIA）
Translation： LI Zheng

西蒙·貝爾/男/歐洲景觀教育大學(xué)聯(lián)合會(huì)主席/愛(ài)沙尼亞生命科學(xué)大學(xué)風(fēng)景園林學(xué)系主任、教授

譯者簡(jiǎn)介：

李正/男/美國(guó)伊利諾伊州立大學(xué)厄巴納―香檳分校博士生/本刊特約編輯

Biography：

Simon BELL is the President of Eclas， the European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools and a Professor and the Head of the Department of Landscape Architecture in Estonian Universitry of Life Sciences.

About the Translator：

LI Zheng holds a PhD in Landscape Architecture from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and he is also a Contributing Editor of Landscape Architecture Journal.