設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義
——一項(xiàng)風(fēng)景園林教育領(lǐng)域的行動(dòng)倡議

著：（美）侯志仁 譯：李妍

我們正處于一個(gè)極具變化性和不確定性的時(shí)代。全球近幾十年以來(lái)極端氣候現(xiàn)象不斷發(fā)生[1]。有歷史記錄以來(lái)，最熱的10個(gè)年份中有8個(gè)出現(xiàn)在過(guò)去10年[2]。預(yù)計(jì)到2023年，全球?qū)⒂?億人會(huì)因嚴(yán)重的水資源匱乏而流離失所[3]。海平面上升、冰帽及永凍層融化、棲息地縮減及物種滅絕等危機(jī)，對(duì)地球和人類社會(huì)帶來(lái)的影響也僅僅只是一個(gè)開(kāi)始。

新冠肺炎（COVID-19）疫情的全球大流行，造成了大量的民眾死亡及經(jīng)濟(jì)損失，而其中低收入人群的死亡率遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于富裕階層。這讓我們清楚看到，人類社會(huì)中一直存在著由階級(jí)不平等及貧富差異所帶來(lái)的不公平性現(xiàn)象。面對(duì)全球氣候變化災(zāi)害，這些貧困的人群同樣是最脆弱的群體。以“提升、尊重并修復(fù)作為維生系統(tǒng)的風(fēng)景園林”以及保護(hù)客戶和公眾的利益為使命①，風(fēng)景園林師有責(zé)任面對(duì)環(huán)境、社會(huì)及政治變化所帶來(lái)的各種挑戰(zhàn)。

近幾年來(lái)，許多學(xué)生和設(shè)計(jì)課程的獲獎(jiǎng)作品，顯示出新時(shí)代風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)的院系及學(xué)生對(duì)于亟待解決的社會(huì)及環(huán)境問(wèn)題的關(guān)注，并能夠做出積極回應(yīng)。美國(guó)風(fēng)景園林基金會(huì)（Landscape Architecture Foundation, LAF）在其發(fā)表的《新景觀宣言》中，也重點(diǎn)強(qiáng)調(diào)了社會(huì)與生態(tài)的公平性、韌性及民主性等議題，同時(shí)也體現(xiàn)了設(shè)計(jì)專業(yè)對(duì)于推動(dòng)社會(huì)及環(huán)境改善議題的關(guān)注和熱情[4]（圖1）。最近，在賓夕法尼亞州大學(xué)麥哈格中心舉辦的一次研討會(huì)中，反映了風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)在美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)與民間倡議中的“綠色新政”（Green New Deal）中對(duì)于韌性和公平性的積極響應(yīng)。

1 2016年在賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)舉行的風(fēng)景園林與未來(lái)峰會(huì)上，美國(guó)風(fēng)景園林基金會(huì)研擬《新景觀宣言》The 2016 LAF Summit on Landscape Architecture and the Future held at the University of Pennsylvania produced the New Landscape Declaration

然而，鑒于日益增長(zhǎng)的興趣和愿望，當(dāng)前的風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計(jì)教育模式是否為學(xué)生提供了必要的技能和知識(shí)，以應(yīng)對(duì)平等、公正和氣候韌性等緊迫問(wèn)題？我們?nèi)绾巫寣W(xué)生不僅成為有能力的專業(yè)人士，還成為積極主動(dòng)的從業(yè)者，在社會(huì)和政治上參與產(chǎn)生變革性成果？我們?nèi)绾螐慕逃_(kāi)始改變這個(gè)專業(yè)和社會(huì)？

1 美國(guó)風(fēng)景園林基金會(huì)的創(chuàng)新與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力研究獎(jiǎng)金

2019年，筆者有幸成為L(zhǎng)AF杰出研究基金項(xiàng)目的資深研究員②。在項(xiàng)目支持下，筆者探索了“為社會(huì)變革而設(shè)計(jì)”定義下的設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義，并將其作為一種推動(dòng)風(fēng)景園林教育發(fā)展的理念。這一研究也是對(duì)LAF《新景觀宣言》中，呼吁風(fēng)景園林師成為“活躍的設(shè)計(jì)師，參與政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、政策制定、社區(qū)服務(wù)等領(lǐng)域”這一內(nèi)容的積極響應(yīng)[4]。

本研究主要探索了社會(huì)實(shí)踐與設(shè)計(jì)教育之間的關(guān)系，并嘗試從先進(jìn)教育工作者、學(xué)生以及專業(yè)人士的各個(gè)角度出發(fā)，發(fā)掘其中的不同觀點(diǎn)及其面對(duì)的挑戰(zhàn)與機(jī)遇。本次研究采取了3種方法進(jìn)行調(diào)研：1）在美國(guó)一系列研討會(huì)中舉辦工作坊，進(jìn)行意見(jiàn)匯總③；2）對(duì)先進(jìn)教育工作者及風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)人員進(jìn)行訪談④；3）以LAF的訂閱郵件為渠道，向?qū)W校及相關(guān)教育培養(yǎng)項(xiàng)目主管發(fā)送問(wèn)卷。

筆者還邀請(qǐng)了來(lái)自美國(guó)各地的同行加入，組成了一個(gè)工作小組（圖2）⑤。該小組針對(duì)相關(guān)技能、挑戰(zhàn)、機(jī)遇及現(xiàn)行教育模式進(jìn)行研討，最后形成了一份完整的文件，其內(nèi)容包含行動(dòng)綱領(lǐng)及一系列主要的風(fēng)景園林教育議題。該文件作為參考指南附在網(wǎng)站鏈接中，方便對(duì)于此議題感興趣的人獲取更多實(shí)際案例及相關(guān)資源⑥。

2 在2019美國(guó)風(fēng)景園林教育委員會(huì)會(huì)議中舉辦的一次討論工作坊A workshop session at the 2019 conference of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture served as one of the venues for the discussion

2 設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義

行動(dòng)主義長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)一直與組織、執(zhí)行倡導(dǎo)及改變現(xiàn)狀的對(duì)抗性行動(dòng)聯(lián)系在一起，歷史上這些行動(dòng)對(duì)社會(huì)和政治的進(jìn)步發(fā)揮了重要作用。20世紀(jì)60年代，民權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)成功推翻了美國(guó)種族歧視及種族隔離的合法性。20世紀(jì)60—70年代，美國(guó)對(duì)于環(huán)保運(yùn)動(dòng)關(guān)注的不斷提升，催生了一系列里程碑式的立法，如《清潔水體法案》及《清潔空氣法案》等。這些法律措施對(duì)當(dāng)下的環(huán)境質(zhì)量把控和保護(hù)起到了至關(guān)重要的作用。“設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義”將設(shè)計(jì)與積極進(jìn)取的行動(dòng)主義相結(jié)合，設(shè)計(jì)成為行動(dòng)的一種載體?！霸O(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義”或“行動(dòng)主義中的設(shè)計(jì)”不再將設(shè)計(jì)作為一種技術(shù)型的實(shí)踐，而是認(rèn)識(shí)到設(shè)計(jì)作為一種推動(dòng)社會(huì)及環(huán)境進(jìn)步工具的潛力和作用。

風(fēng)景園林作為一項(xiàng)專業(yè)學(xué)科，誕生于19世紀(jì)重塑城市環(huán)境運(yùn)動(dòng)中。由此可見(jiàn)，設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義的理念根植于風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計(jì)的基因之中。風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)在其誕生之初，就致力于為人類提供改善人居環(huán)境的方法和方案。因此不難理解，風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐就是一種推動(dòng)社會(huì)變革的行動(dòng)主義實(shí)踐。面對(duì)當(dāng)下迫在眉睫的環(huán)境和社會(huì)問(wèn)題，對(duì)于風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)而言，是時(shí)候用行動(dòng)主義的視角反思及審視自己的專業(yè)使命和價(jià)值了，也是時(shí)候重新審視專業(yè)學(xué)位教育培養(yǎng)項(xiàng)目背后的教學(xué)大綱及專業(yè)培養(yǎng)方案了（圖3）。

3 美國(guó)城市公園運(yùn)動(dòng)創(chuàng)造了大量公園，改善了人居環(huán)境（圖為紐約中央公園）The Urban Parks Movement in the United States led to the creation of large urban parks that improved the living conditions of cities (Central Park in New York)

作為一名專業(yè)的從業(yè)人員，我們應(yīng)該關(guān)注是否已經(jīng)采取了充分的行動(dòng)以面對(duì)這個(gè)時(shí)代的重大難題？除了處理常規(guī)的專業(yè)事務(wù)，我們還需采取哪些具體行動(dòng)面對(duì)這些復(fù)雜的挑戰(zhàn)，我們是否已經(jīng)培養(yǎng)本科生及研究生掌握了相應(yīng)的知識(shí)與技能？他們還需要哪些工具，做好哪些準(zhǔn)備，才能成為推動(dòng)社會(huì)進(jìn)步的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者？鑒于此，現(xiàn)在正是重新認(rèn)識(shí)設(shè)計(jì)專業(yè)的最佳時(shí)機(jī)，我們應(yīng)該更全面地理解行動(dòng)主義，打破認(rèn)為行動(dòng)主義是關(guān)于政治分裂的偏見(jiàn)和局限。由此，我們必須意識(shí)到設(shè)計(jì)是為保護(hù)地球上不同社區(qū)的安全和福祉而帶來(lái)重要改變的力量。設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義并不是簡(jiǎn)單地對(duì)于我們現(xiàn)有工作內(nèi)容和意義的重新包裝，而是一種作為風(fēng)景園林師必須要掌握并實(shí)踐的方法。

2017年，由賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)麥哈格中心主辦的一次線上圓桌會(huì)議，是迄今為止關(guān)于設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義最中肯且最富有見(jiàn)地的研討之一⑦。在這次會(huì)議上，來(lái)自加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校規(guī)劃專業(yè)的Kian Goh教授提出，設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義一方面挑戰(zhàn)了權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)，另一方面延伸了設(shè)計(jì)作為“應(yīng)對(duì)社會(huì)和生態(tài)危機(jī)的實(shí)踐途徑”的職能。藝術(shù)家兼設(shè)計(jì)師Kordae Henry將設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義視為一種生存方式：“在進(jìn)行有害且持續(xù)分化的設(shè)計(jì)之外，我們有權(quán)選擇為被邊緣化的群體創(chuàng)造改善、連接并合理分配資源與權(quán)力的空間。”在設(shè)計(jì)教育方面，規(guī)劃學(xué)者Barbara Brown Wilson指出：“并不是所有學(xué)校都會(huì)教授設(shè)計(jì)師在設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義方面所需要的技能，如文化勝任性（cultural competency）、和平談判、深入傾聽(tīng)及實(shí)踐相關(guān)領(lǐng)域（如生態(tài)、經(jīng)濟(jì)等）的知識(shí)，以及如何將個(gè)人想法實(shí)現(xiàn)轉(zhuǎn)化為集體協(xié)作成果的訴求。”

Randolph T. Hester[5]在加州大學(xué)伯克利分校環(huán)境學(xué)院期刊Frameworks創(chuàng)刊號(hào)中發(fā)表的一篇核心文章，是關(guān)于設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義最早的文獻(xiàn)之一。該文章根據(jù)設(shè)計(jì)態(tài)度（design postures）將設(shè)計(jì)師由淺到深分為5類，從“具有空間感天賦但無(wú)視文脈”的天真設(shè)計(jì)師（blissfully naive），到“社會(huì)進(jìn)步實(shí)踐”的推動(dòng)者（catalysts）。Hester提出“推動(dòng)者不僅僅將設(shè)計(jì)看作為一種標(biāo)志及實(shí)用主義的產(chǎn)物，更將其視作是推動(dòng)上層建筑進(jìn)步的催化劑”[5]10，他認(rèn)為所有的設(shè)計(jì)都是一種設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義[5]8-9，“任何的設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐工作，都是將權(quán)力與權(quán)威具體化的政治實(shí)踐”。

1999年P(guān)lace Journal出版的一輯期刊，重新回顧了共同參與式設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐。Mark Francis為設(shè)計(jì)師提出一種更積極的設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐方法：“通過(guò)研究和分析形成具有長(zhǎng)期主義的項(xiàng)目與愿景，突出方案中關(guān)于改善環(huán)境質(zhì)量和社會(huì)價(jià)值方面的設(shè)計(jì)和實(shí)施方法……，并將其作為一種優(yōu)勢(shì)運(yùn)用在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)承擔(dān)、商務(wù)談判及企業(yè)創(chuàng)業(yè)中?！盵6]這是設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域的社會(huì)活動(dòng)家、積極推動(dòng)社會(huì)進(jìn)步的設(shè)計(jì)師的核心理念。Kate Orff在其著作《走向城市生態(tài)學(xué)》[7]12一書中提出，我們應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化帶來(lái)的不同規(guī)模的影響進(jìn)行預(yù)測(cè)并做出相應(yīng)的實(shí)踐：“擴(kuò)大我們的工作范疇從而推動(dòng)更大的行為性改變?！蓖瑫r(shí)Orff也指出，上述具有更廣泛影響力的設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐，通常并不來(lái)自某個(gè)客戶的訴求，或者項(xiàng)目開(kāi)發(fā)中常見(jiàn)的任務(wù)書–設(shè)計(jì)委托模式（RFQ）[7]。

在此次LAF研究基金項(xiàng)目的成果文件中，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)以“設(shè)計(jì)作為一種社會(huì)進(jìn)步的載體”作為“設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義”的定義，并將其運(yùn)用在工作中。在這項(xiàng)研究中，社會(huì)進(jìn)步這一概念除了涵蓋環(huán)境以及生態(tài)設(shè)計(jì)的維度，同時(shí)也強(qiáng)調(diào)，對(duì)于改善及保護(hù)生態(tài)環(huán)境（包含人居環(huán)境）的社會(huì)性行為而言，社會(huì)的進(jìn)步（包含政治的進(jìn)步）是根本所在。此外，研究認(rèn)為社會(huì)進(jìn)步，應(yīng)體現(xiàn)其如何從為少數(shù)人服務(wù)的特權(quán)系統(tǒng)發(fā)展為服務(wù)于每個(gè)個(gè)體的公平公正的系統(tǒng)。因此本研究將弱勢(shì)群體以及資源配置不公群體的參與度作為衡量社會(huì)進(jìn)步的重要組成部分。

3 行動(dòng)綱領(lǐng)

為了更好地促進(jìn)設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義在風(fēng)景園林教育中的發(fā)展，基于研究中發(fā)現(xiàn)的機(jī)遇與挑戰(zhàn)，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)提出了以下行動(dòng)綱領(lǐng)。

鑒于不同的學(xué)校在地域性、文脈及組成結(jié)構(gòu)上有著不同的側(cè)重點(diǎn)，而風(fēng)景園林課程的規(guī)模、組織結(jié)構(gòu)和特色也各有不同。因此，該提議并不是一個(gè)對(duì)于風(fēng)景園林教育專業(yè)通用的方案，不同教育培養(yǎng)項(xiàng)目及院系可重新評(píng)估各自的使命和目標(biāo)，并與各自的學(xué)生、院系成員和相關(guān)的設(shè)計(jì)從業(yè)群體一起制定出適合自身的策略和行動(dòng)。推動(dòng)系統(tǒng)性的變革需要耐心、策略以及多層次的動(dòng)員工作。不論是自上而下，或自下而上，還是具有針對(duì)性的或者層層部署的推動(dòng)，相關(guān)的地方、區(qū)域、國(guó)家乃至更大的范圍都將發(fā)生改變，這些變化需要專業(yè)院系、學(xué)生、管理者及設(shè)計(jì)從業(yè)者持續(xù)不斷地努力、創(chuàng)造與創(chuàng)新。

這份行動(dòng)綱要雖然是針對(duì)教育領(lǐng)域的建議，但風(fēng)景園林的教育與實(shí)踐之間有著密切的聯(lián)系。簡(jiǎn)而言之，這份針對(duì)風(fēng)景園林教育的綱要并不僅僅局限于教育領(lǐng)域，同樣可以將其轉(zhuǎn)化應(yīng)用于更多的相關(guān)領(lǐng)域。

3.1“政治化”

當(dāng)今社會(huì)和地球面對(duì)的難題通常體現(xiàn)在權(quán)力的使用與斗爭(zhēng)上，因此從本質(zhì)來(lái)說(shuō)是政治化的。為了更有效地應(yīng)對(duì)這些挑戰(zhàn)，風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)需要更多地參與到政治層面中，特別是當(dāng)不同力量在公共事務(wù)領(lǐng)域中博弈的時(shí)候。因此，需要更了解政治運(yùn)作的系統(tǒng)與溝通方式，通過(guò)增加自身的能力從而更好地參與到重要的決策過(guò)程中，為推動(dòng)社會(huì)進(jìn)步發(fā)揮更大的作用。政治化，不同于我們所熟悉的概念，在這里并不意味著要介入政黨政治對(duì)抗，而是代表著專業(yè)人員承擔(dān)起作為民主社會(huì)公民相應(yīng)的責(zé)任。若想成為民主社會(huì)有影響力的參與者，必須要掌握與公眾溝通、發(fā)動(dòng)公眾參與，以及發(fā)起公眾倡議的技巧。

政治化說(shuō)明了人居環(huán)境是伴隨社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)及政治發(fā)展的產(chǎn)物。社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)的系統(tǒng)與歷史，例如壓迫及殖民化進(jìn)程，塑造了今天的專業(yè)實(shí)踐工作、專業(yè)教學(xué)素材以及學(xué)校教授的內(nèi)容?！稙檎鎸?shí)世界而設(shè)計(jì)》一書已出版將近40年，作為設(shè)計(jì)師兼教育家，Victor Papanek在書中寫到，“設(shè)計(jì)專業(yè)院校主要問(wèn)題是他們過(guò)度關(guān)注設(shè)計(jì)教學(xué)，而忽視了生態(tài)、社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)以及政治環(huán)境這些讓設(shè)計(jì)生成的領(lǐng)域”[8]21。盡管以上的論述主要針對(duì)20世紀(jì)80年代的工業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域，但這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)同樣適用于今天的風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)，讓設(shè)計(jì)融入我們生活中的“真實(shí)世界”還有很長(zhǎng)的路要走。

3.2 混雜化

當(dāng)今的風(fēng)景園林教育專業(yè)需要超越專業(yè)傳統(tǒng)的核心知識(shí)范疇，重新構(gòu)建與當(dāng)下社會(huì)和環(huán)境問(wèn)題的復(fù)雜性和宏大的尺度相匹配的專業(yè)知識(shí)和能力。高等教育機(jī)構(gòu)有著豐富的專業(yè)設(shè)置，涉及藝術(shù)、環(huán)境科學(xué)、民族研究、地理學(xué)、性別研究、健康、人性化設(shè)計(jì)、法律、規(guī)劃、社會(huì)工作等，這是高等教育的優(yōu)勢(shì)之一。如果可以主動(dòng)發(fā)起并構(gòu)建跨學(xué)科的聯(lián)系，在研究、教學(xué)及實(shí)踐方面創(chuàng)造豐富的合作機(jī)會(huì)，科研機(jī)構(gòu)、學(xué)生、從業(yè)人員及公眾將受益更多。

跨學(xué)科的合作也可以更好地凸顯高等教育的重要性，例如跨學(xué)科的合作可以讓我們學(xué)習(xí)其他領(lǐng)域?qū)W者的課題生成、拓展及應(yīng)用的方法，學(xué)習(xí)其他領(lǐng)域如何測(cè)試概念并驗(yàn)證結(jié)果，學(xué)習(xí)其他領(lǐng)域如何參與公眾領(lǐng)域并推進(jìn)議題。通過(guò)這些方式互動(dòng)，我們可以更好地發(fā)現(xiàn)本專業(yè)的優(yōu)勢(shì)和局限，并找到推動(dòng)自身專業(yè)發(fā)展的方法。除了從其他專業(yè)學(xué)習(xí)更多的方法，在跨專業(yè)領(lǐng)域的融合過(guò)程中，我們也同樣可以更好地讓其他人了解風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)以及風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)可以為社會(huì)創(chuàng)造些什么（圖4）。

4 Claverito花園技術(shù)與健康項(xiàng)目是風(fēng)景園林和全球健康研究人員合作的成果，旨在解決秘魯伊基托斯一個(gè)非正式社區(qū)的健康挑戰(zhàn)The Claverito Garden Technology and Health Project was the outcome of collaboration between researchers in landscape architecture and global health to address health challenges in an informal community in Iquitos, Peru

有多種方式可以實(shí)現(xiàn)跨專業(yè)融合。在風(fēng)景園林與城市規(guī)劃合并的科系中，風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)學(xué)生已經(jīng)有更多的課程選擇，而規(guī)劃專業(yè)學(xué)生一般也對(duì)社會(huì)議題較為敏感，能對(duì)風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)學(xué)生產(chǎn)生影響。在研究生培養(yǎng)階段，學(xué)生可以加入跨學(xué)科聯(lián)合項(xiàng)目來(lái)發(fā)揮自身特色，甚至有可能獲得多專業(yè)學(xué)位。在本科生培養(yǎng)階段，可以鼓勵(lì)學(xué)生去輔修其他專業(yè)，拓展與其他專業(yè)的聯(lián)系，同時(shí)需要盡可能地減少跨學(xué)科融合發(fā)展的障礙，例如晉升及終身職位的評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及機(jī)制等。

在發(fā)展專業(yè)教育培養(yǎng)項(xiàng)目方面，也需要融合不同專業(yè)背景的學(xué)生和教職工。我們需要走出去，讓曾經(jīng)被風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)忽略的科研機(jī)構(gòu)、學(xué)校、學(xué)生及社會(huì)群體更多地了解我們。只有將不同文化、社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)背景的人納入風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)，人們才真正開(kāi)始有能力理解并發(fā)現(xiàn)社會(huì)中的公平性、多樣性及包容性問(wèn)題。

3.3 全球在地化

當(dāng)下社會(huì)和環(huán)境所遇到的問(wèn)題，與景觀和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)一樣，都與尺度和地點(diǎn)內(nèi)在關(guān)聯(lián)。為了有效地應(yīng)對(duì)這些相互關(guān)聯(lián)的挑戰(zhàn)，須從本土化與全球化2個(gè)維度來(lái)思考問(wèn)題并采取行動(dòng)。從本土化思維來(lái)說(shuō)，教育培養(yǎng)項(xiàng)目除了要與當(dāng)?shù)卦O(shè)計(jì)從業(yè)群體建立聯(lián)系，還應(yīng)與當(dāng)?shù)乩嫦嚓P(guān)者建立關(guān)系，包括社區(qū)、公共機(jī)構(gòu)及民間組織等。這些聯(lián)系有助于開(kāi)發(fā)實(shí)踐類課程，幫助學(xué)生和學(xué)院拓展工作關(guān)系并深入了解當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)面臨的問(wèn)題和挑戰(zhàn)。這些經(jīng)歷可以讓學(xué)生和科研機(jī)構(gòu)意識(shí)到地球與全球人類社會(huì)面臨的問(wèn)題如何體現(xiàn)在我們生活和工作的社區(qū)和周遭上，以及應(yīng)采取怎樣的行動(dòng)面對(duì)這些問(wèn)題，特別是那些弱勢(shì)群體所在社區(qū)。

本地工作的開(kāi)展與全球化發(fā)展并不矛盾。事實(shí)上，同時(shí)開(kāi)展與本地及國(guó)際社區(qū)的合作，將更有利于打開(kāi)風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)學(xué)生及研究機(jī)構(gòu)的視野，從而更好地探索國(guó)際與本地問(wèn)題的內(nèi)在關(guān)系，培養(yǎng)學(xué)生成為世界公民和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。全球社區(qū)人口多樣性日趨豐富，科研機(jī)構(gòu)也需要更加關(guān)注其多樣性、公平性及兼容性等問(wèn)題。培養(yǎng)思考本地問(wèn)題與全球視野下問(wèn)題之間的內(nèi)在關(guān)聯(lián)的思維方式，并探索如何將其體現(xiàn)在課程設(shè)置和教學(xué)實(shí)踐中，有助于培養(yǎng)新一代的風(fēng)景園林設(shè)計(jì)師探索本土文化與跨文化問(wèn)題的能力。

3.4 靈活適應(yīng)

在科研經(jīng)費(fèi)不穩(wěn)定或有所縮減的情況下（特別是受COVID-19的影響），美國(guó)乃至其他地區(qū)的大部分風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)的發(fā)展在短期內(nèi)呈現(xiàn)放緩的趨勢(shì)。目前，推動(dòng)設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義成為設(shè)計(jì)教育的一部分的最有效方法應(yīng)是充分利用現(xiàn)有資源，例如將設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義納入課程設(shè)置中，目前課程繁重、資源不足等現(xiàn)象已經(jīng)普遍存在，因此將設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義與專業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)課程相結(jié)合可以避免加重教學(xué)系統(tǒng)的負(fù)荷并降低成本。以具體設(shè)計(jì)任務(wù)為基礎(chǔ)的設(shè)計(jì)課程，往往在教學(xué)計(jì)劃中占比時(shí)間最長(zhǎng)，更適合與設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義教學(xué)相結(jié)合。同樣地，與設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義相關(guān)的內(nèi)容也適合添加至一些已有課程的相關(guān)教學(xué)內(nèi)容中。

除了課程設(shè)置外，設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義還可以與已有的系列講座相結(jié)合，作為當(dāng)下新主題或者重要議題的補(bǔ)充內(nèi)容。除了推動(dòng)其在學(xué)生和科研機(jī)構(gòu)的影響力之外，設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義還可以以工作坊或者設(shè)計(jì)專項(xiàng)研討會(huì)的方式出現(xiàn)在年度或雙年的會(huì)議和活動(dòng)中，讓設(shè)計(jì)從業(yè)人員和社會(huì)大眾也可以參與其中。同時(shí)還應(yīng)充分挖掘已有的暑期項(xiàng)目，利用好假期的空間和時(shí)間資源。靈活適應(yīng)，或者發(fā)掘已有的條件，也意味著充分利用現(xiàn)有項(xiàng)目或社群的優(yōu)勢(shì)及資源，例如大學(xué)與其他機(jī)構(gòu)的合作項(xiàng)目，可以與之建立伙伴關(guān)系的、以社群為基礎(chǔ)的社會(huì)組織，以及需要使用大學(xué)的資源和技術(shù)支持的市政機(jī)構(gòu)。

3.5 問(wèn)題化

基于現(xiàn)有資源及優(yōu)勢(shì)的靈活適應(yīng)，只需要對(duì)現(xiàn)行培養(yǎng)項(xiàng)目、課程、大學(xué)及周邊城市或社區(qū)的資源進(jìn)行盤點(diǎn)即可。沒(méi)有比向身邊的人強(qiáng)調(diào)公平性、平等性和韌性這些議題更易行的方式。從課程設(shè)置上，是否可以從社會(huì)公平性的視角重新審視風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)的歷史？相對(duì)于一般文獻(xiàn)中的敘事，是否可以從少數(shù)群體的視角去回顧那些經(jīng)典的專業(yè)著述，包括原住民以及那些因?yàn)橹卮箫L(fēng)景園林項(xiàng)目而流離失所的邊緣人群？又或者我們是否可以站在社區(qū)中那些弱勢(shì)群體的角度，例如以那些缺乏新鮮食物以及舒適自然環(huán)境的人們的角度思考？我們是否可以關(guān)注大學(xué)校園如何體現(xiàn)可持續(xù)性和韌性議題？

明確設(shè)想與現(xiàn)有系統(tǒng)之間存在的問(wèn)題，將有助于加深對(duì)問(wèn)題的理解，采用批判性的立場(chǎng)，這也是行動(dòng)主義的核心驅(qū)動(dòng)力之一。在我們身邊就充斥大量的問(wèn)題，是否可以將它們問(wèn)題化并采取行動(dòng)解決問(wèn)題。而這些行動(dòng)也為設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義更好地融入課程系統(tǒng)提供了良好的機(jī)會(huì)。除了解決身邊的問(wèn)題外，將社會(huì)和地球所面對(duì)的挑戰(zhàn)問(wèn)題化，也是促成一個(gè)全面且創(chuàng)新的解決方案的重要一步。

3.6 真實(shí)化

通過(guò)項(xiàng)目實(shí)踐來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)和理解設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義是最好的教育方法。真實(shí)的感受不僅來(lái)自與社區(qū)成員的會(huì)面與合作，也包括在集會(huì)中發(fā)言、參與或加入社區(qū)生活等諸多方面，沉浸在這些活動(dòng)之中，可以慢慢激發(fā)目標(biāo)感、同理心及理解力等感知。相較于通過(guò)向?qū)W生進(jìn)行說(shuō)教或簡(jiǎn)單的內(nèi)容陳述的方式讓其自行消化理解，以體驗(yàn)式教學(xué)方式，創(chuàng)造機(jī)會(huì)讓學(xué)生主動(dòng)探索發(fā)現(xiàn)知識(shí)往往更有效。創(chuàng)造實(shí)踐和體驗(yàn)的學(xué)習(xí)機(jī)會(huì)是設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義教育的重要組成部分（圖5）。

5 華盛頓大學(xué)風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)本科生與西雅圖唐人街國(guó)際區(qū)的高中生合作，為該地區(qū)夜市創(chuàng)作裝置作品Undergraduate landscape architecture student at the University of Washington worked with high school students from Seattle’s Chinatown International District in creating interpretative installments for the district’s night market

真實(shí)化或?yàn)閷W(xué)生創(chuàng)造真實(shí)的體驗(yàn)，讓學(xué)生與真實(shí)環(huán)境下的人們互動(dòng)并參與到實(shí)際問(wèn)題解決過(guò)程中?，F(xiàn)實(shí)環(huán)境是學(xué)生了解復(fù)雜問(wèn)題、挑戰(zhàn)和機(jī)會(huì)及解決方案的最佳場(chǎng)所。因此在風(fēng)景園林教育中，與以實(shí)踐技能為主的設(shè)計(jì)課、實(shí)地授課的課堂或其他創(chuàng)新機(jī)制相結(jié)合，推動(dòng)體驗(yàn)式教學(xué)模式。打造真實(shí)且長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的合作關(guān)系需要持續(xù)投入時(shí)間和精力。只有先促成這一類型的合作并落地，而后才能真正保證其教學(xué)模式及內(nèi)容的真實(shí)性。

3.7 創(chuàng)業(yè)化

除了設(shè)計(jì)工作外，為了增加學(xué)生在商業(yè)和非營(yíng)利體系工作的機(jī)會(huì)和成功率，風(fēng)景園林教育除了培養(yǎng)學(xué)生的專業(yè)技能，還需要培養(yǎng)其創(chuàng)業(yè)技能。即使在公共領(lǐng)域，了解資金支持和資金管理也可以提升項(xiàng)目的效率和成功率?？梢岳^續(xù)發(fā)揮高等教育擁有跨學(xué)科資源的優(yōu)勢(shì)，包括針對(duì)商業(yè)、創(chuàng)業(yè)關(guān)系及非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)的管理及基金申請(qǐng)寫作等方面的專業(yè)支持。設(shè)計(jì)專業(yè)可以與提供相關(guān)課程的學(xué)?；蚬ぷ鞣坏慕M織單位建立合作關(guān)系，甚至可發(fā)展成未來(lái)的合作伙伴。

拓展學(xué)生有關(guān)創(chuàng)業(yè)的相關(guān)技能可以讓畢業(yè)生選擇更多的從業(yè)領(lǐng)域，而疏于培養(yǎng)這些技能已經(jīng)被認(rèn)為是設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義發(fā)展的障礙之一。增強(qiáng)創(chuàng)業(yè)技能同樣可以幫助設(shè)計(jì)師在傳統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域上開(kāi)發(fā)新的商業(yè)模式、創(chuàng)造新的收益流，從而提高收入。對(duì)于設(shè)計(jì)公司來(lái)說(shuō)，擁有更大的財(cái)務(wù)自由往往會(huì)促進(jìn)其在項(xiàng)目設(shè)計(jì)時(shí)追求創(chuàng)造更好的社會(huì)影響力，并為環(huán)境發(fā)展做出貢獻(xiàn)。創(chuàng)業(yè)技能同樣可以增強(qiáng)公共資源及資產(chǎn)管理的創(chuàng)新性，讓管理者更好地利用這些資源幫助當(dāng)?shù)刎毨鐓^(qū)更好地發(fā)展。

3.8 （再）組織

我們必須通過(guò)不同類型的實(shí)踐來(lái)擴(kuò)大風(fēng)景園林與其他專業(yè)的合作范圍，以應(yīng)對(duì)當(dāng)今世界性尺度宏大且問(wèn)題復(fù)雜的重大挑戰(zhàn)。面對(duì)社會(huì)和全球環(huán)境變化的重大議題，風(fēng)景園林師不能僅關(guān)注本行業(yè)。相對(duì)于許多關(guān)心氣候變遷及環(huán)境正義的團(tuán)體，風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)的聲音微弱，從業(yè)者人數(shù)也相對(duì)較少的。以美國(guó)環(huán)境運(yùn)動(dòng)（American Environmental Movement）為例，這是一個(gè)由百萬(wàn)成員組成的龐大且復(fù)雜的運(yùn)動(dòng)，不同的民眾團(tuán)體關(guān)注并廣泛參與環(huán)境問(wèn)題：從野生動(dòng)植物保護(hù)到有毒垃圾及排放物問(wèn)題，多樣的專業(yè)組織并以此為相關(guān)人員提供大量的工作崗位。

與其另立門戶，不如通過(guò)與這些運(yùn)動(dòng)組織合作，找到自己專業(yè)的關(guān)鍵接口（intersection）。通過(guò)向現(xiàn)有的組織機(jī)構(gòu)學(xué)習(xí)他們的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)，而不是從零開(kāi)始積累新的知識(shí)和技能。 除了學(xué)習(xí)并參與其他運(yùn)動(dòng)組織的工作，這些接口還可以幫助我們找到盟友并建立合作關(guān)系，提升風(fēng)景園林的能力。除了培養(yǎng)本專業(yè)的學(xué)生外，我們同樣可以與其他組織機(jī)構(gòu)合作開(kāi)發(fā)實(shí)踐或?qū)嵙?xí)項(xiàng)目，增加自身的組織力和號(hào)召力。通過(guò)合作，我們可以更好地在其他領(lǐng)域發(fā)揮專業(yè)能力和影響力，讓更多的人認(rèn)識(shí)風(fēng)景園林師這個(gè)職業(yè)。

與其他行業(yè)開(kāi)展合作僅僅是一個(gè)開(kāi)始，我們還需要批判性地反思設(shè)計(jì)專業(yè)及教育單位的組織架構(gòu)方式?，F(xiàn)在的專業(yè)和教育組織系統(tǒng)是否已經(jīng)可以很好地服務(wù)于大型且復(fù)雜的挑戰(zhàn)？我們還可做出哪些改變？我們是否可以效仿其他學(xué)科及運(yùn)動(dòng)的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)？我們的影響力應(yīng)該在哪里得到最好的發(fā)揮？我們的實(shí)踐方式里存在哪些不足與缺失？這些都是風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)在前進(jìn)發(fā)展中必須面對(duì)的問(wèn)題。

3.9 民主化

面對(duì)社會(huì)的權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)，首先我們也需要重新審視自己所在教育機(jī)構(gòu)的權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)，包含決策機(jī)制、資源分配機(jī)制、責(zé)任機(jī)制以及財(cái)務(wù)結(jié)構(gòu)。為了讓風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)教育更好地應(yīng)對(duì)這個(gè)時(shí)代的重大挑戰(zhàn)，應(yīng)該與學(xué)生、教職工及從業(yè)者團(tuán)體共同制定戰(zhàn)略，以保證戰(zhàn)略的準(zhǔn)確性和落地性，否則可能導(dǎo)致過(guò)程中信息傳播的不準(zhǔn)確、缺乏支持以至難以可持續(xù)發(fā)展。

在與校外機(jī)構(gòu)、群體合作過(guò)程中，應(yīng)保證所有的聲音與意見(jiàn)都被聽(tīng)到，避免助長(zhǎng)或制造一個(gè)不公平的結(jié)構(gòu)。除了提供設(shè)計(jì)的專業(yè)支持，也需要提升社區(qū)參與公眾事務(wù)的能力。在開(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)目解決方案的工作中，需要確保方案的公平性與多樣性，并擁有從地方到全球不同維度的考慮。鑒于風(fēng)景園林教育院校、科研機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)于培養(yǎng)下一代風(fēng)景園林師的責(zé)任，必須保持本專業(yè)的教學(xué)理念價(jià)值觀與發(fā)展方向相一致。

4 在實(shí)踐中學(xué)習(xí)

在培養(yǎng)學(xué)生如何成為領(lǐng)袖之前，我們自己要先成為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。作為科研機(jī)構(gòu)、培養(yǎng)項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人以及專業(yè)人士，我們需要參與到社區(qū)及社會(huì)相關(guān)的事務(wù)中來(lái)。作為專業(yè)人士和積極參與的公民，我們必須對(duì)可以做出貢獻(xiàn)的問(wèn)題表明立場(chǎng)。我們將社會(huì)和全球所面對(duì)的重要問(wèn)題作為素材，應(yīng)用在面向?qū)W生和大眾的教育中。主動(dòng)面對(duì)問(wèn)題可以更好地意識(shí)到問(wèn)題的復(fù)雜性和突破專業(yè)上常規(guī)解決方法的需求，通過(guò)積極的反思，探索更好的應(yīng)對(duì)和解決方法（圖6）。

6 西雅圖街邊水槽項(xiàng)目是由建筑系和風(fēng)景園林系合作創(chuàng)造的解決方案，以幫助COVID-19疫情期間的無(wú)家者The Seattle Street Sink project involved faculty members in architecture and landscape architecture to create mutual aid solutions to address the challenge facing the unhoused during the COVID-19 pandemic

作為關(guān)注當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)及社會(huì)問(wèn)題的教育項(xiàng)目，我們可以與社區(qū)組織者、管理人員、行政單位及相關(guān)專業(yè)人士展開(kāi)合作并發(fā)展成為伙伴關(guān)系。通過(guò)這些聯(lián)系，為學(xué)生提供實(shí)踐學(xué)習(xí)的機(jī)會(huì)，培養(yǎng)他們的同理心、溝通、談判能力及實(shí)踐開(kāi)發(fā)能力。這些工作讓我們更好地成長(zhǎng)與發(fā)展，也將更有能力帶領(lǐng)學(xué)生參與應(yīng)對(duì)復(fù)雜的挑戰(zhàn)。因此，這些實(shí)踐同樣有助于我們確認(rèn)專業(yè)及教育培養(yǎng)的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。讓我們通過(guò)行動(dòng)、發(fā)聲成為學(xué)生的榜樣，創(chuàng)建一個(gè)支持實(shí)踐的良好環(huán)境。

5 想象與開(kāi)創(chuàng)

風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)中有哪些與行動(dòng)主義相關(guān)的知識(shí)與技能？活躍于公民運(yùn)動(dòng)的西雅圖前市長(zhǎng)候選人Cary Moon回應(yīng)道“對(duì)不存在事物的想象能力”。設(shè)想及構(gòu)建是風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)探索及解決項(xiàng)目問(wèn)題的核心技能之一，風(fēng)景園林項(xiàng)目或者問(wèn)題的尺度可能是一個(gè)場(chǎng)地、一個(gè)社區(qū)、一段河流流域或者是一個(gè)景觀系統(tǒng)，未知問(wèn)題的想象和發(fā)現(xiàn)能力對(duì)于這項(xiàng)工作至關(guān)重要。我們需要將這個(gè)技巧和思維方式應(yīng)用于教育和專業(yè)實(shí)踐中。這個(gè)能力同樣有助于為解決大尺度和十分復(fù)雜的人類社會(huì)與自然環(huán)境問(wèn)題找到突破常規(guī)的、全新的方式方法。

回溯100多年前，風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)成立并發(fā)展壯大，我們創(chuàng)造了不存在于那個(gè)時(shí)代的事物。在整個(gè)20世紀(jì)，風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)伴隨著持續(xù)的創(chuàng)造和創(chuàng)新不斷發(fā)展，其中包括創(chuàng)建新型公園和開(kāi)放空間、新的規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)方法，對(duì)于人居環(huán)境及生態(tài)環(huán)境發(fā)展新的理解等，這些創(chuàng)造離不開(kāi)行業(yè)內(nèi)外的合作和貢獻(xiàn)。為了不斷創(chuàng)造新生事物，必須檢視過(guò)去的失敗和錯(cuò)誤，包括造成的混亂與不公；還需要突破社會(huì)、政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)的界限，形成協(xié)同的工作模式。

當(dāng)今社會(huì)和環(huán)境面臨著一系列新的挑戰(zhàn)和機(jī)遇，號(hào)召著風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)再次創(chuàng)造一些尚未存在的事物。我們有責(zé)任響應(yīng)這個(gè)號(hào)召，筆者邀請(qǐng)風(fēng)景園林專業(yè)從業(yè)者參考這個(gè)“設(shè)計(jì)即行動(dòng)”研究報(bào)告（http://designactivism.be.uw.edu/framework/）的信息，然后發(fā)展出屬于各自的行動(dòng)綱領(lǐng)。

致謝：首先要感謝LAF的創(chuàng)新與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力研究獎(jiǎng)金支持這項(xiàng)研究工作。感謝創(chuàng)新與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力基金項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人Lucinda Sanders和Laura Solano、第3期的研究員，受邀為這個(gè)項(xiàng)目提供批評(píng)意見(jiàn)的專家、LAF的工作人員，他們對(duì)這項(xiàng)研究給予了很多的建議和支持。這項(xiàng)研究也離不開(kāi)項(xiàng)目組成員、通過(guò)會(huì)議接受我們?cè)L談的人士。最后還要感謝參加筆者主持的華盛頓大學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)行動(dòng)主義研討會(huì)的同學(xué)們，他們對(duì)該項(xiàng)目的成型和素材積累方面貢獻(xiàn)良多。

注釋：

① 美國(guó)風(fēng)景園林師協(xié)會(huì)（ASLA）職業(yè)道德準(zhǔn)則（https://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/About__Join/Leadership/Leadership_Handbook/Ethics/ASLA_CODE_PRO%202017-02.pdf）。

② 引自https://www.lafoundation.org/what-we-do/leadership/laf-fellowship/laf-fellows。

③ 工作坊分別開(kāi)展于：2019年在美國(guó)加州薩克拉門托市舉辦的風(fēng)景園林教育委員會(huì)會(huì)議（CELA），及分別在2019年（紐約州布魯克林市）、2020年（亞利桑那州坦佩市）舉行的美國(guó)環(huán)境設(shè)計(jì)研究協(xié)會(huì)（EDRA）年會(huì)。

④ 訪談了10個(gè)項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人，分別是（按姓氏排序）：Mark Boyer（路易斯安那州立大學(xué)），Meg Calkins（北卡羅來(lái)納州立大學(xué)），Katya Crawford（新墨西哥大學(xué)），Samuel Dennis（威斯康星麥迪遜大學(xué)），Ron Henderson（伊利諾伊理工大學(xué)），Alison Hirsch（南加州大學(xué)），Denise Hoffman Brandt（紐約城市大學(xué)），Joern Langhorst（科羅拉多大學(xué)丹佛分校），Stephanie Rolley（堪薩斯州立大學(xué)）和Robert Ryan（馬薩諸塞大學(xué)阿默斯特分校）以及6個(gè)社會(huì)活動(dòng)家、實(shí)踐者：Leann Andrews（Traction組織），Billy Fleming（麥克哈格中心），Brice Maryman（MIG公司），Cary Moon和Chelina Odbert（Kounkuey設(shè)計(jì)倡議）。

⑤ 研究團(tuán)隊(duì)成員包括：Kofi Boone（北卡羅來(lái)納州立大學(xué)），Mallika Bose（賓夕法尼亞州立大學(xué)），Chingwen Cheng（亞利桑那州立大學(xué)），David de la Pe?a（加州大學(xué)戴維斯分校），Joern Langhorst（科羅拉多大學(xué)丹佛分校），Laura Lawson（羅格斯大學(xué)），Michael Rios（加州大學(xué)戴維斯分校），Deni Ruggeri（挪威生命科學(xué)大學(xué)）和Julie Stevens（愛(ài)荷華州立大學(xué)）。

⑥ 研究報(bào)告鏈接：https://designactivism.be.uw.edu。

⑦ 引自https://mcharg.upenn.edu/conversations/what-doesit-mean-engage-activism-through-design-engage-designthrough-activism。

圖片來(lái)源：

圖1～3、5～6由作者提供，圖4來(lái)自IUCI/Tractions。

(編輯/劉昱霏)

Design Activism: A Call to Action for Landscape Architecture Education

Author: (USA) Jeffrey Hou Translator: LI Yan

We are living in a time of extraordinary change and uncertainty. Around the world, extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades[1]. Out of the ten hottest years recorded in history, eight occurred in the last decade[2]. By 2030, it has been estimated that 700 million people worldwide will be displaced by intense water scarcity[3]. The impact of sea-level rise, melting of ice caps and permafrost, loss of habitat and species extinction are just the initial signs of looming crises facing the planet and the society.

Beyond the death toll and economic disruptions, the COVID-19 Pandemic has also highlighted the persistent inequalities in our society with those in the lower socioeconomic ladder suffering higher death rates than the affluent class.Furthermore, the poorest populations of the world are also expected to be the most vulnerable under global climate calamities. In our role as landscape architects with the mission to “enhance,respect, and restore the life-sustaining integrity of the landscape” and to protect the interests of clients and the public①, we have a responsibility to take on the environmental, social, and political challenges before us.

Already, there is growing interest among a new generation of students and faculty in socially engaged design responses to the urgent social and environmental challenges as evident in recent award-winning student projects and studio work.theNew Landscape Declarationput forward by the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF),with a focus on social and ecological justice,resilience, and democracy is also indicative of this growing interest and aspiration[4](Fig. 1).The recent discussion led by the McHarg Center at the University of Pennsylvania on the role of our profession in the Green New Deal suggests a proactive response to address issues of resilience and justice.

Given the growing interest and aspirations,however, is the current model of landscape architecture education providing students with the necessary skills and knowledge to confront the urgent issues of equity, justice, and climate resilience? How can we prepare students to become not only competent professionals but also proactive practitioners who are socially and politically engaged to produce transformative outcomes?How can we transform the profession and society starting with education?

1 LAF Fellowship for Innovation and Leadership

In 2019, I was fortunate to be selected as a senior fellow of the Landscape Architecture Foundation’s distinguished fellowship program②.This fellowship allowed me to explore design activism, here defined as design for social change, as a concept for transforming landscape architecture education. The investigation was a direct response to theNew Landscape Declarationthat calls on landscape architects to be “active designers, engaging in politics, policy, finance,community service, and more.”[4]

Through workshops at a series of conferences in the United States③, interviews with educational leaders and practitioners④, and a questionnaire that was distributed to schools and programs and through the Landscape Architecture Foundation e-newsletter, the study sought to identify the challenges, opportunities, and perspectives from leading educators, students, program administrators,and practitioners on the relationships between activist practices and design education.

I also invited a group of colleagues around the United States to join me as members of a working group and collaborate on the series of conference gatherings (Fig. 2)⑤. Following a discussion of skill sets, challenges, opportunities,and existing models, a document was developed that included a framework for actions and a list of propositions for landscape architecture education.This document is accompanied by a website that serves as a resource guide for those interested in learning more about existing cases and resources⑥.

2 Design Activism

Activism as a concept has long been associated with advocacy and agonistic actions to produce change. Those actions, including organizing and protests, have played an important role historically in making social and political advancements in our society. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in ending legalized racial discrimination and segregation in the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s, the growing environmental movement in the United States led to landmark legislation such as theClean Water Actand theClean Air Actthat are critical to the quality and protection of our environment today. By linking design to activism,“design activism” considers design as a vehicle for actions. Rather than viewing design as a technical exercise, “design activism” or “design as activism”recognizes the potential and capacity of design as a tool for social and environmental progress.

As a profession founded in a movement to remake the urban environment in the 19th Century, design activism is arguably in the DNA of landscape architecture. Since the very beginning,the practice of landscape architecture has long been an exercise of activism, as evident in its attempt to improve the livelihood of people through ideas and methods that transform the built environment. In the face of the urgency of environmental and social challenges at the present moment, it is time for the profession to reflect on the mission and modalities of its practice through the lens of activism. It is also time for the accredited professional degree programs to re-examine their curriculum and pedagogy in the face of current challenges (Fig. 3).

Let us ask ourselves: Are we doing enough as a profession to address the critical challenges of our time? What specific actions are needed beyond business as usual? Are we providing our students and graduates with the skills and knowledge needed to address the complex challenges? What tools and preparation are needed for them to become leaders of movements and progress? In light of the current challenges, there is no better time for us to reconnect with the premise of our profession.It is time for us to see beyond the limited and even biased notion of activism as divisive politics.Instead, we must recognize the power of design to bring about critical changes to protect the safety and welfare of diverse living communities on the planet. We must see design activism not simply as a rebranding of our work, but as a way to be true to what we do as landscape architects.

An online roundtable hosted by the McHarg Center of the University of Pennsylvania in 2017 provided one of the most insightful and pertinent discussions on design activism to date⑦. Kian Goh, a roundtable participant and a planning faculty at UCLA, reminds us that design activism is design that challenges power structures and expands “the agency of practice in the face of social and ecological exigencies.” Artist and designer Kordae Henry sees design activism as a form of survival, “We hold the power to choose between design that harms and continues to divide us or design that creates spaces that will uplift,connect, and distribute power to those who have been marginalized.” on design education, planning scholar Barbara Brown Wilson notes, “activism often requires skills not all designers are taught in school, such as cultural competency, peace negotiation, community organizing, knowledge of other fields (e.g. ecology or economics), deep listening, and a desire to de-center one’s individual ideas toward a collaborative outcome.”

One of the earliest published references on design activism appeared in the inaugural issue ofFrameworks, a publication of the College of Environmental Design at the University of California, Berkeley. In a leading article from the volume, Randolph T. Hester[5]makes an important distinction between five types ofdesign postures,ranging from the blissfully naive – those who are“spatially talented and contextually ignorant,” tocatalysts– “agents of change.” He wrote, “Catalysts see design not only as a symbolic and utilitarian end but also a stimulus to bring about political transformation”[5]10. For Hester[5]8-9, all design is design activism, “Every design action is a political act that concretizes power and authority.”

In a 1999 issue ofPlaces Journalthat revisits the practice of participatory design, Mark Francis proposes a proactive approach to professional practice, one in which professionals “use skills in risk-taking, negotiation and entrepreneurial enterprise, base their thoughts and actions on social and environmental values, employ advocacy as part of their approach […] employ sound research and analysis, and are involved long-term […] to realize a vision”[6]. What Francis has proposed is essentially the work of design activists or activist designers. In her bookToward an Urban Ecology, Kate Orff[7]12notes that climate change requires us to imagine a different scale of action, “to scale up our work to effect larger behavioral modifications.” She further notes that this type of action is not usually commissioned by a specific client or through an Request for Qualification (RFQ) process[7].

In the document that was produced through the LAF Fellowship, we usedesign as a vehicle for social changeas a working definition ofdesign activism. By social change, we don’t mean to exclude the environmental or ecological dimensions of design. Rather, we argue that social (including political) change is fundamental to how society approaches and safeguards the environment,including living systems. Furthermore, we see the engagement of the vulnerable and underserved as an important part of the social change, from a system the privileges the few to one that strives for justice and equity.

3 A Framework of Actions

To embrace and position design as activism in landscape architecture education, we propose the following framework of actions based on the challenges and opportunities identified in our research.

As educational programs in landscape architecture vary in their focus, size, and organization, and as they respond often to different contexts and constituents, the proposals here are not meant to be one-size-fits-all. Instead, we ask each program and school to reassess its mission and goals and develop appropriate strategies and actions together with students, faculty,and the professional community. Undertaking systemic changes requires patience, strategies, and mobilization at multiple levels. We envision these changes to occur locally, regionally, nationally, and transnationally, starting from the bottom, top, and sideways, through both acupunctural pressures as well as layered approaches. The change we envision requires creativity, innovation, and sustained efforts by faculty, students, administrators, and professional allies.

While the framework and suggested actions are specific to education, we envision that a strong intersection between education and profession is also essential. In other words, while the focus of this study is on landscape architecture education,we do not see the actions as limited to the context of educational institutions only. Rather, we see the need for a broader transformation to occur through such intersections.

3.1 “Politicize”

The social and environmental challenges facing our society and the planet today are in essence political, in the sense that they reflect exercises of power and struggles. To be effective in meeting these challenges, landscape architects need to be engaged with the political – the process in which different forces and struggles converge in the public realm. We must understand better the language and systems of power. We need to have the ability and capacity to engage in the political process to effect change. To politicize is not to align necessarily with partisan interests and viewpoints. It’s not “politicizing” as conventionally or commonly understood. Rather, to politicize is to accept the responsibility of professionals as engaged citizens and as members of a democracy.To be effective participants in a democracy,we must acquire the skills in communicating,mobilizing, and advocating for the public (demos).

To politicize is also to understand that the built environment has always been an ongoing product of social, economic, and political processes. The work that we do as professionals and the materials that we teach and learn in school are shaped by the systems and the history of social movements as well as oppression and colonialization. In the book,Design for the Real World, published almost four decades ago,designer and educator Victor Papanek[8]21argues,“The main trouble with design schools seems to be that they teach too much design and not enough about the ecological, social, economic, and political environment in which design takes place.”Although Papanek was addressing more specifically the field of industrial design, the same criticism could be applied to landscape architecture, not just in the 1980s, but also today. There is much work to be done to engage with the “real world” we live in.

3.2 Hybridize

The scale and complexity of the social and environmental challenges today require landscape architecture to build knowledge and capacity beyond the traditional core of the profession.One of the advantages of higher education is that we reside in institutions with other areas of expertise, including arts, environmental sciences,ethnic studies, geography, gender studies, health,human-centered design, law, planning, social work,etc. There are abundant opportunities to explore collaboration in research, teaching, and service that can mutually benefit students, faculty, the professional community, and the public if we are willing to invest in building the connections and taking the initiatives.

By connecting and working with other disciplines, there are also opportunities to reflect critically on how we operate as a field. For instance,we can learn from the methods that the other fields use to generate, disseminate, and apply knowledge.We can also observe how they test ideas and verify results. We can draw from the way they engage the public and advance their agenda. Through these interactions, we can learn about our strengths and limitations and find ways to advance our profession. Conversely, by hybridizing, we can also make others aware of landscape architecture and what we can bring to the table. Rather than taking on the challenges on our own, hybridizing allows us to join forces with others (Fig. 4).

There are different ways in which hybridization can occur. In programs that are housed together with planning programs, for instance, students already can benefit from the availability of courses and the company of cohorts often with a strong social justice focus and sensibility. At the graduate level, students can develop specializations,participate in joint projects, or even pursue concurrent degrees. At the undergraduate level, we can encourage students to pursue minors in other fields to broaden their relationships with other units, steps must also be taken to reduce barriers including tenure and promotion criteria and process.

At the program level and as a profession,we must also hybridize our ranks by recruiting more diverse students and faculty into education.We must reach out to schools, communities, and students that are historically underrepresented in our profession. Only by bringing those from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds into the profession can we begin to have the capability of understanding and addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion in society.

3.3 Glocalize

Just like landscapes and ecosystems, today’s social and environmental challenges are also interconnected across scales and locations. To be effective in meeting these interconnected challenges,we must think and act both locally and globally.Starting with the local, educational programs can build connections with local stakeholders,including communities, public agencies, and civic organizations, not to mention the local professional community. These connections are important for developing a service-learning curriculum and providing students and faculty with opportunities to develop working relationships and gain insights into the issues and challenges facing the local communities. These insights allow students and faculty to understand how issues facing the planet and the global society are manifested locally and how we can begin to undertake actions in communities and places where we live and work,particularly the vulnerable communities.

Developing local ties needs not be done at the expense of global connections. In fact, by working both locally and globally with partners and communities abroad, landscape architecture programs can explore the interconnectivity of global and local issues, broaden the horizon for students and faculty, and prepare students to become global leaders and citizens. As demographic compositions diversify in communities across the globe, institutions are increasingly required to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.Cultivating the local and global connections and exploring curricular and pedagogical opportunities can also help build the cultural and intercultural capacity for the next generation of landscape architects.

3.4 Improvise

With fiscal uncertainty or declining financial support (and more recently with the impact of COVID-19), most landscape architecture programs in the United States and perhaps elsewhere are likely not in a position to grow rapidly. As such,the most effective way to move forward with the agenda of integrating design activism into design education is to make use of what already exists. For instance, studios present an excellent opportunity to integrate design activism into a curriculum. Given the common problems of crowded curriculum and systems that are already overstretched, using a design studio to introduce and embed design activism can be done with the least cost and disruption to a curriculum.The project-based approach and the significant time assigned to design studios also make it an appropriate venue. Similarly, content related to design activism can also be layered or inserted into existing courses whenever it’s appropriate.

Aside from the coursework, a program can also build on an existing lecture series to introduce new themes and substance focusing on critical issues of our time. It can offer workshops/charrettes on an annual or biennial basis providing opportunities to engage not just students and faculty but also the professional community and members of the public. Summer programs provide yet another opportunity to utilize existing resources, in this case, the availability of space and time during the summer. Improvising, or working with what you have, also means utilizing strengths and assets that are already in place in a program or a community. These may include existing community-university partnership programs on campus, community-based organizations that one can develop partnerships with, and city agencies that can use resources and support from university programs.

3.5 Problematize

To improvise with existing resources and strengths, one doesn’t need to go far than to look at an existing program, curriculum, university, and the nearby city or communities. There is arguably no better way to address issues of equity, justice, and resilience than to look at what’s immediately around us. Starting with the courses, what if we take a social justice lens to re-examine the history of our profession? Rather than following the typical narrative in the literature, what if we revisit it from the perspectives of the subaltern groups, including the indigenous communities and marginalized groups whose lands were expropriated to make ways for some of the most iconic works of our profession? What if we take on the disparities that exist already in our communities, such as access to fresh food and green spaces? What if we look at how university campuses are addressing issues of sustainability and resilience?

To problematize our assumptions and existing systems is also to develop a deeper understanding of issues and take a critical stance that is in essence the source of activism. There is an abundance of issues that we can take on at our doorsteps if we can problematize them and make them the focus of actions. These actions are in turn provide the opportunities through which design activism can be introduced and integrated into the curriculum.Starting in one’s programs, institutions, and communities also presents opportunities to be engaged and to connect theories and concepts to realities. Beyond one’s immediate surroundings,problematizing the societal institutions and challenges facing the planet is also a critical step toward developing holistic and innovative solutions.One must develop appropriate solutions by first asking the right questions.

3.6 Authenticize

Design activism is best learned and understood in actions. An authentic experience including, but not limited to, meeting and working together with community members, tabling or speaking in a rally, and staying or living in a community, can go a long way in instilling a sense of purpose, empathy, and understanding by being immersed. Rather than indoctrinating students or simply delivering content and expecting the students to accept and digest on their own, it’s often more powerful to provide opportunities for self-discoveries through experiential learning.Providing opportunities for actions and experiences is thus a critical component of design activism education (Fig. 5).

Authenticize, or creating an authentic experience for students, involves working with people in the actual context with real issues. The reality is the best material for students to learn about the complexity of issues and challenges as well as the opportunities and pathways for solutions. Creating opportunities for experiential learning, therefore, needs to be integrated into landscape architecture education, either through service-learning studios and field classrooms or other innovative mechanisms. Long-term investment of time and commitment is needed to ensure an authentic and long-lasting relationship for collaboration. The collaboration can only be as authentic as the relationships that enable the collaboration to occur in the first place.

3.7 Entrepreneurize

For alternative practices to be viable and successful in the market economy or the competitive nonprofit ecosystem, landscape architecture education needs to provide students not only with technical knowledge but also entrepreneurial skills.Even in the public sector, understanding funding and fund management is critical to program effectiveness and success. Again, one advantage of higher education institutions is their proximity and access to a variety of resources and expertise,including programs that support businesses,entrepreneurship, nonprofit management, and grant writing. Programs can develop partnerships with their counterparts on campuses that offer appropriate courses and workshops and can become partners in potential initiatives.

Having the additional skills in entrepreneurship can open the door for graduates to pursue alternative forms of practice, the lack of which has been identified as a barrier to design activism.Stronger entrepreneurial skills can also help existing practices to become more successful financially by developing new business models and revenue streams. With greater financial resilience, firms will have more ability to pursue projects and initiatives with greater social impacts and environmental contributions. The entrepreneurial skills can also potentially translate into a stronger and more creative way of governing public assets and resources and for the profession to become more capable of supporting the revitalization of local communities that struggle in today’s economy.

3.8 (Re)organize

To take on the scale and complexity of the critical challenges today, we must “scale up” our practice by collaborating with other professions,by pursuing different models of practice, and through different ways of organizing. Landscape architects are far from being alone in addressing the critical changes facing society and the planet.To say the least, our capacity is modest compared to the number of people and organizations that are already mobilized to fight the systems that produce climate change and social and environmental injustice. Take the American Environmental Movement as an example, it is a movement with a collective membership of millions of people, a sophisticated web of organizations, and providing job opportunities for many professional organizers and staff, engaged in a wide variety of issues ranging from wildlife conservation to toxic waste.

Rather than re-inventing the wheel, we can collaborate with these movement organizations and find critical intersections of our work. Instead of producing new skills and knowledge from scratch,we can learn from these organizations and the work they have done successfully already. Beyond learning from and participating in the work that other movement organizations are doing, pursuing these intersections also means finding allies and building coalitions and capacity for the profession.Rather than training the students on our own,we can collaborate with others in developing practicum and internship programs to build skills and knowledge in organizing and advocacy. By joining coalitions of movements and organizations,we can better identify opportunities for the field to contribute and assert our presence and influence.By working with others, we also make the work of landscape architects more visible to a broader audience.

Working with others is certainly a way to begin. But at some point, we also need to reflect critically on the way our profession and educational programs are organized. Are the profession and the education system organized in a way that addresses the scale and complexity of the challenges at hand? What are the alternatives? Can we emulate the success of other movements and disciplines?Where can we have the largest impact? What is missing from our practice model? These are some of the questions that we need to address as a profession as we move forward.

3.9 Democratize

To take on the power structure in society, we must also reexamine the power structure within our educational institutions. This includes how decisions are made, how resources are allocated,whom we are accountable to, and even how educational institutions are funded. Starting with developing strategies to make our programs more responsive to the critical challenges of our time,we must make sure that students, faculty, and even the professional community are fully engaged in the process of deliberation and implementation.Without their input and support, the strategies would risk being misinformed or lacking the support to sustain.

In partnering with communities outside the university, we must also ensure that all voices are included in the process and that we do not end up sustaining the structure of injustice through our work. More than just design assistance, our involvement must help build capacity in the community we work with. In developing solutions for projects, we must ensure that they address equity, diversity, and inclusion at different scales,from local to global. As a profession and as educational institutions responsible for training future generations of professionals, we must hold ourselves to the same set of values and principles that our work is intended to embody.

4 Leading by Doing

To show students how to be leaders, we need to be leaders ourselves. We, as faculty, program leaders, and professionals need to be engaged with issues that matter to our communities and society. We must take a stance on issues that we can contribute to as professionals and as engaged citizens. We must look at the critical challenges facing the planet and society as teachable moments for our students and the public. By taking on these issues ourselves, we also become more aware of their complexity and the necessity to go beyond the normative approaches enshrined in the profession.We become reflexive and educated about possible responses and solutions (Fig. 6).

As programs and courses take on issues that matter to local communities and society,opportunities can arise for collaboration and partnerships with those including community organizers, agency staff, elected officials, and professionals. These interactions also provide teachable opportunities for empathy, negotiation,and co-creation. As we become better at these processes ourselves, we will be more able to engage our students in navigating the complexity of change. Furthermore, we will become more capable of identifying future directions for the profession,including education. By getting our hands dirty, so to speak, we set an example for our students and create a supportive environment for engagement.

5 Imagine and Invent What Has Yet to Exist

Asked about what specific skills and knowledge in landscape architecture are relevant to activism, Seattle activist and former Mayoral candidate Cary Moon responded: “being asked to imagine what does not exist.” Imagining and inventing what does not yet exist is indeed one of the most powerful skills we have as a profession as we address issues and challenges in a site, a neighborhood, a watershed, or a network of landscapes. We must bring those skills and mindset to addressing the challenges facing our own education and profession. In the face of the scale and complexity of challenges facing humanity and the planet, we need to explore methods and models that may not exist yet in the current model of education and professional practice.

Looking back more than a century ago, the profession of landscape architecture was able to emerge, grow, and make great strides because we made something that did not exist at the time.Throughout the 20th century, the profession continued to evolve, each time creating something new and innovative. They include new types of parks and open space, new methods for planning and design, and a new understanding of the built environment and ecological processes. To invent something new, we must also revisit and examine the past fallacies and mistakes, including the legacies of displacement and injustice. Inventing something will also require collaboration and working across social, political, and disciplinary borders. It’s important to recognize that those inventions in the past would not have been possible without the contribution of many others both within and outside the profession.

The issues facing the planet and society today present a new set of challenges and opportunities.They signal a call to action for the profession to again invent something that has yet to exist. It’s our responsibility now to rise to the call. I invite you to reference our report in developing your own framework of actions – http://designactivism.be.uw.edu/.

Acknowledgments:

I wish to thank first the Landscape Architecture Foundation for supporting this work through its Fellowship for Innovation and Leadership. The project benefitted from the comments and inputs from the program leaders Lucinda Sanders and Laura Solano, the members of cohort 3, the many invited critics, and the LAF staff. This work also would not be possible without the contribution of the working group members as well as those who were interviewed for this project and those who participated in the series of conference meetings. Finally, the students in my Design Activism seminars at the University of Washington, Seattle,also played an important role in producing the materials and shaping the project.

Notes:

① ASLA Code of Professional Ethics (https://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/About__Join/Leadership/Leadership_Handbook/Ethics/ASLA_CODE_PRO%202017-02.pdf).

② https://www.lafoundation.org/what-we-do/leadership/laffellowship/laf-fellows.

③ Workshop sessions were organized for the 2019 CELA (Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture)Conference in Sacramento, CA, and the annual conferences of EDRA (Environmental Design Research Association) in Brooklyn, NY (2019) and Tempe, AZ (2020).

④ Ten program leaders were interviewed, including (in alphabetical order by last name) Mark Boyer (Louisiana State University), Meg Calkins (North Carolina State University), Katya Crawford (University of New Mexico),Samuel Dennis (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Ron Henderson (Illinois Institute of Technology), Alison Hirsch(University of Southern California), Denise Hoffman Brandt(City College of New York), Joern Langhorst (University of Colorado, Denver), Stephanie Rolley (Kansas State University), and Robert Ryan (University of Massachusetts,Amherst). Six activists/practitioners were interviewed,including (in alphabetical order by last name) Leann Andrews (Traction), Billy Fleming (McHarg Center), Brice Maryman (MIG), Cary Moon, and Chelina Odbert (Kounkuey Design Initiative).

⑤ The working group members included Kofi Boone (NC State University), Mallika Bose (Penn State University), Chingwen Cheng (Arizona State University), David de la Pe?a (University of California, Davis),Joern Langhorst (University of Colorado, Denver), Laura Lawson (Rutgers University), Michael Rios (University of California, Davis), Deni Ruggeri (Norwegian University of Life Sciences), and Julie Stevens (Iowa State University).

⑥ The URL of the Website is https://designactivism.be.uw.edu.

⑦ https://mcharg.upenn.edu/conversations/what-does-itmean-engage-activism-through-design-engage-designthrough-activism .

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1-3, 5-6?the author; Fig. 4?IUCI/Tractions.

(Editor / LIU Yufei)