- Email: [email protected]
Some observations regarding the education of landscape architects for the 21st century
Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
Some observations regarding the education of landscape architects for the 21st century Ivan Marušiˇc∗ Department of Landscape Architecture, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract This article presents some questions concerning development in the education of landscape architects in the future. The questions arise from changes observable in programs of some schools of landscape architecture as well as in technical and scientific disciplines that share with landscape architecture activity in the landscape. The aim of the article is to highlight the relationship between landscape planning and science and the technical disciplines that are active in the landscape, as well as the special tasks landscape planning has in environmental conservation. The article stresses that landscape architecture—and landscape planning in particular—is from its inception based on scientific analysis, which, however, it builds upon with a search for solutions to problems of land use and management. Creativity is crucial in this process: it is capable of fulfilling the basic conservation requirement—to employ the environmental intervention alternative that is least harmful to the environment. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Education; Landscape; Planning; Science; Creativity
1. Introduction It is a difficult and thankless task to predict future development trends in landscape architecture. Answers to the question of education for the 21st century therefore, have to be sought in what is happening today; this happening displays some characteristics which may be an indicator of the future of the profession, or maybe also of aberrations of the present time. Recognising such aberrations is all the more important, since we have to be aware of them today if the future development of landscape architecture shall run in accordance with its societal role. Is this role clear enough? I proposed this question at the landscape planning conference: Landscape Planning in Europe, an In∗ Tel.: +386-1-423-11-61; fax: +386-1-256-51-72. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Marušiˇc).
0169-2046/02/$20.00 © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - 2
ternational Conference, and at workshops organised by The Institute of Landscape Planning and Nature Conservation and The Federal Association of Professional Nature Conservationists from 27 September to 1 October 1999 in Hannover, Germany. I pointed out the situation in Slovenia. My intention was to present the importance of clear definitions of the profession to the international audience, because the problem of weak definitions may not apply only to Slovenia. In a way, the discussions at the conference proved this impression of mine. The most basic issues of professional definitions were raised at the conference and the situation we had experienced 10 years earlier at the same place was recapitulated again with (in my—probably not very reliable—opinion) even more uncertain outcomes. Questions like these were brought up: how can we define landscape planning? What are the specific tools landscape planning uses?
96
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
2. Changes in professional education in the area of landscape design and nature conservation Such uncertainty in regard to the definition of landscape planning as an independent discipline may stem from another phenomenon we are witnessing in the development of landscape architecture schools, and that is the separation of landscape planning and landscape design. Such a separation may seem to be a normal development of the profession which, similarly to other professions, with a deepening of its knowledge base tends toward an internal specialisation of its sphere of activity. We also encountered this problem of specialisation at our school. Should we separate the two professional branches in education as well? How far should the separation go? We performed a survey on this among our graduates who are active in the profession. The survey showed that while the option to focus on one of the fields would be desirable, a total separation is not the proper solution. The reasons given were mainly practical in nature—graduates would have better employment opportunities. At the same time, though the people surveyed believe that a landscape architect should be active or at least qualified for work in both branches of landscape architecture because of their specific equality. A quick search through the home pages of several teaching programs of European Universities reveals that the separation of the two branches of landscape architecture already exists at many schools of landscape architecture; formally, or informally through offering the students the possibility to select certain subjects (NLH—Norway, SLU—Sweden, Universitaet Hannover, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Technische Universitaet Berlin). The separation between landscape planning and landscape design, however, is not a simple process of internal specialisation of the profession. A trend may be noted within traditional technical branches such as agriculture, forestry and even hydrotechnology, to form landscape planning of their own. In Slovenia, for example, agricultural planning has acquired the status of exclusive decision-maker where the use of agricultural land is concerned, despite the fact that such a decision should be considered in a much broader context. Similar status was acquired by forestry, which generally links its problem area with tree vegetation only. Similarly, the new Slovenian
Law on Water Management proposes the preparation of a land use plan for catchment areas, which would ensure adequate protection of water systems. This is not ordinary sectorial planning, we were familiar with earlier proposals that still have to be co-ordinated at the level of comprehensive physical plan preparation. These are efforts by certain sectors to take over the integral and final planning of its activity. This latter— final—planning is indicated by sectorial laws specifying that the sectors should present their plan proposals to the public concerned and also obtain approval for their implementation from the public. The separation of landscape planning from design is thus, not just a process of internal specialisation of landscape architecture. It is also some kind of ‘appropriation’ of landscape planning from the side of other disciplines, particularly those that use natural resources. A quick search through the home pages of agricultural, forestry and hydrology programs confirms that this again is not just a Slovenian phenomenon and that it may be observed in education as well. (Technische Universität München, BOKU, Wien). It may also be noted that scientific educational programs, such as geography and biology are introducing the issues of landscape planning through subjects such as landscape ecology, conservation biology or ecosystem management. Landscape ecology, originally a basic science for planning, managing, preservation, development and restoration of land and landscape, is increasingly integrating landscape planning and merging with it into a new branch, as two prominent authors in the field wrote (Naveh and Lieberman, 1993, p. 21). Virtually, the same can be said about conservation biology. Namely, apart from researching biological diversity, conservation biology has its own tasks, as an author from the field puts it. One of them is to search for sustainable and acceptable forms of natural resource use, an explicit landscape planning task. Another task of conservation biology is to provide the local population, confronted with restrictions due to established reserves, with possibilities for economic and cultural development equal to those of other social groups. Apart from that, conservation biology, in contrast with most other sciences, has a true “mission”, i.e. to save the biosphere. (Kryštufek, 1999, p. 10). It is, therefore, not only scientific research that some of today’s environmental sciences strive for. Knowledge—the theories that natural
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
97
3. Relationship between planning and science
It is quite impossible to imagine actual planning without the use of scientific knowledge and analysis. It is not unusual that landscape planning plays a particular role in this respect within all physical planning activities. ‘The basis of landscape planning is survey and analysis,’ argued members of the Landscape Planning Commission of IUCN (Landscape, 1971, p. 5). As has been reported by Steinitz (1976, p. 444), the landscape architect Manning has been the one who presumably made use of the overlay technique for the first time as early as 1912. The contribution of P. Geddes, a biologist, to urban and physical planning is often considered as the first step towards ‘establishing urbanism as a science’, as urban sociologist Gantar (1984, p. 76) pointed out. According to Fabos (1985, p. 19) his contribution is more than that. He pioneered many efforts aimed at resolving environmental conflicts. The ‘scientification’ of planning activities goes, as we see, hand in hand with conservation efforts. The latter was probably the first factor that stimulated the development of transparent and systematic planning procedures, as Lyle (1985, p. 126) has observed. Major credit for the development of these methods goes to landscape planning. It was landscape planning that made a crucial contribution to two important developments within environmental planning: the environmental impact assessments1 and geographic information systems. The Harvard University early study ‘Qualitative Values in Environmental Planning’ (1969) was both, one of the first efforts in computer based spatial data processing and a thorough review of systematic environmental planning procedures. It seems that the traditional role of science in planning as posited by Sir Patrick Geddes and most rapidly developed during the 1960s and 1970s is being reversed. Despite the fact that Slovenian landscape ecology is not a highly developed science, these tendencies do occur. With some exaggeration one could almost say that we have posed the question of what came first, the egg or the hen. Yet this is not the point here. Science and planning are two interconnected but basically different worlds. Landscape ecology and conservation biology have evolved out of environmental concerns. They are
Let us first consider the relation between landscape architecture and science. Natural sciences provide the basic source of understanding about the environment.
1 When he lectured at the University in Ljubljana in 1998, Ian McHarg stressed: ‘Environmental Impact Analysis—this is the tool I invented’.
sciences provide—is not enough. Action should follow the scientific discoveries. The best explanation of that viewpoint of the actual environmental sciences is expressed by T. O’Riordan. He claims the responsibility of science as one of the guilty parties in producing the present condition of the environment. Science has to assume a new role in ensuring a future for our planet. However, traditional science cannot fulfil this role. To be the source of objective knowledge alone seems insufficient for the requirements of the times and their problems. Science should be more than just a source of objective knowledge. Besides gathering data, analysing, and building and testing theories, science should also be a catalyst, claims O’Riordan (1995, p. 4). It should be an interpreter of scientific data according to various parameters of political and ethical norms. It should create an extension of power for those who are not always recognised as being important. It should be engaged in the decision making process, it should be comprehensive, it should be interdisciplinary, it should be total, argues O’Riordan (1995, p. 4). He quotes American political analyst Kai Lee and his term ‘civic science’. “Civic science is the process through which scientific analysis, threading its way through uncertainty and vast areas of uncharted territory called ‘social judgement to future options’ opens up its work to public involvement and responsiveness” (O’Riordan, 1995, p. 11). The tendency towards developing a ‘total’ science may be observed in those scientific disciplines that are most closely linked to landscape architecture, i.e. biology, geography, geology and ecology. It is highly indicative in this context, how the subtitles of the major landscape planning magazine Landscape and Urban Planning have changed during the last decade: from An International Journal of Landscape Design, Conservation and Reclamation, Planning and Urban Ecology to An International Journal of Landscape Ecology, Planning and Design. Landscape ecology has advanced to the first place.
98
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
branches of natural sciences. However, their direct connection to these sciences casts some doubt on their ability to function as ‘total science’. Let me quote here the philosopher P. Taylor, one of the most prominent advocates of the ‘respect for nature’ ethics. “How humans should live with other species, and even whether humans should live at all, are matters that require the making of normative and evaluative judgements. The biological sciences can give us the relevant factual knowledge, but those sciences cannot provide the standards on which our normative and evaluative judgements are grounded . . . . The claim is frequently made that ecology shows us how to live in relation to the natural environment . . . . The conclusion drawn from these considerations is that the science of ecology provides us with a model to follow in the domain of environmental ethics . . . . This line of reasoning is not sound from a logical point of view. It confuses facts and values, ‘is’ and ‘ought’. . . . But the ethical question, ‘How should human culture fit into the order of nature?’ is not a question of biological fact. It is a question that confronts humans as moral agents, not as biological organisms, since it asks: which way of relating ourselves to nature, among various alternatives open to our choice, is the ethically right one to adopt” (Taylor, 1986, pp. 51–52). The inability of natural sciences to establish the values of natural phenomena directly, inability to establish the ‘ought-s’, can be noticed very clearly. It is not unexpected that within the list of conservation biology tasks quoted above the establishing of reserves is mentioned and it is even mentioned as the only tool of conservation biology. This conservation tool is absolute in its nature. It is a direct application of the presumption ‘that ecology shows us how to live in relation to the natural environment’ though applied in a limited area. Conservation by establishing reserves enables no ‘threading through uncertainty and vast areas of uncharted territory called social judgement to future options’. As a tool, it is not only insufficient, it is, in the spirit of ‘civic science’, even improper. Insufficiency of the reserve as a conservation tool was the main encouragement for the declaration of the European Year of Nature Conservation 1995. The reason for this action of the Council of Europe was ‘nature conservation outside protected areas’ and the philosophy of the action was based on the precautionary principle (Pavan, 1996, p. 17).
Unnatural as it may sound, conservation carried out by direct conservation of natural phenomena and natural processes has limited potentials. A natural phenomenon or a natural process is effected through human interventions and activities in the environment. The precautionary principle is based on the supposition that the intervention can be manipulated, not nature. While the study of nature is a necessary basis, active conservation should principally strive to grasp what interventions into the environment mean to people, to what an extent we can reduce them and in what ways we can limit ourselves in using the natural environment. Let me quote here philosopher Paul Taylor again. Among his five principles of ethical behavior towards nature he places first the principle of self-defence. The principle says: “There must be no available alternative that is known to be equally effective but to cause less harm to the ‘attacking’ organisms” (Taylor, 1986, p. 265). Alternatives here means forms of human interventions in nature, and the attacking organism represents nature which is perceived as a threat in the human effort to imp rove our living conditions in the environment. The philosopher’s principle can be read as a direct technical instruction for planners. It is not unexpected that the philosopher’s request for seeking the most appropriate conservation alternatives is essentially a reformulated precautionary principle or one of the decision rules reviewed by Turner (1995, p. 40). The experiences in the field of active environmental conservation confirm these perceptions. When the protection of natural phenomena is the direct goal of nature conservation, conservation becomes focused on natural reserves. In such a case, dialog between those who stand behind a proposed developmental action, and nature conservationists, is impossible.
4. Relationship between sectorial and landscape planning The question of relationship between landscape planning and agriculture, forestry, hydrotechnology and similar technical disciplines, active in landscape space, arose along with demands for conservation and, above all, ‘sustainable’ use of natural resources. Landscape planning ‘does not have a subject matter
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
of its own, it shares the landscape with other disciplines, yet in a specific way’, Ogrin (1992, p. 4) explains the situation. It is very well explained also by the definition of landscape planning by dame Crowe (1967, p. 14) who says: ‘The substitution of the term landscape-planning for land-planning marks a deliberate widening of the conception of planning to include appearance as well as use, pleasure as well as fertility, and the whole complex organic fabric of life, as well as man’s immediate needs’. In discussing the role of landscape planning, D. Ogrin further says: ‘Regional, town and country planning as well as other kinds of land-use planning, in seeking solutions for a certain social problem, bring a change into the landscape . . . . For this reason they are characterised as development planning . . . . Landscape planning basically does not do that’ (Ogrin, 1992, p. 4). Landscape architecture, particularly landscape planning, should thus, have the function of some kind of corrective to technological and developmental planning in the landscape. The landscape plan should summarise sectorial development plans which look after ‘man’s immediate needs, the economical use of the resource and its fertility’ and complement them so as to ensure a pleasant appearance of the landscape, its recreational use and nature conservation. Landscape planning affirms the comprehensiveness of sectorial plans. The demand for sustainable use, which looks like becoming a basic principle of the present time, is bringing change to this role of landscape architecture. Not only do individual disciplines also wish to solve conservation problems by introducing sustainable technologies. Some strive directly toward a transformation of technologies from developmental—i.e. such as were judged according to economic criteria— into conservation technologies, in which economic viewpoints play no role anymore. This transformation is most pronounced in Slovenian forestry, in which wood production has become only one of its functions and not even a very important one. In the foreground are nature conservation, the social and aesthetic functions of the forest. This may not be typical of all of European forestry. However, such a view of the basic mission of the profession is also observable in agriculture. It is not food growing anymore that matters, but conservation of the cultural landscape. Disciplines once clearly defined as developmental, are gradually
99
changing into conservation disciplines. But conservation issues are not as unambiguous as developmental issues. Comparatively clear-cut economic criteria are replaced by a complexity of various conservation evaluation systems. And these can only receive their final confirmation in a confrontation of diverse and conflicting social interests. A remaining problem lies in the fact that the sectors striving toward a content integrity of their plans, limit themselves to a physical space, e.g. to forest, farmlands and waterside (riparian) space, since that is the spatial limitation of those sectors. The limitation of plans to a narrower physical area indicates that the individual sector is in its conservation evaluation restricting itself to problems it may potentially cause in the environment. This is not sufficient in view of comprehensive planning. Noise, pollution and similar influences extend beyond the confines of forest or farmland. Hence the tendency by the Forestry Service of Slovenia to expand the boundaries of its environmental protection evaluation to the so-called forest space, which is supposed to include—in addition to the forest proper—also all the land from which the forest is being influenced. Such tendencies toward an expansion of the domain of individual sectors are a perfectly understandable reaction to conservation tasks that the sectors set themselves. This can lead to a totally absurd situation. Agriculture will define as its conservation planning domain all of agricultural land and also the land from which this is being influenced. If the development of farming properties is regarded as one of the major influences, then agriculture should have control over planning of urban areas, and should determine demographic growth and urban density. Namely, only in this way is it possible to reduce the urbanisation of farming land. Similarly, successful hydrotechnological conservation planning is possible only if the sector plans and controls the land use of the total watershed, including built-up areas, farmland and forests. Regardless of the emerging trends—and I stress that it may be they are typical only of Slovenia (although education programs indicate that this is probably not the case)—one may conclude after these brief reflections that it is unavoidable and only logical that landscape architecture should keep its status of planning discipline, linking sectors and building on their sectorial plans in the sense of dame S. Crowe’s
100
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
definition mentioned earlier. Of course, this cannot mean that the sectors have no responsibilities for the conservation aspects of their activities—for the development of environmentally friendly technologies. Moreover, the question should also be solved within landscape planning itself, to what degree the landscape architect should intervene in the planning of technologies. Is a landscape architect the person to argue with a farmer the number of hay crops or the date of the first mowing on a grass field? Namely, within landscape architecture itself the question should be answered whether landscape planning is spatial or technological planning or maybe both? Should landscape planning occupy the professional niche arising from the introduction of conservation biology? The latter namely states that ‘. . . one of its goals is also to develop practical approaches to preventing the extinction of species and, if possible, to reintegrate species into a properly functioning ecosystem’. (Primack, 1995, p. 5) Shall landscape architects engineer nature? Or shall the reintegration of species be the responsibility of those who develop technologies that are potentially harmful for the properly functioning ecosystem?
5. Landscape architecture—‘civic science’ Science alone, as has been explained earlier, cannot define the thresholds of environmental change. Even worse “because we do not know where the margins of sustainability are, the scientific approach may provide a justification for pushing the alteration of the planet beyond the limits of its tolerance” (O’Riordan, 1995, p. 1). Ignorance is becoming an important issue which has been, as Smithson (1989, p. 1) pointed out, neglected by Western science and philosophy. Both have become aware of the importance of ignorance and uncertainty only in the last decades of the 20th century. It is this uncertainty that calls for a different approach that could overcome the insufficiency of traditional science in answering the question of our acceptable future. Among the types of uncertainty, like uncertainties about future events, uncertainties about the value system, data shortage, lack of theories, model deficiencies etc., it is the creative process itself that is the most important type of uncertainty for this discussion. Let me illustrate this by quoting the famous paradox from
Plato’s Meno: “And how will you inquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of inquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is what you did not know?” (Mitchell, 1977, p. 46). Uncertainty is a notion that is not unknown in planning. It is, essentially, an activity which can be defined as ‘coping with uncertainty’. Therefore, it poses some very old tools to cope with uncertainty, like making sketches, step by step approaching an acceptable solution, design competitions etc. All of them can be brought to a ‘common denominator’, i.e. they enable our search into an unknown world of possible solutions. According to the philosopher P. Taylor this search should be expanded to ‘all possible solutions’ that could be discovered and thus could become known. The relationships outlined so far can be presented graphically as shown in Fig. 1. The chart of the design or planning process dates back to 1986. However, it is still relevant. (Marušiˇc, 1986, p. 21) The sketch is slightly changed and translated from Slovenian. It is very similar to the list of models Steinitz (1990, p. 137) discusses while proposing a framework for the theory applicable to the education of landscape architects and other design professionals. Planning may always be seen as a mixture between search and invention. The extent of each of the two depends very much on a number of circumstances. Planning is an over constrained activity. That means it is always conducted within time and financial limitations. Thereafter, it can be completely inventive or it can be carried out in a ‘step-by-step’ procedure in which the scientific approach takes only some specific steps. The planner’s task may be of such a nature that its solution can be reached entirely by invention. It is possible, on the contrary, that it may be reached only by careful collection of data, information and research of the planned system. Within the planning procedure, research is bound to some specific steps. In a way, the planning procedure follows the evolution pattern of natural sciences: inventory—collections, classification—understanding the structure of the system, building of theories—understanding the functioning of the system, predictions—forecasting the possible changes, i.e. testing the applicability of theories. Applicability should be assessed in a way that enables what O’Riordan explains as ‘threading its
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
101
102
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
way through . . . vast areas of uncharted territory called ‘social judgement to future options’. That is the aim of the evaluation phase. Evaluation should be carried out in order to project societal values into physical space. It should provide answers about the transformation of various physical phenomena and processes into qualities according to different social interests. The synthesis represents the joining of parts that were considered by research and evaluation. Uncertainties about the understanding of reality, i.e. vagueness of the prediction models and the multitude of societal interests—many of them even opposing to others, give way to alternative solutions. The planner may omit one or more of the phases of the planning process. He may quit any step of the procedure, continuing his work in the spirit of what J. Lyle calls ‘the magical leap of intuition’ (Lyle, 1985, p. 126). His whole work may be of such a nature, i.e. absolutely irrational. Naturally, it may also be rational and systematic to quite an extent, yet it remains creative in its essence. The planner has to face a number of uncertainties, as we said before. The data are always incomplete, the theories about cause–effect relationships are in most cases insufficient to simulate the effects of different interventions in the environment, and the value systems are difficult to explore. Last but not least, the planner has to overcome not only what O’Riordan defines as that which is ‘beyond the knowable’ (O’Riordan, 1995, p. 8), but also what does not yet exist and is waiting to be revealed by his creative insight.
6. Conclusion At the Landscape Conference in Hannover 1989, R. Enis defined landscape planning very briefly as ‘creative conservation’. She quoted, as she said, Dame S. Crowe. That means the definition has a much longer tradition. It is in a way a synonym for McHarg’s expression and the title of his book ‘Design with Nature’ McHarg (1969). The definition states that conservation can be implemented only by creative efforts, by design, by planning and managing human interventions in the environment in such a way that nature and the environment as a whole are changed in an acceptable way. What is accept-
able cannot be judged by absolute criteria. It can only be defined as the most acceptable solution we know. Philosopher P. Taylor defines this by his principle of self-defence that requires searching for the alternative that is least harmful for the ‘attacking organism’. It is not our intention here to diminish the importance of teaching natural sciences within the curricula of landscape architecture and landscape planning, neither to diminish the role of landscape ecology within the educational curricula. Our intention is only to stress how important it is for the students to understand the essence of the planning process and that they distinguish the real nature of landscape ecology and the real nature of landscape architecture. The students should understand that they are two basically different activities with two different mandates given to them by society: • to research and to understand the laws that govern the environment; • to invent ways to enable conservation to be carried out in the most appropriate way. This presents the schools of landscape architecture with an important task. They have to reinforce the creative potentials of their students, they have to stimulate their creativity without regard to their specialisation into design or planning, they have to develop their capabilities for resolving all the conservation aspects of today and the developmental needs of the future. Complete separation of landscape design from landscape planning could be fatal for the future of the profession. From the same perspective, the establishing of separate landscape planning study programs and similar curricula based on natural sciences that are directed towards conservation, may prove to be a wrong decision. The first message to the educators of landscape architects for the 21st century could be: do not diminish the importance of invention, the importance of the students’ fantasy, despite the rapid development of natural sciences and despite the ever deepening understanding of the ecological principles that govern natural processes. The second message refers to the comprehensiveness of landscape planning. It is not an activity that can be split into branches according to the land use characterising the area that is being planned. The solutions to
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
conservation problems require comprehensiveness. Schools of landscape architecture should have this in mind. References Crowe, S., 1967. The need for landscape planning. In: Towards a New Relationship of Man and Nature in Temperate Lands. Part II. Town and Country Planning Problems. IUCN-UNESCO, Morges, pp. 14–20. Fabos, J.Gy., 1985. Land-Use Planning: From Global to Local Challenge. Dowden, New York. Gantar, P., 1984. Urbanizem, družbeni konflikti, planiranje. RK ZSMS, Ljubljana (in Slovenian). Kryštufek, B., 1999. Osnove varstvene biologije. TZS, Ljubljana (in Slovenian). Lyle, J.T., 1985. Design for Human Ecosystems. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Marušiˇc, J., 1986. Podatkovne osnove v prostorskem planiranju. In: Podatkovne osnove in njihova uporaba. Zbornik referatov. ZGS, Maribor (in Slovenian ). McHarg, I.L., 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History Press, New York. Mitchell, W.J., 1977. Computer-aided Architectural Design. Petrocelli, New York. Naveh, Z., Lieberman, A.S., 1993. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. Springer, New York. Ogrin, D., 1992. Ontological Aspects of Landscape Architecture in its Articulation into Landscape Planning and Landscape Design. ECLAS, Ljubljana, pp. 1–6. O’Riordan, T., 1995. Environmental science on the move. In: O’Riordan, T. (Ed.), Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Longman, Harlow, pp. 1–15. Pavan, M., 1996. Avec le Conseil de l’Europe une politique democratique de l’environnement pour une Europe meilleure. In: Ogrin, D. (Ed.), Nature Conservation Outside Protected Areas. MOP, Ljubljana, pp. 11–18.
103
Smithson, M., 1989. Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms. Springer, New York. Steinitz, C., 1976. Hand-drawn overlays: their history and perspective uses. Landscape Architect. 66, 444–455. Steinitz, C., 1990. The framework for the Theory Applicable to the Education of Landscape Architects (and Other Environmental Design Professionals). Landscape J. 9, 136–143. Taylor, P.W., 1986. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Turner, K.R., 1995. Environmental economics and management. In: O’Riordan, T. (Ed.), Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Longman, Harlow, pp. 30–44.
Further reading Home pages BOKU-Wien, http://www.boku.ac.at/stuplan/. Universitaet des Saarlandes, http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak5/ anthropo/. Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, http://www. uni-goettin gen.de/fb/Forst/. TU-Wien, http://www.lzk.ac.at/lecture/. SLU-Sweden, http://www.slu.se//eng/education/. NLH-Norway, http://www.nlh.no/nlh english.htm. Technische Universitaet Berlin, http://www.a.tu-berlin.de/. Technische Universitaet Muenchen, http://www.loek.agrar.tumuenchen.de/; http://www.weichenstephan.de/; http://www.forst. tu-muenchen.de/. Universitaet Hannover, http://www.laum.uni-hannover.de/. Universitaet Potsdam, http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/ambek/ambe1096.htm. Dresden University of Technology, http://www.tu-dresden.de/fachrichtung/. Universitaet zu Koeln, http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geographie/. Universitaet Sttutgart, http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/.
Some observations regarding the education of landscape architects for the 21st century Ivan Marušiˇc∗ Department of Landscape Architecture, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract This article presents some questions concerning development in the education of landscape architects in the future. The questions arise from changes observable in programs of some schools of landscape architecture as well as in technical and scientific disciplines that share with landscape architecture activity in the landscape. The aim of the article is to highlight the relationship between landscape planning and science and the technical disciplines that are active in the landscape, as well as the special tasks landscape planning has in environmental conservation. The article stresses that landscape architecture—and landscape planning in particular—is from its inception based on scientific analysis, which, however, it builds upon with a search for solutions to problems of land use and management. Creativity is crucial in this process: it is capable of fulfilling the basic conservation requirement—to employ the environmental intervention alternative that is least harmful to the environment. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Education; Landscape; Planning; Science; Creativity
1. Introduction It is a difficult and thankless task to predict future development trends in landscape architecture. Answers to the question of education for the 21st century therefore, have to be sought in what is happening today; this happening displays some characteristics which may be an indicator of the future of the profession, or maybe also of aberrations of the present time. Recognising such aberrations is all the more important, since we have to be aware of them today if the future development of landscape architecture shall run in accordance with its societal role. Is this role clear enough? I proposed this question at the landscape planning conference: Landscape Planning in Europe, an In∗ Tel.: +386-1-423-11-61; fax: +386-1-256-51-72. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Marušiˇc).
0169-2046/02/$20.00 © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 2 - 2
ternational Conference, and at workshops organised by The Institute of Landscape Planning and Nature Conservation and The Federal Association of Professional Nature Conservationists from 27 September to 1 October 1999 in Hannover, Germany. I pointed out the situation in Slovenia. My intention was to present the importance of clear definitions of the profession to the international audience, because the problem of weak definitions may not apply only to Slovenia. In a way, the discussions at the conference proved this impression of mine. The most basic issues of professional definitions were raised at the conference and the situation we had experienced 10 years earlier at the same place was recapitulated again with (in my—probably not very reliable—opinion) even more uncertain outcomes. Questions like these were brought up: how can we define landscape planning? What are the specific tools landscape planning uses?
96
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
2. Changes in professional education in the area of landscape design and nature conservation Such uncertainty in regard to the definition of landscape planning as an independent discipline may stem from another phenomenon we are witnessing in the development of landscape architecture schools, and that is the separation of landscape planning and landscape design. Such a separation may seem to be a normal development of the profession which, similarly to other professions, with a deepening of its knowledge base tends toward an internal specialisation of its sphere of activity. We also encountered this problem of specialisation at our school. Should we separate the two professional branches in education as well? How far should the separation go? We performed a survey on this among our graduates who are active in the profession. The survey showed that while the option to focus on one of the fields would be desirable, a total separation is not the proper solution. The reasons given were mainly practical in nature—graduates would have better employment opportunities. At the same time, though the people surveyed believe that a landscape architect should be active or at least qualified for work in both branches of landscape architecture because of their specific equality. A quick search through the home pages of several teaching programs of European Universities reveals that the separation of the two branches of landscape architecture already exists at many schools of landscape architecture; formally, or informally through offering the students the possibility to select certain subjects (NLH—Norway, SLU—Sweden, Universitaet Hannover, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Technische Universitaet Berlin). The separation between landscape planning and landscape design, however, is not a simple process of internal specialisation of the profession. A trend may be noted within traditional technical branches such as agriculture, forestry and even hydrotechnology, to form landscape planning of their own. In Slovenia, for example, agricultural planning has acquired the status of exclusive decision-maker where the use of agricultural land is concerned, despite the fact that such a decision should be considered in a much broader context. Similar status was acquired by forestry, which generally links its problem area with tree vegetation only. Similarly, the new Slovenian
Law on Water Management proposes the preparation of a land use plan for catchment areas, which would ensure adequate protection of water systems. This is not ordinary sectorial planning, we were familiar with earlier proposals that still have to be co-ordinated at the level of comprehensive physical plan preparation. These are efforts by certain sectors to take over the integral and final planning of its activity. This latter— final—planning is indicated by sectorial laws specifying that the sectors should present their plan proposals to the public concerned and also obtain approval for their implementation from the public. The separation of landscape planning from design is thus, not just a process of internal specialisation of landscape architecture. It is also some kind of ‘appropriation’ of landscape planning from the side of other disciplines, particularly those that use natural resources. A quick search through the home pages of agricultural, forestry and hydrology programs confirms that this again is not just a Slovenian phenomenon and that it may be observed in education as well. (Technische Universität München, BOKU, Wien). It may also be noted that scientific educational programs, such as geography and biology are introducing the issues of landscape planning through subjects such as landscape ecology, conservation biology or ecosystem management. Landscape ecology, originally a basic science for planning, managing, preservation, development and restoration of land and landscape, is increasingly integrating landscape planning and merging with it into a new branch, as two prominent authors in the field wrote (Naveh and Lieberman, 1993, p. 21). Virtually, the same can be said about conservation biology. Namely, apart from researching biological diversity, conservation biology has its own tasks, as an author from the field puts it. One of them is to search for sustainable and acceptable forms of natural resource use, an explicit landscape planning task. Another task of conservation biology is to provide the local population, confronted with restrictions due to established reserves, with possibilities for economic and cultural development equal to those of other social groups. Apart from that, conservation biology, in contrast with most other sciences, has a true “mission”, i.e. to save the biosphere. (Kryštufek, 1999, p. 10). It is, therefore, not only scientific research that some of today’s environmental sciences strive for. Knowledge—the theories that natural
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
97
3. Relationship between planning and science
It is quite impossible to imagine actual planning without the use of scientific knowledge and analysis. It is not unusual that landscape planning plays a particular role in this respect within all physical planning activities. ‘The basis of landscape planning is survey and analysis,’ argued members of the Landscape Planning Commission of IUCN (Landscape, 1971, p. 5). As has been reported by Steinitz (1976, p. 444), the landscape architect Manning has been the one who presumably made use of the overlay technique for the first time as early as 1912. The contribution of P. Geddes, a biologist, to urban and physical planning is often considered as the first step towards ‘establishing urbanism as a science’, as urban sociologist Gantar (1984, p. 76) pointed out. According to Fabos (1985, p. 19) his contribution is more than that. He pioneered many efforts aimed at resolving environmental conflicts. The ‘scientification’ of planning activities goes, as we see, hand in hand with conservation efforts. The latter was probably the first factor that stimulated the development of transparent and systematic planning procedures, as Lyle (1985, p. 126) has observed. Major credit for the development of these methods goes to landscape planning. It was landscape planning that made a crucial contribution to two important developments within environmental planning: the environmental impact assessments1 and geographic information systems. The Harvard University early study ‘Qualitative Values in Environmental Planning’ (1969) was both, one of the first efforts in computer based spatial data processing and a thorough review of systematic environmental planning procedures. It seems that the traditional role of science in planning as posited by Sir Patrick Geddes and most rapidly developed during the 1960s and 1970s is being reversed. Despite the fact that Slovenian landscape ecology is not a highly developed science, these tendencies do occur. With some exaggeration one could almost say that we have posed the question of what came first, the egg or the hen. Yet this is not the point here. Science and planning are two interconnected but basically different worlds. Landscape ecology and conservation biology have evolved out of environmental concerns. They are
Let us first consider the relation between landscape architecture and science. Natural sciences provide the basic source of understanding about the environment.
1 When he lectured at the University in Ljubljana in 1998, Ian McHarg stressed: ‘Environmental Impact Analysis—this is the tool I invented’.
sciences provide—is not enough. Action should follow the scientific discoveries. The best explanation of that viewpoint of the actual environmental sciences is expressed by T. O’Riordan. He claims the responsibility of science as one of the guilty parties in producing the present condition of the environment. Science has to assume a new role in ensuring a future for our planet. However, traditional science cannot fulfil this role. To be the source of objective knowledge alone seems insufficient for the requirements of the times and their problems. Science should be more than just a source of objective knowledge. Besides gathering data, analysing, and building and testing theories, science should also be a catalyst, claims O’Riordan (1995, p. 4). It should be an interpreter of scientific data according to various parameters of political and ethical norms. It should create an extension of power for those who are not always recognised as being important. It should be engaged in the decision making process, it should be comprehensive, it should be interdisciplinary, it should be total, argues O’Riordan (1995, p. 4). He quotes American political analyst Kai Lee and his term ‘civic science’. “Civic science is the process through which scientific analysis, threading its way through uncertainty and vast areas of uncharted territory called ‘social judgement to future options’ opens up its work to public involvement and responsiveness” (O’Riordan, 1995, p. 11). The tendency towards developing a ‘total’ science may be observed in those scientific disciplines that are most closely linked to landscape architecture, i.e. biology, geography, geology and ecology. It is highly indicative in this context, how the subtitles of the major landscape planning magazine Landscape and Urban Planning have changed during the last decade: from An International Journal of Landscape Design, Conservation and Reclamation, Planning and Urban Ecology to An International Journal of Landscape Ecology, Planning and Design. Landscape ecology has advanced to the first place.
98
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
branches of natural sciences. However, their direct connection to these sciences casts some doubt on their ability to function as ‘total science’. Let me quote here the philosopher P. Taylor, one of the most prominent advocates of the ‘respect for nature’ ethics. “How humans should live with other species, and even whether humans should live at all, are matters that require the making of normative and evaluative judgements. The biological sciences can give us the relevant factual knowledge, but those sciences cannot provide the standards on which our normative and evaluative judgements are grounded . . . . The claim is frequently made that ecology shows us how to live in relation to the natural environment . . . . The conclusion drawn from these considerations is that the science of ecology provides us with a model to follow in the domain of environmental ethics . . . . This line of reasoning is not sound from a logical point of view. It confuses facts and values, ‘is’ and ‘ought’. . . . But the ethical question, ‘How should human culture fit into the order of nature?’ is not a question of biological fact. It is a question that confronts humans as moral agents, not as biological organisms, since it asks: which way of relating ourselves to nature, among various alternatives open to our choice, is the ethically right one to adopt” (Taylor, 1986, pp. 51–52). The inability of natural sciences to establish the values of natural phenomena directly, inability to establish the ‘ought-s’, can be noticed very clearly. It is not unexpected that within the list of conservation biology tasks quoted above the establishing of reserves is mentioned and it is even mentioned as the only tool of conservation biology. This conservation tool is absolute in its nature. It is a direct application of the presumption ‘that ecology shows us how to live in relation to the natural environment’ though applied in a limited area. Conservation by establishing reserves enables no ‘threading through uncertainty and vast areas of uncharted territory called social judgement to future options’. As a tool, it is not only insufficient, it is, in the spirit of ‘civic science’, even improper. Insufficiency of the reserve as a conservation tool was the main encouragement for the declaration of the European Year of Nature Conservation 1995. The reason for this action of the Council of Europe was ‘nature conservation outside protected areas’ and the philosophy of the action was based on the precautionary principle (Pavan, 1996, p. 17).
Unnatural as it may sound, conservation carried out by direct conservation of natural phenomena and natural processes has limited potentials. A natural phenomenon or a natural process is effected through human interventions and activities in the environment. The precautionary principle is based on the supposition that the intervention can be manipulated, not nature. While the study of nature is a necessary basis, active conservation should principally strive to grasp what interventions into the environment mean to people, to what an extent we can reduce them and in what ways we can limit ourselves in using the natural environment. Let me quote here philosopher Paul Taylor again. Among his five principles of ethical behavior towards nature he places first the principle of self-defence. The principle says: “There must be no available alternative that is known to be equally effective but to cause less harm to the ‘attacking’ organisms” (Taylor, 1986, p. 265). Alternatives here means forms of human interventions in nature, and the attacking organism represents nature which is perceived as a threat in the human effort to imp rove our living conditions in the environment. The philosopher’s principle can be read as a direct technical instruction for planners. It is not unexpected that the philosopher’s request for seeking the most appropriate conservation alternatives is essentially a reformulated precautionary principle or one of the decision rules reviewed by Turner (1995, p. 40). The experiences in the field of active environmental conservation confirm these perceptions. When the protection of natural phenomena is the direct goal of nature conservation, conservation becomes focused on natural reserves. In such a case, dialog between those who stand behind a proposed developmental action, and nature conservationists, is impossible.
4. Relationship between sectorial and landscape planning The question of relationship between landscape planning and agriculture, forestry, hydrotechnology and similar technical disciplines, active in landscape space, arose along with demands for conservation and, above all, ‘sustainable’ use of natural resources. Landscape planning ‘does not have a subject matter
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
of its own, it shares the landscape with other disciplines, yet in a specific way’, Ogrin (1992, p. 4) explains the situation. It is very well explained also by the definition of landscape planning by dame Crowe (1967, p. 14) who says: ‘The substitution of the term landscape-planning for land-planning marks a deliberate widening of the conception of planning to include appearance as well as use, pleasure as well as fertility, and the whole complex organic fabric of life, as well as man’s immediate needs’. In discussing the role of landscape planning, D. Ogrin further says: ‘Regional, town and country planning as well as other kinds of land-use planning, in seeking solutions for a certain social problem, bring a change into the landscape . . . . For this reason they are characterised as development planning . . . . Landscape planning basically does not do that’ (Ogrin, 1992, p. 4). Landscape architecture, particularly landscape planning, should thus, have the function of some kind of corrective to technological and developmental planning in the landscape. The landscape plan should summarise sectorial development plans which look after ‘man’s immediate needs, the economical use of the resource and its fertility’ and complement them so as to ensure a pleasant appearance of the landscape, its recreational use and nature conservation. Landscape planning affirms the comprehensiveness of sectorial plans. The demand for sustainable use, which looks like becoming a basic principle of the present time, is bringing change to this role of landscape architecture. Not only do individual disciplines also wish to solve conservation problems by introducing sustainable technologies. Some strive directly toward a transformation of technologies from developmental—i.e. such as were judged according to economic criteria— into conservation technologies, in which economic viewpoints play no role anymore. This transformation is most pronounced in Slovenian forestry, in which wood production has become only one of its functions and not even a very important one. In the foreground are nature conservation, the social and aesthetic functions of the forest. This may not be typical of all of European forestry. However, such a view of the basic mission of the profession is also observable in agriculture. It is not food growing anymore that matters, but conservation of the cultural landscape. Disciplines once clearly defined as developmental, are gradually
99
changing into conservation disciplines. But conservation issues are not as unambiguous as developmental issues. Comparatively clear-cut economic criteria are replaced by a complexity of various conservation evaluation systems. And these can only receive their final confirmation in a confrontation of diverse and conflicting social interests. A remaining problem lies in the fact that the sectors striving toward a content integrity of their plans, limit themselves to a physical space, e.g. to forest, farmlands and waterside (riparian) space, since that is the spatial limitation of those sectors. The limitation of plans to a narrower physical area indicates that the individual sector is in its conservation evaluation restricting itself to problems it may potentially cause in the environment. This is not sufficient in view of comprehensive planning. Noise, pollution and similar influences extend beyond the confines of forest or farmland. Hence the tendency by the Forestry Service of Slovenia to expand the boundaries of its environmental protection evaluation to the so-called forest space, which is supposed to include—in addition to the forest proper—also all the land from which the forest is being influenced. Such tendencies toward an expansion of the domain of individual sectors are a perfectly understandable reaction to conservation tasks that the sectors set themselves. This can lead to a totally absurd situation. Agriculture will define as its conservation planning domain all of agricultural land and also the land from which this is being influenced. If the development of farming properties is regarded as one of the major influences, then agriculture should have control over planning of urban areas, and should determine demographic growth and urban density. Namely, only in this way is it possible to reduce the urbanisation of farming land. Similarly, successful hydrotechnological conservation planning is possible only if the sector plans and controls the land use of the total watershed, including built-up areas, farmland and forests. Regardless of the emerging trends—and I stress that it may be they are typical only of Slovenia (although education programs indicate that this is probably not the case)—one may conclude after these brief reflections that it is unavoidable and only logical that landscape architecture should keep its status of planning discipline, linking sectors and building on their sectorial plans in the sense of dame S. Crowe’s
100
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
definition mentioned earlier. Of course, this cannot mean that the sectors have no responsibilities for the conservation aspects of their activities—for the development of environmentally friendly technologies. Moreover, the question should also be solved within landscape planning itself, to what degree the landscape architect should intervene in the planning of technologies. Is a landscape architect the person to argue with a farmer the number of hay crops or the date of the first mowing on a grass field? Namely, within landscape architecture itself the question should be answered whether landscape planning is spatial or technological planning or maybe both? Should landscape planning occupy the professional niche arising from the introduction of conservation biology? The latter namely states that ‘. . . one of its goals is also to develop practical approaches to preventing the extinction of species and, if possible, to reintegrate species into a properly functioning ecosystem’. (Primack, 1995, p. 5) Shall landscape architects engineer nature? Or shall the reintegration of species be the responsibility of those who develop technologies that are potentially harmful for the properly functioning ecosystem?
5. Landscape architecture—‘civic science’ Science alone, as has been explained earlier, cannot define the thresholds of environmental change. Even worse “because we do not know where the margins of sustainability are, the scientific approach may provide a justification for pushing the alteration of the planet beyond the limits of its tolerance” (O’Riordan, 1995, p. 1). Ignorance is becoming an important issue which has been, as Smithson (1989, p. 1) pointed out, neglected by Western science and philosophy. Both have become aware of the importance of ignorance and uncertainty only in the last decades of the 20th century. It is this uncertainty that calls for a different approach that could overcome the insufficiency of traditional science in answering the question of our acceptable future. Among the types of uncertainty, like uncertainties about future events, uncertainties about the value system, data shortage, lack of theories, model deficiencies etc., it is the creative process itself that is the most important type of uncertainty for this discussion. Let me illustrate this by quoting the famous paradox from
Plato’s Meno: “And how will you inquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of inquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is what you did not know?” (Mitchell, 1977, p. 46). Uncertainty is a notion that is not unknown in planning. It is, essentially, an activity which can be defined as ‘coping with uncertainty’. Therefore, it poses some very old tools to cope with uncertainty, like making sketches, step by step approaching an acceptable solution, design competitions etc. All of them can be brought to a ‘common denominator’, i.e. they enable our search into an unknown world of possible solutions. According to the philosopher P. Taylor this search should be expanded to ‘all possible solutions’ that could be discovered and thus could become known. The relationships outlined so far can be presented graphically as shown in Fig. 1. The chart of the design or planning process dates back to 1986. However, it is still relevant. (Marušiˇc, 1986, p. 21) The sketch is slightly changed and translated from Slovenian. It is very similar to the list of models Steinitz (1990, p. 137) discusses while proposing a framework for the theory applicable to the education of landscape architects and other design professionals. Planning may always be seen as a mixture between search and invention. The extent of each of the two depends very much on a number of circumstances. Planning is an over constrained activity. That means it is always conducted within time and financial limitations. Thereafter, it can be completely inventive or it can be carried out in a ‘step-by-step’ procedure in which the scientific approach takes only some specific steps. The planner’s task may be of such a nature that its solution can be reached entirely by invention. It is possible, on the contrary, that it may be reached only by careful collection of data, information and research of the planned system. Within the planning procedure, research is bound to some specific steps. In a way, the planning procedure follows the evolution pattern of natural sciences: inventory—collections, classification—understanding the structure of the system, building of theories—understanding the functioning of the system, predictions—forecasting the possible changes, i.e. testing the applicability of theories. Applicability should be assessed in a way that enables what O’Riordan explains as ‘threading its
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
101
102
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
way through . . . vast areas of uncharted territory called ‘social judgement to future options’. That is the aim of the evaluation phase. Evaluation should be carried out in order to project societal values into physical space. It should provide answers about the transformation of various physical phenomena and processes into qualities according to different social interests. The synthesis represents the joining of parts that were considered by research and evaluation. Uncertainties about the understanding of reality, i.e. vagueness of the prediction models and the multitude of societal interests—many of them even opposing to others, give way to alternative solutions. The planner may omit one or more of the phases of the planning process. He may quit any step of the procedure, continuing his work in the spirit of what J. Lyle calls ‘the magical leap of intuition’ (Lyle, 1985, p. 126). His whole work may be of such a nature, i.e. absolutely irrational. Naturally, it may also be rational and systematic to quite an extent, yet it remains creative in its essence. The planner has to face a number of uncertainties, as we said before. The data are always incomplete, the theories about cause–effect relationships are in most cases insufficient to simulate the effects of different interventions in the environment, and the value systems are difficult to explore. Last but not least, the planner has to overcome not only what O’Riordan defines as that which is ‘beyond the knowable’ (O’Riordan, 1995, p. 8), but also what does not yet exist and is waiting to be revealed by his creative insight.
6. Conclusion At the Landscape Conference in Hannover 1989, R. Enis defined landscape planning very briefly as ‘creative conservation’. She quoted, as she said, Dame S. Crowe. That means the definition has a much longer tradition. It is in a way a synonym for McHarg’s expression and the title of his book ‘Design with Nature’ McHarg (1969). The definition states that conservation can be implemented only by creative efforts, by design, by planning and managing human interventions in the environment in such a way that nature and the environment as a whole are changed in an acceptable way. What is accept-
able cannot be judged by absolute criteria. It can only be defined as the most acceptable solution we know. Philosopher P. Taylor defines this by his principle of self-defence that requires searching for the alternative that is least harmful for the ‘attacking organism’. It is not our intention here to diminish the importance of teaching natural sciences within the curricula of landscape architecture and landscape planning, neither to diminish the role of landscape ecology within the educational curricula. Our intention is only to stress how important it is for the students to understand the essence of the planning process and that they distinguish the real nature of landscape ecology and the real nature of landscape architecture. The students should understand that they are two basically different activities with two different mandates given to them by society: • to research and to understand the laws that govern the environment; • to invent ways to enable conservation to be carried out in the most appropriate way. This presents the schools of landscape architecture with an important task. They have to reinforce the creative potentials of their students, they have to stimulate their creativity without regard to their specialisation into design or planning, they have to develop their capabilities for resolving all the conservation aspects of today and the developmental needs of the future. Complete separation of landscape design from landscape planning could be fatal for the future of the profession. From the same perspective, the establishing of separate landscape planning study programs and similar curricula based on natural sciences that are directed towards conservation, may prove to be a wrong decision. The first message to the educators of landscape architects for the 21st century could be: do not diminish the importance of invention, the importance of the students’ fantasy, despite the rapid development of natural sciences and despite the ever deepening understanding of the ecological principles that govern natural processes. The second message refers to the comprehensiveness of landscape planning. It is not an activity that can be split into branches according to the land use characterising the area that is being planned. The solutions to
I. Marušiˇc / Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (2002) 95–103
conservation problems require comprehensiveness. Schools of landscape architecture should have this in mind. References Crowe, S., 1967. The need for landscape planning. In: Towards a New Relationship of Man and Nature in Temperate Lands. Part II. Town and Country Planning Problems. IUCN-UNESCO, Morges, pp. 14–20. Fabos, J.Gy., 1985. Land-Use Planning: From Global to Local Challenge. Dowden, New York. Gantar, P., 1984. Urbanizem, družbeni konflikti, planiranje. RK ZSMS, Ljubljana (in Slovenian). Kryštufek, B., 1999. Osnove varstvene biologije. TZS, Ljubljana (in Slovenian). Lyle, J.T., 1985. Design for Human Ecosystems. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Marušiˇc, J., 1986. Podatkovne osnove v prostorskem planiranju. In: Podatkovne osnove in njihova uporaba. Zbornik referatov. ZGS, Maribor (in Slovenian ). McHarg, I.L., 1969. Design with Nature. Natural History Press, New York. Mitchell, W.J., 1977. Computer-aided Architectural Design. Petrocelli, New York. Naveh, Z., Lieberman, A.S., 1993. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. Springer, New York. Ogrin, D., 1992. Ontological Aspects of Landscape Architecture in its Articulation into Landscape Planning and Landscape Design. ECLAS, Ljubljana, pp. 1–6. O’Riordan, T., 1995. Environmental science on the move. In: O’Riordan, T. (Ed.), Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Longman, Harlow, pp. 1–15. Pavan, M., 1996. Avec le Conseil de l’Europe une politique democratique de l’environnement pour une Europe meilleure. In: Ogrin, D. (Ed.), Nature Conservation Outside Protected Areas. MOP, Ljubljana, pp. 11–18.
103
Smithson, M., 1989. Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms. Springer, New York. Steinitz, C., 1976. Hand-drawn overlays: their history and perspective uses. Landscape Architect. 66, 444–455. Steinitz, C., 1990. The framework for the Theory Applicable to the Education of Landscape Architects (and Other Environmental Design Professionals). Landscape J. 9, 136–143. Taylor, P.W., 1986. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Turner, K.R., 1995. Environmental economics and management. In: O’Riordan, T. (Ed.), Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Longman, Harlow, pp. 30–44.
Further reading Home pages BOKU-Wien, http://www.boku.ac.at/stuplan/. Universitaet des Saarlandes, http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak5/ anthropo/. Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, http://www. uni-goettin gen.de/fb/Forst/. TU-Wien, http://www.lzk.ac.at/lecture/. SLU-Sweden, http://www.slu.se//eng/education/. NLH-Norway, http://www.nlh.no/nlh english.htm. Technische Universitaet Berlin, http://www.a.tu-berlin.de/. Technische Universitaet Muenchen, http://www.loek.agrar.tumuenchen.de/; http://www.weichenstephan.de/; http://www.forst. tu-muenchen.de/. Universitaet Hannover, http://www.laum.uni-hannover.de/. Universitaet Potsdam, http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/ambek/ambe1096.htm. Dresden University of Technology, http://www.tu-dresden.de/fachrichtung/. Universitaet zu Koeln, http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geographie/. Universitaet Sttutgart, http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/.