能源景觀計劃

作者：伯特蘭·佛蘭

翻譯：閻姝伊

校對：吳曉彤

能源景觀計劃

作者：伯特蘭·佛蘭

翻譯：閻姝伊

校對：吳曉彤

響應綠色增長法案（于2015年在法國投票通過）的能源轉型，預示著后石油時代計劃的來臨和向法國新能源模型的邁進。由環(huán)境、能源和海洋部推出的創(chuàng)建“綠色增長積極能源區(qū)域” （涉及212個微區(qū)）是已經(jīng)采取的諸多行動之一。另一方面，該部門正在開展“景觀計劃”（ 與50個小區(qū)域有關），鼓勵地區(qū)通過景觀規(guī)劃和工程從事可持續(xù)發(fā)展。這兩種政策工具之間尚不存在關聯(lián)。然而，凡爾賽國立高等風景園林學院風景園林和能源主席則反對這種（認為二者不存在關聯(lián)的）看法。事實上，它們至少有相同目標：為更好的生活而協(xié)調(diào)文化、生態(tài)、經(jīng)濟和社會領域。學校研究這一問題的工作室全力以赴反映能源專業(yè)利益相關者、地區(qū)代表和風景園林師的情況。以不同地區(qū)（ 阿基坦地區(qū)，勃艮第地區(qū)，北部）)的工作室為研究基礎，年輕的風景園林師證明能源轉型的成功不僅僅依賴于技術計劃，還依賴于連接社會轉型和空間規(guī)劃的集成觀念。

風景園林；景觀計劃；能源景觀計劃；風景園林和能源主席；能源轉型；積極能源領域；能源轉型的景觀；景觀法國政策

1 支持空間規(guī)劃和能源轉型的分離政策

在法國，景觀規(guī)劃的發(fā)展方法已經(jīng)通過風景園林領域內(nèi)的專業(yè)實踐在過去的25年得到檢驗。景觀規(guī)劃引導民選代表和他們的合作伙伴去思考景觀，去設計未來的景觀環(huán)境，目的是創(chuàng)造渴望的而不是強加的風景。這些規(guī)劃依賴共同判斷，它們確定高品質景觀目標（如在歐洲景觀公約1中預期的這些目標①2006年在法國得到采用），并制定社區(qū)規(guī)模的行動計劃，這能帶來一個在(公共的或社區(qū)間的)城市化立法框架中的團體組織和一套運行方式。他們無自我監(jiān)管也沒有綁定價值觀，但在社區(qū)之間的尺度下一般由地方政府自由執(zhí)行。

景觀規(guī)劃受到方法學的指導，它自20世紀開始由國家發(fā)起，由環(huán)境、能源和海洋部發(fā)布。②2014年，在景觀政策重啟的框架之內(nèi)，由候選地方政府贈予財政支持，環(huán)境、能源和海洋部再次啟動了這項計劃。2015至 2016年，歷經(jīng)候選者相隔一年的兩次呼吁之后，約50個地區(qū)生成了景觀規(guī)劃。

在能源領域，自2015年以來該部門一直支持當?shù)卣畢⑴c“為綠色增長的積極能源區(qū)域”，以提升當?shù)卦趪?、歐洲和全球范圍內(nèi)能源轉型和應對氣候變化的成就。這一舉措也使得地區(qū)和社區(qū)間的組織詳細闡述他們切實可行的能源轉型計劃。

目前這兩種方法即使出自同一部門，互相之間也沒有聯(lián)系。景觀規(guī)劃忽視或低估了能源轉型問題；TEPCV則累積不系統(tǒng)的行動，沒有景觀連貫性追求。此外，這兩種方法獲得的支持不平衡：50個地方政府的每個景觀計劃可以收到30 000歐的資助，而212個地方政府的每個TEPCV項目則能接收500 000歐的資助。

在法國，將可再生能源和景觀完全結合③看起來仍然至關重要。能源格局問題不僅僅有關山脊上的風力渦輪機或屋頂上的太陽能電池板所帶來的影響。這個影響作為顯著減輕能源問題的主要方法在法國占據(jù)主導地位；甚至由于1976年7月10日制定的有關保護自然的法案的制定在40年來成為了慣例，這項法案開創(chuàng)了“影響評估”。這會影響一切，不論是能源專業(yè)的利益相關者和風景園林師，還是民選代表和公民：都囿于過分簡單化的辯論而不能主導連貫的和能被接受的項目。近年來，在法國鄉(xiāng)村出現(xiàn)了激烈對抗，驟然打破了村莊的社會團結，這種對抗甚至在小地區(qū)，在“贊成者”和“反對者”之間，僅僅圍繞風力渦輪機項目就會展開。④就好像在其影響下只要風力渦輪機一出現(xiàn)能源轉型問題就會減小似的。就好像景觀是我們能估量其影響并判斷其可接受度的永恒固定場景一樣。這種過分簡單化的無效率思考方式持續(xù)激增，帶來不盡人意的擴展，如“對抗性措施”希冀減弱這些顯著的損害。

2 關注能源和景觀轉型的新舉措

風景園林和能源協(xié)會，2015年創(chuàng)建于凡爾賽國立高等風景園林學院（ENSP）⑤，力求從根本上更新景觀與能源之間的聯(lián)系。特別的是，它建立的理論認為景觀規(guī)劃方法可以作為在地區(qū)上實現(xiàn)能源轉型的工具。為這個目的，協(xié)會在2015 - 2016年間與它的合作伙伴在不同地區(qū)發(fā)起了一項行動研究項目：一篇關注里昂城市西部外圍區(qū)域的碩士論文；一個研究農(nóng)村地區(qū)失去動力的研究生工作室；另一個在勃艮第研究在傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)村地區(qū)的研究生工作室；⑥在阿爾卑斯省d'Azur地區(qū)（濱海阿爾卑斯?。┳匀还珗@舉辦的一個研討會，其目標是在變電站用可再生能源振興落后地區(qū)。

其他3個工作室于2016-2017年著手展開工作，在勃艮第（Pays du Grand Autunois，索恩 - 盧瓦爾?。?，海濱地區(qū)（Pays de Retz，大西洋盧瓦爾?。?，以及法國北部（Communauté de communes du canton de Fruges，加來海峽省，由 ENEDIS贊助）；還成立了1個工作組，其目標是構建方法論，他們自身結構聚集涉及能源轉型的風景園林和能源主體：ENSP的景觀和能源協(xié)會，后石油集團 ，源于能源積極地區(qū)方法的能源轉型網(wǎng)絡，以及特別地通過開發(fā)和促進使得化石燃料退出歷史舞臺的協(xié)會。

3 從這些經(jīng)驗中我們能學習到什么

這些最初的實驗已至少帶來4點經(jīng)驗。

3.1 景觀多樣性和能源混合的良性循環(huán)

景觀規(guī)劃方法總是基于承認環(huán)境、土地、風景以及地區(qū)最早文化財富的多樣性（圖1）。這個多樣性課題需要高度重視能源轉型。景觀為地區(qū)帶來能源轉型以擴大解決方案的范圍，采用的方法是細致地調(diào)整解決方案以適應與反思多樣性有關的微局部潛力。景觀越多樣，在地區(qū)尺度就能實現(xiàn)越多的能源混合。我們可以給出一些已經(jīng)領先的工作室的例子：由于微型水力發(fā)電裝置的存在，我們可以輕松地看到河的邊緣；通過引入甲烷廠的方式恢復和重證木結構；山脊通過向下輕盈樹立的風車得以強調(diào)；交互甲烷中心描繪村莊的邊緣（圖2）；用發(fā)展能源作物的方式重新開發(fā)未開墾的山谷；在曝光良好的斜坡上建立太陽能發(fā)電廠為鐵路線提供能源（圖3）；將市場園藝溫室調(diào)整為太陽能農(nóng)場……

維護或甚至恢復或重建景觀多樣性，意味著保護和增加可再生資源的潛力以利于能源混合。相反，通過良性循環(huán)，多樣化的能源意味著明確地區(qū)景觀多樣性，帶來理解和增強它的機會(圖4)。研究甚至認為可以將這個過程合二為一：如此一來，為了生物質需求而加強木結構，增大了感知景觀中風車裝置的可接受程度。

這樣，景觀方法更新可再生能源發(fā)展的視角：和我們以前的想法相反，這種方法發(fā)展多元化且尺度適中的當?shù)仨椖?，而這些項目比去區(qū)域化的、置于生活環(huán)境之外的大工廠更容易得到推廣，也更容易獲得民選代表和當?shù)鼐用竦馁Y金支持。

3.2 景觀規(guī)劃實現(xiàn)能源節(jié)制的意義

能源節(jié)制是轉型的重要組成部分。最完善的情況是若想擺脫對化石燃料的依賴，唯一的途徑是生產(chǎn)可再生能源；首先要實現(xiàn)能源消耗減半。這一切都說明了，不僅是我們的生存環(huán)境必須發(fā)展，我們的生活方式也要隨之發(fā)展。怎樣以和諧和高效的方式實現(xiàn)能源節(jié)制原則？如何為雄心壯志給予功能和形式？

一般情況下，景觀規(guī)劃不是由涵蓋了所有規(guī)劃事項的程序來實現(xiàn)的。房屋景觀、活動景觀、農(nóng)業(yè)景觀、移動性景觀和遺產(chǎn)景觀（自然和文化）：所有這些都受能源節(jié)制的影響。景觀項目方式將這些整合在空間化思想的連貫性中，可以通過更協(xié)調(diào)、更有效和節(jié)約的方式實現(xiàn)所有這些活動（圖5.1-5.2）。工作室的項目與再生能源發(fā)展相關聯(lián)，在節(jié)制能源使用方面提出了許多建議。我們可以挑選出一些例子：

發(fā)展軟質運輸限制了私家車的使用，灌木籬墻易于可利用生物質的生產(chǎn)，還易于打通能源探索之路；

村中心的集約化限制了城市擴張，建設燃木廠及其供熱管網(wǎng)；由于在城鎮(zhèn)和農(nóng)業(yè)的交接處的城市邊緣的能源規(guī)劃，當?shù)剞r(nóng)業(yè)和設施得到發(fā)展，限制市場運輸，鼓勵建設甲烷廠、由廢熱發(fā)電增溫的商品園藝大棚、能源作物和直銷處。

最后是一些此前已經(jīng)列舉到的案例，即通過使用太陽能光伏電站限制空間消耗：在勃艮第高速列車軌道經(jīng)過的山坡上，或在德蒙杜里昂或Préalpes d'Azur的商品園藝大棚里。

3.3 農(nóng)業(yè)和林業(yè)部門的關鍵作用

城市邊緣區(qū)和農(nóng)村的研究地區(qū)，都強調(diào)了農(nóng)業(yè)和林業(yè)領域在能源轉型中的重要作用。在景觀方面，農(nóng)民塑造和管理空間的關鍵部分。他們還主導著發(fā)展可再生能源所需要的區(qū)域，即土地和農(nóng)業(yè)建筑（圖6）。此外，農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)的殘余生物質由供給能源再生價值鏈（電能、熱能）的資源（木材，有機廢棄物）（圖7）組成。一些農(nóng)民選擇將主要精力集中到這些新作物產(chǎn)量上，潛在的提出了能源自主權和糧食主權之間的戰(zhàn)略選擇問題。最后，農(nóng)民和相關土地所有者通過使用高壓線路來維護他們土地的方式參與到能源運輸中。在城市或城市邊緣區(qū)域，農(nóng)業(yè)受到呼喚，以進入并重啟回收利用、新陳代謝和區(qū)域生態(tài)學的良性循環(huán)，消耗但也以互補的方式生產(chǎn)能源、廢物和空間。

3.4 通過景觀的做法的轉型期社會接納

迄今為止，景觀大部分時間都是非政府組織保護以風力渦輪機為主的可再生能源開發(fā)的工具。形成的景觀工程方法的驅動力允許將景觀鑄成適于民主對話的工具。尤其是這一點對工作室最有啟發(fā)：他們已重新開放專業(yè)人士、民選代表和居民之間的富饒的辯論田。他們創(chuàng)造專業(yè)的分區(qū)空間，沒有疏解問題與選擇的復雜度，相反地，他們提出來源于景觀抱負的啟發(fā)性指導方針；他們可以通過鼓勵圖解表達的建議促進理解，從而激發(fā)行動欲望。學校的工作室是具有前瞻性的，事實是這些辯論毫無疑問沒有評價學生所提建議的責任。很明顯，能源問題與擴大的生活問題有關，能源問題通過風景園林干預（住房、遷移、活動、農(nóng)業(yè)、自然和文化遺產(chǎn)，還有用途、撥款和文化表征）得以討論并給出觀點，而沒有被孤立成為僅僅將沖突作為目標的爭論的核心。將作為關系的景觀⑦置于反思的中心，沒有分開的主題，復雜性得到假設并將它自己置于更具建設性的辯論中。這是一場集體智慧的冒險。

4 結論：雙重橫向的關鍵社會挑戰(zhàn)

“為了能源轉型的景觀規(guī)劃”本身將不會有任何調(diào)整價值：尤其是在法國，一些人會因為其被法律標識的弱點而對它感到氣餒。鑒于“風景”和“能源轉型”的雙重性質，它似乎是在規(guī)劃方面優(yōu)良載體。

它是對話工具：即使最初沒有很好理解景觀主題這個概念，結果也證明景觀主題是規(guī)劃和能源領域的有效手段，棲息地、公共和私人空間、經(jīng)濟和旅游活動、文化、生態(tài)、交通運輸和流動性等這些主題在交匯時會忽視對方。

它是民主對話的完美工具：因為在所有領域中，能源轉型是技術層面上的，如果拒絕“非專家”參與（圖8）就有可能損害民主對話。相反，景觀不是過于專業(yè)的學科：每個人都有表達他/她想法的能力。即使最初敏感規(guī)模會有些嚇人：在笛卡爾的故鄉(xiāng)，理性就是女王，法國人沒有合理表達想法的文化；橫向和互補性這兩個概念的結合能讓對話的起源更富饒。（圖.9.1、9.2和9.3）。

它是做政治決策的工具：對于當選代表來說，它以景觀為基礎，是潛在的綜合工具也更加合法，包含文化共同、跨越式經(jīng)濟、社會和環(huán)境。它是實現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展原則的工具，還是應對能源問題的戰(zhàn)略力量，在那些沒有景觀能源問題的地方由歐洲國家和全球雄心率領（圖10）。

它是完整的工具：它涉及所有空間、所有規(guī)模和所有規(guī)劃技術；在監(jiān)管領域和操作方式方面均有延伸。

最后它是一個新型工具：它沒有阻止針對空間規(guī)劃和能源的辯論，卻以公開辯論為目標。它不僅是科學和技術，還是明智的和文化的。它通過提出超越股東的私人利益并運營合成（圖11）的價值來幫助解決矛盾問題。

如果這些為了能源轉型的前瞻性景觀規(guī)劃方法能自證，如果環(huán)境、能源和海洋部確認并支持這種創(chuàng)新方法，將有一項艱巨任務向景觀設計師敞開懷抱。在法國，隨著生物多樣性、自然和景觀恢復法案于2016年8月8日頒布，這一專業(yè)領域的特殊性最終在2016年夏天得到認可。⑧越過標題和公認，為能源轉型而開展的景觀規(guī)劃將盡可能為社會涉及公共利益的專業(yè)領域帶來機遇，這項規(guī)劃位列于最重要的和最具戰(zhàn)略性的那些屬于能源轉型與綠色增長的內(nèi)容之中。

1 Disconnected policies supporting spatial planning and energy transition

In France, the development approach of landscape plans has been tested for the past 25 years by professional practices in landscape architecture. Landscape plans led the elected representatives and their partners to think landscape, to project their future landscape environment in order to create desired landscapes instead of imposed ones. They rely on a common diagnostic, they identify quality landscape objectives (like these expected in the European Landscape Convention①adopted in France in 2006), and develop a programme of actions at intercommunal scale which can lead to an incorporation in the urbanism legislative framework (communal or intercommunal) and to an operational way. They have neither themselves regulatory nor binding value, but are freely implemented by local authorities, in general at intercommunal scales.

Initiated by the State since the beginning of he 1990’s, landscape plans have been subject of methodologic guides, published by the Ministry of nvironment, energy and the Sea.②In 2014, within he framework of a landscape policy relaunch, he Ministry of environment, energy and the Sea has reactivated the implementation of these plans by a financial support granted to candidate local authorities. After two calls of candidature launched one year apart, landscape plans were generated for about fi fty territories in 2015-2016.

Alongside, in the energy area, the Ministry supports since 2015 local authorities which have been involved in the "positive energy territories for green growth", in order to enhance locally the achievement of the objectives regarding energytransition and combating climate change, at national, European and global scales. This leads territories, also inter-communal bodies, to elaborate their programme of action giving practical shape to energy transition.

At the present time, both approaches, even if emanating from the same Ministry, are not linked. Landscapes plans, ignore or underestimate the energy transition issue; TEPCV cumulate disconnected actions, without ambition of landscape coherence. Furthermore, both tools are supported in an imbalanced way: 50 local authorities receiving 30 000€ for each landscape plans, and 212 local authorities receiving 500 000€for each TEPCV.

It seems yet essential, in the French context, to link thoroughly and on a renewable way energy matters and landscape ones.③Energy landscape issue is not only about impacts of wind turbines on a ridge or solar panels on rooftops. This matter of impacts, a dramatically reducing approach, is however dominant in France; it is even institutionalized for 40 years by the Act of 10 July 1976 on the protection of nature, which has instituted the "impact assessments". This affects everything, both energy professional stakeholders and landscape architects, both elected representatives and citizens: all are trapped in simplistic debates, unable to lead coherent and accepted projects. In recent years, passionate confrontations have taken place in French countryside, catastrophically breaking the social unity of villages, even full micro-regions, between "pro" and "anti", around only wind turbine project.④As if energy transition issue was reduced to the presence of wind turbines according totheir impacts. As if landscape was a scene fixed for eternity on which we could measure impacts and judge of their acceptability. This simplistic and inefficient way of thinking carry on prolife rate, inventing unsatisfactory extensions like "countervailing measures" supposed to attenuate these famous damages.

2 Emerging initiatives to think the energy and landscape transition

The Landscape architecture and energy chair, created in 2015 at the Higher National School of Landscape Architecture in Versailles [Ecole nationale supérieure de paysage de Versailles– ENSP]⑤, strives to fundamentally renew landscape-energy links. Especially, it theorizes that landscape plan approaches could be the tools of the energy transition implementation on territories. It had initiated in 2015-2016 with its partners an action-research project to this end on various territories:

A master thesis on the West peripheral area of the city of Lyon (COL - communauté de l’ouest Lyonnais),

A post-master studio on a rural territory in a losing steam (Thouarsais, département des Deux-Sèvres)，

Another post-master studio in Burgundy, on a Heritage rural territory (Communauté de communes Sud C?te Chalonnaise, supported by a partnership ENSP-ENEDIS⑥),

A workshop, implemented in the Pré-Alpes d’Azur Regional Nature Park (Alpes Maritimes), where the objective was to revitalize the left behind area thanks to a substation linked on renewable energies.

Three others studios undertake for 2016-2017, in Burgundy (Pays du Grand Autunois, Sa?ne-et-Loire), in a seaside area (Pays de Retz, Loire-Atlantique) and in the North of France (Communauté de communes du canton de Fruges, Pas-de-Calais, supported by ENEDIS).

Alongside, a working group has been set up to build the methodology, gathering landscape architects and energy actors involved in energy transition through their own structures : beside the landscape and energy chair of the ENSP, the Post Petroleum Collective [collectif Paysages de l’Après-Pétrole – PAP], the energy transition network, from which is coming the energy positive territory approach [le CLER], and the association which develops and promotes in particular a fossil fuel exit scenario [négaWatt].

3 What we learn from these experiences

At least, already four lessons emerge from theses fi rst experiments.

3.1 The virtuous circle of landscape diversity and of energy mix

Landscape plan approach is always based on the acknowledgement of the diversity of the environments, the terroirs, the landscapes, first cultural wealth of a territory (fig.1). This issue of diversity takes a major importance with the energy transition. Energy transition anchorage on territories by landscape invite to expand the range of solutions by adjusting them fi nely to micro-local potentialities linked with this reconsidered diversity. The more landscape diversity there is, the more the energy mix can be materialized on local scale. The more the energy mix is materialized, the more landscape diversity is expressed. We could give some examples from these studios already lead:

A edge of a river is given to browse and see thanks to micro-hydro power plant,

A drawing of a wooded frame is revitalized and requalif i ed by the setting up of a methanisation plant

A ridge is underlined by a windmill line set up lightly downwards,

A edge of a village is drawing by a mutualised methanisation centre (f i g.2),

Uncultivated dales are reopened by energy crop development,

A railway line is received solar plants on its well exposed slopes (f i g.3),

Market gardening greenhouses are adapted to be as well solar farms…

Then, asserting landscape diversity or even redialing it, recovering it or reinventing it, means preserve and increase the potential of renewable resources in favour of the energy mix. Conversely, by a virtuous circle, diversifying energy sources means asserting landscape diversity of a territory, making the opportunity to read it and reinforce it (fig.4). Studies even expect that process can be combined: thus reinforcing the wooded frame for biomass needs increase the acceptable potential of windmill installation in the perceived landscape.

In this way, landscape approach renews perspectives of renewable energy development: contrary to what we might think a priori, it invites to develop local projects, diversified and of moderate size, more easily promoted and appropriated by elected representatives and local population than big plants deterritorialized and positioned outside of the living environment.

3.2 The sense of landscape plan to achieve energy sobriety

Energy sobriety is an essential component of the transition. The most completed scenario are considering that the exit of fossil fuel dependency could exist by the only way of renewable energy production; it consists fi rstly by halving our energy consumption (scenario négaWatt). All this to say that not only our living environment must evolve, but with it, our way of life. How could be achieve the energy sobriety principle in a harmonic and eff i cient way on territories? How to give sense and forms to that vast ambition?

In general, landscape plan is not achieved by a programme of action covering all matters of planning. Housing landscapes, landscapes of activities, agricultural landscapes, landscapes of mobilities and heritage landscapes (natural and cultural): all of these are affected by energy sobriety. Landscape project approach, combining them in a same coherence of spatialized thinking, could materialize all these actions not only in a harmonizing way but also in a more eff i cient andthriftier way (f i g.5.1. and fi g.5.2.). Projects offering in the studios associate to renewable development multiples proposals for action in favor of sobriety. We could pick out some examples:

Development of soft traff i cs limiting private car usage, supporting by a net of hedgerows to an easily exploitable biomass production, or permitting a path of energy discovery,

Intensification of a village center limiting urban sprawl, supporting the setup of wood-f i red plant and its heating network,

Promotion for a local agricultural and amenities limiting market transportations, thanks to energy planning of urban edges in the interface town/ agriculture, welcoming a methanisation plant, market gardening greenhouses warming by cogeneration, energy crop and direct point of sell.

Lastly, these examples have been evocated before, limiting space consumption while allowing solar photovoltaic plant: on the slopes of the TGV railway in Burgundy or on market gardening greenhouses in the Monts du Lyonnais or in the Préalpes d’Azur.

3.3 Key roles of agriculture and forestry sector

Studied territories, both peri-urban or rural, well highlight the major role that agricultural and forestry areas have to play in energy transition. In terms of landscape, farmers shape and manage the essential part of space. They also have the dominant part of necessary areas for developing renewable energy, on the ground and on farm buildings (f i g.6). Furthermore, the residual biomass of agricultural production constitutes a resource (wood, organic wastes) (fig.7) to feed energy renewable value chains (electricity, heat). Some farmers make the selection to concentrate their activity on these new crop production, potentially raising questions on strategic choices between energy autonomy and food sovereignty. Finally, farmers and concerned landowners participate to energy transportation by maintaining their plots under high voltage lines. In an urban or periurban situation, agriculture is called to enter and redial virtuous circle for recycling, metabolism and territorial ecology, consuming but also producing energy, waste, space in complementary ways.

3.4 Social acceptance of the transition by landscape approach

To date, landscape has most of the time been brandished by NGO’s as a protection tool against renewable energy development, primarily wind turbines. Making a driving force of the landscape project approach permits to mould it into an instrument for the democratic dialogue. It is on that point especially that studios were the most enlightening: they have reopened and have made rich and fertile debates possible, involving professionals, elected representatives and inhabitants. They created spaces for professional decompartmentalisation; they have not evacuated the complexity of the issues and choices but rather the contrary, they made enlightening guidelines from the landscape ambition; they have facilitated understanding of the proposals by graphic representations encouraging then the desire to act. With these school studios on a forward-looking character, these debates are doubtless by the fact they cover student proposals with no obligation assessments. It is obvious that energy issues, connected to enlarged life issues, through the intervention of landscape architecture (housing, mobilities, activities, agriculture, natural and cultural heritages, but also uses, appropriations and cultural representations) could be discussed and put into perspective, without being isolated and becoming bones of contention as a merely conflict object. Placing landscape as relation⑦at the heart of ref l ection, without separated topics, the complexity is assumed and put itself at the service of more constructive debates. That is the gamble of collective intelligence.

4 Conclusion: a double transversality crucial societal challenges

A “l(fā)andscape plan for energy transition”will not have itself any regulating value: it could discourage to some people its weakness, particularly in a French context, marked by laws. In this transversal nature doubly transversal, given by“l(fā)andscape” and “energy transition”, it appears as vector of virtue in planning terms:

It is a dialogue instrument: the landscape subject, even if not really well understanding at the beginning, is proving to be an effective means to gather planning and energy sectors, each one ignoring the other at the meeting points of energy, habitats, public and private spaces, economic and touristic activities, culture and ecology, transportations and mobilities;

It is a full- instrument for democratic dialogue: as in all fields, energy transition is carrying a technical dimension which could harm to democratic dialogue if is excluded “non expert”participation (f i g 8). As a counterpoint, landscape is not an excessively specialist subject: each onehas the capacity to express him/herself on it. Even if sensitive dimensions could frighten at the beginning: at Descartes’s country, where reason is queen, French people do not have the culture for sensible expression; the wedding of these two concepts transversals and complementarity could be the origin of a dialogue more fertile (f i g. 9.1. & 9.2. & 9.3.).

It is a decision making political instrument: for the elected representative, it is potentially a synthesis tool, it is all the more legitimate that it is based on landscape, including a cultural common, crossing economic, social and environmental. A tool for materialized sustainable development principles, but also with the strategic force of the energy issues, leading by national European, and worldwide ambitions, which do not have the landscape energy issue (f i g.10).

It is a complete tool: it concerns all space, all scales, and all planning techniques; it finds extensions both in the regulatory fi eld than in the operational way.

At least it is an innovant instrument: it does not confiscate debates on spatial planning and energy but aim the goal to get it on the table. It is not only scientif i c and technique but also sensible and cultural. It facilitates contradictory issue resolution by proposing value which transcend the private interests of shareholders and operate the synthesis (f i g.11).

If these forward-looking approaches by landscape plans for the energy transition proved themselves, and if the Ministry of environment, energy and the Sea validate and support this innovative approach, a huge undertaking will be opened to landscape architects. In France, the specificity of this professional field was at the end recognized during summer of 2016, with the enactment to the Law of the 8th August 2016 for the recovery of biodiversity, nature and landscapes.⑧Landscape plans for energy transition will provide an opportunity, beyond titles and recognitions, to put as a main societal concern this professional field of public interest, amongst the most crucial and strategic ones: these of energy transition and green growth.

Notes:

①歐洲景觀公約對風景園林的約定 在2000年發(fā)表。

The European Landscape Convention Convention européenne du paysage was launch in 2000.

②“指導計劃的地貌、憲章和合同”，伯特蘭佛蘭（Bertrand Follea），全國土地清算和環(huán)境委員會，2001年，“景觀的計劃框架內(nèi)采取行動：生命、生態(tài)、可持續(xù)發(fā)展與能源”，2015。

"Guide des plans de paysage, des chartes et des contrats", Bertrand Folléa, Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement, 2001 ; "Le plan de paysage : agir pour le cadre de vie", Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie, 2015

③ 奧地利麥池和瑞吉斯（Odile Marcel and Régis Ambroise），整治景觀，2015年。CLM出版社。

Odile Marcel and Régis Ambroise, Aménager Les Paysages de L’après-Pétrole, CLM editions, 2015.

④ 阿蘭納達（Alain Nada?），“規(guī)劃”，“選址”和“風能在當?shù)氐慕蛹{：一些法國案例”，2007年，http:// dx.doi.org.sci-hub.ac/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.003。

Alain Nada?, “Planning”, “siting” and the Local Acceptance of Wind Power: Some Lessons from the French Case,” 2007, http://dx.doi.org.sci-hub.ac/10.1016/ j.enpol.2006.12.003.

⑤風景園林和能源協(xié)會在法國凡爾賽國立高等園林學院由塞格琳·羅雅爾（Ségolène Royal）創(chuàng)立，環(huán)境和能源部，2015年4月7日。由學校校長文森特·皮文圖(Vincent Piveteau)負責，伯特蘭佛蘭（Bertrand Follea）管理。Rte作為創(chuàng)始合伙人提供支持。

The landscape architecture and energy chair was installed at the Higher National School of Landscape Architecture at Versailles by Ségolène Royal, Ministry of environment and energy fields, on 2015, April 07th. The school principal, Vincent Piveteau, put in charge Bertrand Folléa to manage it. The chair is supported by Rte (Réseau pour le transport de l’électricité), founding partner.

⑥ ENEDIS，以前是ERDF：負責能源分配的法國公眾組織。ENEDIS, previously ERDF : French public organization for energy distribution.

⑦風景作為關系，伯特蘭·佛蘭，地貌北緯21度(2012年)，國立高等風景園林學院出版社

"Le paysage comme relation", Bertrand Folléa, Les Carnets du paysage n°21 (2012), Actes Sud et Ecole nationale supérieure du paysage

⑧ 第174號法律°2016年8月8日2016-1087卡松生物多樣性、自然和景觀：“只有可使用《設計者》在行使專業(yè)學位范圍，出具認可的培訓機構的條件，通過規(guī)定的懲罰性質的具體培訓文化、科學和技術設計景觀”。

Article 174 de la LOI n° 2016-1087 du 8 ao?t 2016 pour la reconquête de la biodiversité, de la nature et des paysages : "Seuls peuvent utiliser le titre ? paysagistes concepteurs ?, dans le cadre de leur exercice professionnel, les personnes titulaires d'un dipl?me, délivré par un établissement de formation agréé dans des conditions fixées par voie réglementaire, sanctionnant une formation spécifique de caractère culturel, scientifique et technique à la conception paysagère".

Energy Landscape Plans

Text: Bertrand Folléa
Translator: YAN Shu-yi
Proofreading: WU Xiao-tong

In France, the Energy transition for the green growth law, voted in 2015, heralds a plan for the post-oil era and a step towards a new French energy model. One of the actions already taken is the creation of "positive-energy regions for green growth" [territoires à énergie positive pour la croissance verte- TEPCV] (concerning 212 micro-regions), launched by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and the Sea. The same Ministry is on the other hand developing "Landscape Plans" [plans de paysage] (concerning 50 micro-regions), which encourage regions to engage in sustainable development through landscape planning and projects. Connections between both of these policy instruments are yet still inexistent. But the Landscape Architecture and Energy Chair of the Ecole nationale supérieure de paysage of Versailles bet the opposite. Actually, it could bring to the same goal at least: harmonizing cultural, ecological, economic and social fields for a better living. The studios driven at school on the subject stretch the reflection for energy professional stakeholders, regional representatives and landscapes architects. Based on studios in different regions (Aquitaine region, Bourgogne region, North), young landscape architects demonstrate that succeeding in the energy transition relies not only on a technologic plan but also on an integrating concept, linking social transition and spatial planning.

Landscape Architecture; Landscape Plans; Energy Landscape Plans; Landscape Architecture and Energy Chair; Energy Transition; Positive Energy Territories ; Landscape of Energy Transition; Landscape French Policy;

TU986

A

1673-1530（2016）11-0041-13

10.14085/j.fjyl.2016.11.0041.13

2016-08-24

伯特蘭·佛蘭，風景園林和能源協(xié)會主席，凡爾賽國立高等景觀學院(ENSP)

Authors :

Bertrand Folléa, Head of the Landscape Architecture and Energy Ecole nationale supérieure du paysage de Versailles (ENSP) et al.

譯者簡介：

閻姝伊/ 1994年生/ 女/ 遼寧人/ 北京林業(yè)大學園林學院風景園林學碩士生/ 研究方向為風景園林規(guī)劃設計與理論（北京100083）

Translator:

YAN Shu-yi, who was born in 1994, is a master student in School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University. (Beijing 100083)

校對簡介：

吳曉彤/ 1993生/ 女/ 內(nèi)蒙古人/ 北京林業(yè)大學園林學院風景園林學碩士生/ 研究方向為風景園林規(guī)劃設計與理論（北京100083）

Proofreading:

WU Xiao-tong, who was born in 1993, is a master student in School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University. (Beijing 100083)

修回日期：2016-09-30