For whom?

Exploring landscape design as a

为了谁？探索景观设计

political project

政治项目

Greet De Block, Vera Vicenzotti, (guest editors) Lisa Diedrich & (JoLA editor)

问候德·布洛克，维拉·维琴佐蒂，(客座编辑)丽莎·迪德里奇&(卫英琦编辑)

Bruno Notteboom

布鲁诺·诺特博姆

To cite this article: Greet De Block, Vera Vicenzotti, (guest editors) Lisa Diedrich & (JoLA editor)

引用这篇文章:问候德布洛克，维拉维森佐蒂，(客座编辑)丽莎迪德里奇&(卫英琦编辑)

Bruno Notteboom (2019) For whom?Exploring landscape design as a political project, Journal of

布鲁诺诺特博姆(2019)为谁？探索作为政治项目的景观设计

Landscape Architecture, 14:3, 4-7, DOI: 10.1080/18626033.2019.1705568

风景园林，14:3，4-7，DOI:10.1080/18626033 . 2019 . 205666666616

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2019.1705568

链接到这篇文章:https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2019.1705568

Published online: 17 Jan 2020.

在线发布:2020 年 1 月 17 日。

Submit your article to this journal

将你的文章提交给本刊
View Crossmark data

查看交叉标记数据

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

访问和使用的完整条款和条件可在以下网站找到

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjla20

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjla20

Editori A L

编辑洛杉矶

For whom?

为了谁？

Exploring landscape design

探索景观设计

as a political project

作为一个政治项目

Greet de Block, Vera Vicenzotti and Lisa diedrich (guest editors) Bruno Notteboom (JoLA editor)

问候德·布洛克、维拉·维森佐蒂和丽莎·迪德里奇(客座编辑)布鲁诺·诺特博姆(卫英琦编辑)

Journal of Landscape Architecture / 3-2019

风景园林杂志/ 3-2019

This special issue explores landscape design as a societal and political project.Its aim is to explore
the question 'For whom?'in landscape architecture by extending the latter's agency as a design
discipline.It recasts the agenda of landscape design as a decidedly sociopolitical project that
articulates the spatial reflections of diverse priorities, agendas and, indeed, actors.Concerns for
landscape, urban design and ecology spurred cross-disciplinary discussions at the end of the
twentieth cen-tury.One powerful narrative that emerged from this is land-scape urbanism, which has
founded a discourse in academia, inspired professional practice, and unleashed a cascade of
subsequent 'isms' since the early years of the twenty-first century, ranging from ecological urbanism
to infrastructural urbanism, process urbanism and biourbanism.While land-scape urbanism is no
monolithic movement, nor a consistent theory, it is used by many professionals and academics to
label large-scale projects fusing landscape and urban design.To understand the possibilities and
challenges of landscape urbanism and related discourses, however, one needs to look beyond the
label.That is why scholars of the Swedish Univer-sity of Agricultural Sciences in Alnarp, Sweden
arranged the conference Beyond Ism—The Landscape of Landscape Urban-ism in 2016, inviting
participants to revisit the concept from a landscape perspective, to re-engage landscape as a lens to
understand and advance a theoretically sound and practically relevant discourse, rather than launch
yet another superficially modified urbanism.Challenging reductionist tendencies that have led to an
overemphasis on scientific and technical solu-tions, the conference brought to light the neglected
aesthetic, cultural, social and political dimensions of some contempo-rary landscape urbanism
projects.Most crucially, it gave rise to the idea to mine the astonishing lack of political thinking by
both scholars and practitioners through a theme issue in this journal.

本期特刊探讨景观设计作为一个社会和政治项目。它的目的是探索“为谁？”将后者的代理
机构扩展为设计学科。它将景观设计议程重塑为一个明确的社会政治项目，表达了不同优先
事项、议程和行为者的空间反映。二十世纪末，对景观、城市设计和生态的关注引发了跨学
科的讨论。由此产生的一个强有力的叙事是景观都市主义，它在学术界建立了一种话语，激
发了专业实践，并自 21 世纪初以来引发了一系列后续的“主义”，从生态都市主义到基础
设施都市主义、过程都市主义和生物都市主义。虽然景观都市主义不是一个整体运动，也不
是一个一致的理论，但它被许多专业人士和学者用来给融合景观和城市设计的大型项目贴上
标签。然而，要理解景观都市主义和相关论述的可能性和挑战，我们需要超越标签。这就是
为什么瑞典阿尔纳普的瑞典农业科学大学的学者们在 2016 年安排了会议“超越主义——景
观城市主义的景观”，邀请与会者从景观的角度重新审视这个概念，重新将景观作为一个透
镜来理解和推进一个理论上合理和实践上相关的话语，而不是启动另一个表面上经过修改的
城市主义。挑战导致过分强调科学和技术解决方案的简化主义倾向，会议揭示了一些当代景
观都市主义项目被忽视的美学、文化、社会和政治层面。最关键的是，它引发了这样一种想
法，即通过本期杂志的一个主题，来挖掘学者和实践者政治思维的惊人缺失。

This background description of how the present special issue came into being qualifies the role that
landscape urbanism has had in instigating this issue.It is a prominent example and point of entry
into identifying, analysing, critiquing and further developing discourses within the broader field of
landscape architecture that are structured in a certain way: first, dis-courses endorsed by landscape
urbanism, and related 'isms' like ecological urbanism, explicitly oppose a top-down mod-ernist
design and forward bottom-up spatial logics over deter-ministic planning, life cycles over linear
progress, systems over zones, eventually conceiving landscape 'as the basic building block of
contemporary urbanism'.Current urban and land-scape design that is inspired by landscape
urbanism fore-grounds, in the second place, the relation between ecology, landscape and urban
intervention, investing in a strong alli-ance with the natural sciences.However, whether sociopoliti-
cal and cultural contexts are also taken into account remains an open question.To the degree that
other schools of thought, traditions, platforms and discourses advance similar ideas or are structured
by similar convictions, the contributions to this issue address issues beyond the rather narrow
discourse of landscape urbanism.

这一背景描述了本期特刊是如何形成的，它证明了景观都市主义在引发这一问题中所扮演的
角色。它是一个突出的例子，也是识别、分析、批判和进一步发展以某种方式构建的更广泛
的景观建筑领域内的论述的切入点:首先，景观都市主义和相关的“主义”，如生态都市主
义，明确反对自上而下的现代设计和自下而上的空间逻辑，反对部门规划、生命周期和线性
发展、系统和区域，最终认为景观是“当代都市主义的基本组成部分”。当前的城市和景观
设计受到景观都市主义的启发，其次是生态、景观和城市干预之间的关系，与自然科学密切
相关。然而，社会政治和文化背景是否也被考虑在内仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。在某种程
度上，其他思想流派、传统、平台和论述提出了类似的观点或由类似的信念构成，对这一问
题的贡献解决了景观都市主义这一相当狭窄的论述之外的问题。

The call for papers for this special issue advanced the hypoth-esis that recent 'isms' generally follow
a technical and mana-gerial rationale, thus neglecting sociopolitical questions about who and what
is in/excluded in the planned spatial interven-tions and whether this is socially just.Work in political
geogra-phy and recent design critiques have shown that current dis-courses mainly focus on setting
up a framework that bolsters fragile ecological processes as well as uncertain market forces.Many
of these designs respond to ecological crisis, or indeed disaster, by producing designs that counter
risks related to flooding, desertification, soil erosion and decreasing biodi-versity by means of new
and resilient socioecological systems.This holds the promise of converting ecological uncertainty
into manageable risk, while at the same time facilitating economic growth and progress, rather than
instigating radical sociopolitical change and confrontation.

本期特刊的论文征集提出了一种假设，即最近的“主义”通常遵循技术和管理的基本原理，
因此忽略了关于谁和什么被纳入/排除在计划的空间干预之外以及这是否是社会公正的社会
政治问题。政治地理学的工作和最近的设计评论表明，目前的课程主要集中在建立一个框架，
支持脆弱的生态过程和不确定的市场力量。这些设计中有许多是为了应对生态危机，甚至是
灾难，通过新的、有复原力的社会生态系统，设计应对与洪水、荒漠化、土壤侵蚀和生物多
样性减少相关的风险。这有望将生态不确定性转化为可管理的风险，同时促进经济增长和进
步，而不是煽动激进的社会政治变革和对抗。

The idea of relating landscape, ecology and urban interven-tion risks a conflation of the natural and
social.Geographer Erik Swyngedouw has argued that these developments are producing 'a socio-
ecological fix to make sure nothing really changes.Stabilizing the climate seems to be a condition
for capitalist life as we know it to continue.'What is largely side-lined in these discourses is explicit
and sustained reflection on sociopolitical agendas and actors driving the design, and how

将景观、生态和城市干预联系起来的想法有可能将自然和社会融合在一起。地理学家埃里
克·斯威因多乌认为，这些发展正在产生一种“社会生态修复，以确保没有什么真正的变
化”。我们知道，稳定气候似乎是资本主义生活继续的一个条件。在这些论述中，很大程度
上是对社会政治议程和驱动设计的行为者以及如何进行的明确和持续的反思

the good and the bad aspects of the landscape intervention are distributed across different social
groups.In response to this, the papers in this issue of JoLA critically assess designs that fuse
landscape, ecology and urbanism, unpack implicit political agendas or depoliticizing strategies,
analyse how different social groups are affected, and speculate about the potential of landscape
design to formulate alternative urban futures—or indeed political imaginations and processes of
politicization.

景观干预的好与坏分布在不同的社会群体中。作为对此的回应，本期《卫英琦》中的论文批
判性地评估了融合景观、生态和城市化的设计，揭示了隐含的政治议程或非政治化战略，分
析了不同的社会群体如何受到影响，并推测了景观设计在规划替代性城市未来方面的潜力—
—或者实际上是政治想象和政治化过程。

As the European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools states, landscape architecture is a

composite discipline, cross-fertilising spatial, scientific, cultural, historical and regulatory
perspectives.More and more researchers and professionals within landscape architecture are coming
to consider natural conditions and processes on equal footing with man-made elements and human
practices, as former Dutch State Land-scape Architect and winner of the Geoffrey Jellicoe Award
Dirk Sijmons emphasizes in his introduction to the Inter-national Architecture Biennial Rotterdam
2014, 'Urban by Nature'.People who work in the field easily recognize that landscapes cannot be
treated as 'things' existing in isolation, but must be considered as dynamic constructs, complex
systems and networks of simultaneous, multidirectional envi-ronmental, ecological and social
exchanges.This understand-ing of landscape as a complex phenomenon is also mirrored in the over-
quoted but succinct definition of landscape in the European Landscape Convention as 'an area, as
perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or
human factors'.The tendency of the new 'ism' to focus one-sidedly on ecological issues has
neglected the complex nature of landscape.This oversight has generated many projects that are
uncritical of capitalist urbanization and negligent, even reckless, towards vulnerable
populations.Maria Kaika even compares socioecological resilience to immunology, vaccinating
'citizens and environ-ments so that they can take larger doses of inequality and degradation in the
future;it mediates the effects of global socio-environmental inequality, but does little towards allevi-
ating it'.What started as a way out of the disciplinary crisis has in many cases been criticized for
being implicated in an explosion of neoliberal approaches to urbanization.In this process, landscape
architecture has often served (unwittingly perhaps, yet none the less efficiently) as a frame for
aggres-sively market-driven and elitist interventions exacerbating gentrified and de-politicized
urban form.This issue calls for exploring relations between staging a surface for undefined
programme, for uncertainty and risk, and staging it to sup

正如欧洲风景园林学校理事会所说，风景园林是一门综合学科，融合了空间、科学、文化、
历史和监管视角。越来越多的风景园林领域的研究人员和专业人士开始将自然条件和过程与
人为因素和人类实践同等看待，正如前荷兰国家风景园林师、杰弗里·杰利科奖获得者德克·
西芒斯(Dirk Sijmons)在 2014 年鹿特丹国际建筑双年展“自然城市”的介绍中所强调的那样。
在这一领域工作的人很容易认识到，景观不能被视为孤立存在的“事物”，而必须被视为动
态的结构、复杂的系统和同步的、多方向的环境、生态和社会交流网络。将景观理解为一种
复杂的现象，这也反映在《欧洲景观公约》中对景观的过度引用但简洁的定义中，即“人们
所感知的一个区域，其特征是自然和/或人为因素的作用和相互作用的结果”。新“主义”
倾向于片面关注生态问题，忽视了景观的复杂性。这种疏忽导致了许多项目对资本主义城市
化不加批判，对弱势群体的忽视甚至不顾后果。玛丽亚·凯卡甚至将社会生态复原力与免疫
学进行了比较，给公民和环境接种疫苗，这样他们就可以在未来承受更大的不平等和退化；
它调解了全球社会环境不平等的影响，但对消除这种不平等作用甚微。在许多情况下，最初
作为学科危机的一种出路，被批评为与新自由主义城市化方法的爆发有牵连。在这个过程中，
风景园林经常(也许无意中，但仍然有效地)作为一个框架，被市场驱动和精英干预，加剧了
城市的中产阶级化和去政治化。这一问题要求探索为未定义的程序、不确定性和风险建立一
个表面与为超级程序建立一个表面之间的关系

Journal of Landscape Architecture / 32019

风景园林杂志/ 32019

Editorial Greet De Block, Vera Vicenzotti, Lisa Diedrich, Bruno Notteboom

社论问候德布洛克，维拉维森佐蒂，丽莎迪德里奇，布鲁诺诺特博姆

port the struggle for equality, for shaping and claiming rights—this is how we want to understand
the 'political project' in this issue of JoLA.We want to explore how it resonates with landscape
design in asking the question: 'Whose project is it?'In response to the problematic outlined above,
the papers take stock of recent 'isms', in order to scrutinize how they produce socially (un)just
assemblies as well as to explore how landscape design has contributed to political agendas in the
past and how it can be mobilized today in imagining alterna-tive futures of large-scale sociospatial
transformation, beyond market logics.In so doing, this issue aims to advance a theo-retically sound
and practically relevant discourse—rather than launch yet another superficially modified 'ism'.

支持争取平等、塑造和主张权利的斗争——这就是我们希望如何理解本期《卫英琦》中的
“政治项目”。我们想通过问这样一个问题来探索它与景观设计的共鸣:“这是谁的项目？”
针对上述问题，论文总结了最近的“主义”，以审视它们如何产生社会(非)公正的集会，并
探索景观设计如何在过去为政治议程做出贡献，以及如何在今天超越市场逻辑，在想象大规
模社会空间转型的替代未来时进行动员。这样做，这一期的目的是推进一个理论上合理和实
际相关的讨论，而不是推出另一个表面上修改的“主义”。

The first two papers present recent design and planning projects that follow the ecological and
techno-managerial rationale of landscape urbanism and ecological urbanism, highlighting in their
critiques the different ways and mecha-nisms, arguments and concepts that evacuate the social and
the political from these projects.Lizzie Yarina, Miho Mazereeuw and Larisa Ovalles provide a rich
case study of programmes and proposals surrounding recent disasters in the United States, focusing
on programmes in Puerto Rico that both predate and correspond with Hurricane Maria (2017),
showing how retreat strategies as a form of adaptation can perpetuate inequality and
vulnerability.Sara Jacobs looks into the discourse on novel landscapes, that is, landscapes altered
but not actively managed by humans, which are hailed by their proponents as models of how
disturbed nature can flourish without human supervision.In a more agenda-setting manner, she
mobilizes scholarship in science and technology studies and feminist care ethics to argue that the
structures and concepts of these discourses risk reproducing the uneven socioecological structures
that created the conditions for the emergence of these landscapes in the first place.In the 'Think-ing
Eye' section, post-industrial landscapes are reinterpreted by Kristof Vrancken through a process of
making a series of anthotypes from the vegetation of disturbed landscapes.Images show the
devastating impact of humans on the land-scapes as well as the persistence, and indeed flourishing
of plants and vegetation.These images encapsulate the bleak effects of capitalism and the promise
these landscapes hold.

前两篇论文介绍了最近的设计和规划项目，这些项目遵循景观都市主义和生态都市主义的生
态和技术管理原理，在它们的评论中强调了从这些项目中疏散社会和政治的不同方式和机制、
论点和概念。利齐·亚利纳、美穂·马泽雷欧和拉丽莎·奥瓦尔莱斯提供了围绕美国最近灾害的
方案和建议的丰富案例研究，重点是波多黎各在飓风玛丽亚(2017 年)之前和之后的方案，显
示了撤退战略作为一种适应形式如何能够延续不平等和脆弱性。萨拉·雅各布斯(Sara Jacobs)
研究了关于新奇景观的论述，也就是说，景观被改变了，但没有被人类积极管理，这些景观
被其支持者誉为不受人类监督的自然是如何繁荣的典范。她以一种更具议程设定性的方式，
调动了科学技术研究和女权主义关怀伦理方面的学术来论证这些论述的结构和概念有再现不
均衡的社会生态结构的风险，而不均衡的社会生态结构首先为这些景观的出现创造了条件。
在“思考之眼”部分，克里斯托·弗兰肯通过从受干扰景观的植被中制作一系列蚁穴的过程，
重新诠释了后工业景观。图像显示了人类对陆地景观的毁灭性影响，以及植物和植被的持续
和繁荣。这些图像概括了资本主义的惨淡影响和这些景观所蕴含的希望。

The following three papers engage with history as a method to open up reflection on the political
dimension of design.The authors mobilize history as a means of critical engage-ment with the
present discourse, similar to a Foucauldian genealogy: history is not approached from a logic of
linear
以下三篇论文将历史作为一种方法来展开对设计的政治维度的思考。作者将历史作为批判性
介入当下话语的一种手段，类似于福柯式的谱系学:历史不是从线性的逻辑来探讨的

Journal of Landscape Architecture / 3-2019

风景园林杂志/ 3-2019

causation to explain, and intervene in, present phenomena, but as way to formulate critical
questions as well as open up present discourse by adding precedents.As sociologist David Garland
puts it:

因果关系来解释和干预目前的现象，但作为一种方式来阐述关键问题，以及通过增加先例来
打开目前的话语。正如社会学家大卫·加兰所说:

The idea is not to connect the present-day phenomenon to its origins, as if one were showing a
building resting on its foundations, a building solidly rooted in the past and confidently projected
into the future.The idea, instead, is to trace the erratic and discontinuous process whereby the past
became the present ...that suggests the contingency of the present and the openness of the
future.Genealogy is, in that sense, 'effective history', because its intent is to problematize the present
by revealing the power relations upon which it depends and the contingent processes that brought it
into being.

这个想法并不是要把今天的现象和它的起源联系起来，就好像一个人在展示一座建在它的基
础上的建筑，一座扎根于过去并自信地投射到未来的建筑。相反，这个想法是要追溯过去变
成现在的不稳定和不连续的过程。。。这表明了现在的偶然性和未来的开放性。从这个意义
上说，系谱学是“有效的历史”，因为它的意图是通过揭示它所依赖的权力关系和导致它产
生的偶然过程来使现在成为问题。

Accordingly, in his paper Kenny Cupers explores the political dimension of landscape architecture
by tracing the relations between gardening and geopolitics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries in Germany.He shows how the seemingly innocent act of gardening was implicated in
cross-scalar political projects connecting the local soil to domestic and imperial
colonization.Disguised by a rhetoric of an organic, ecological and functional relation to the land,
gardening was a biopolitical instrument facilitating the project of mass resettlement.While in
Germany Howard's Garden City was appropriated as a project of settler colonialism, Koenraad
Danneels shows that the garden city in Belgium was as much a holistic theoretical exercise about
relations between the social and natural as a practice exploring the potential and limits of
socialism.Both papers foreground how an interna-tional paradigm is appropriated differently in
distinct contexts and how easily a socionatural theory, or indeed a theory of naturalized landscapes,
is co-opted by a political agenda.Susan Herrington and David Zielnicki trace 'the history of the
present' of the design methods supporting, or even devis-ing, the naturalized landscapes of
landscape and ecological urbanism.Their article explores how the digital design culture of the new
'isms' revives pastoral aesthetics, evacuating the sociopolitical dimension from the urban
landscapes.

因此，在他的论文中，肯尼·库珀斯通过追溯十九世纪末和二十世纪初德国园艺和地缘政治
之间的关系，探索了风景园林的政治维度。他展示了看似无辜的园艺行为是如何被牵连到将
当地土地与国内和帝国殖民相联系的跨等级政治项目中的。在与土地的有机、生态和功能关
系的华丽辞藻的掩盖下，园艺是促进大规模重新安置项目的生物政治工具。在德国，霍华德
的花园城市被作为定居者殖民主义的一个项目，科恩拉德·丹尼尔斯(Koenraad Danneels)指出，
比利时的花园城市既是探索社会主义潜力和局限性的实践，也是关于社会和自然关系的整体
理论实践。两篇论文都突出了国际范式如何在不同的背景下被不同地运用，以及社会自然理
论，或者说自然化景观理论如何容易被政治议程所吸收。苏珊·赫林顿和大卫·齐格尼克追溯
了支持甚至设计自然景观和生态城市主义的设计方法的“现在的历史”。他们的文章探讨了
新“主义”的数字设计文化如何复兴田园美学，将社会政治维度从城市景观中抽离出来。

The 'Under the Sky' section looks at one of the most cel-ebrated and criticized projects of landscape
and ecological urbanism: the High Line.This section includes two articles, each from a different
disciplinary framework, demonstrating how project critique can benefit from multiple perspectives
as well as foregrounding how landscape design as a political

“天空之下”部分着眼于景观和生态城市主义中最受欢迎和批评的项目之一:高架线。这一部
分包括两篇文章，每篇都来自不同的学科框架，展示了项目评论如何从多个角度受益，以及
前景化景观设计如何成为一种政治

project has many dimensions and scales in time and space.Diane Davis and Stephen Gray unpack
the sociopolitical dimension of the project from the outset by focusing on the urban planning
context and the actors, and indeed activism, driving the urban intervention.Natalie Gulsrud and
Henriette Steiner analyse the project and its planting schemes from an environmental justice
perspective.Their critique focuses on urban greening concepts in relation to the 'For
whom?'question.

项目在时间和空间上有许多维度和尺度。黛安·戴维斯和斯蒂芬·格雷从一开始就通过关注城
市规划背景和行动者，以及推动城市干预的行动主义，揭示了项目的社会政治层面。娜塔
莉·古尔斯路德和亨瑞特·施泰纳从环境正义的角度分析了该项目及其种植方案。他们的评论
集中在与“为谁？”相关的城市绿化概念上问题。

Among the book reviews included in this issue, Kelly Shan-non writes about Matthew Gandy's The
Fabric of Space: Water, Modernity and the Urban Imagination, published in 2014.She highlights the
book's claim 'that hydraulic infrastructure is a primary agent in the production of space' within the
urban context.Shannon shows how Gandy's analysis of water infrastructure is positioned within the
field of urban political ecology.Gandy approaches the fabric of space from biopo-litical dynamics
producing it, interrelating urbanism, ecology, epidemiology and public works.

在本期的书评中，凯利·山农写了马修·甘迪于 2014 年出版的《空间的结构:水、现代性和城

市想象》。她强调了这本书的主张，即在城市环境中，“水利基础设施是空间生产的主要因
素”。香农展示了甘迪对水基础设施的分析是如何定位在城市政治生态领域的。甘迪从产生
空间的生物政治动力学着手，将城市化、生态学、流行病学和公共工程联系起来。

Authors in this issue re-engage in a strong lineage with the humanities and the social sciences to
bring sustained reflec-tion about the sociopolitical dimension of design back into landscape
architecture.The articles show that a better under-standing of processes of urbanization in relation to
sociopo-litical dynamics, or a more robust alliance with spatial theory and history, could offer
concepts and analytical frameworks that could enrich design to include a sociospatial, and indeed
political, dimension.

本期的作者重新融入了人文科学和社会科学的强大谱系，将设计的社会政治层面的持续反思
带回到风景园林中。文章表明，更好地理解城市化进程与社会政治动态的关系，或者与空间
理论和历史建立更强有力的联盟，可以提供概念和分析框架，丰富设计，包括社会空间和政
治层面。
NotEs

不适用

1 Charles Waldheim (ed.), The Land-scape Urbanism Reader (New York: Princeton Architectural
Press, 2006), 11.

1 查尔斯·瓦尔德海姆(编。)，景观都市主义读本(纽约:普林斯顿建筑出版社，2006)，第 11 页。

Architecture (London/New York: Rout-ledge, 2018);Hille von Seggern et al. (eds.), Creating
Knowledge: Innovation Strategies for Designing Urban Land-scapes (Berlin: Jovis, 2008/2015);M.
Elen Deming and Simon Swaffield (eds.), Landscape Architectural Research: Inquiry, Strategy,
Design (Hoboken: Wiley, 2011).

建筑学(伦敦/纽约:Rout-ledge，2018)；Hille von Seggern 等人(编辑。)，创造知识:城市景观设

计的创新策略(柏林:乔维斯，2008/2015)；M. Elen Deming 和 Simon Swaffield(合编。)，风景
园林研究:探究、策略、设计(霍博肯:威利，2011)。

2 See, for example Erik Swyngedouw, 'Whose Environment?The End of Nature, Climate Change
and the Pro-cess of Post-Politicization', Ambiente & Sociedade 14 (2011), 69-87;Mat-thew Gandy,
'From Urban Ecology to Ecological Urbanism: An Ambiguous Trajectory', Area 47/2 (2015), 150-
154;Maria Kaika, 'Don't Call Me Resilient Again!': The New Urban Agenda as Immunology
...or ...What Happens When Communities Refuse to Be Vac-cinated with "Smart Cities" and Indica-
tors', Environment and Urbanization 29/1 (2017), 89-102.

2 例如，见埃里克·斯温吉多乌，“谁的环境？《自然的终结、气候变化和后政治化进程》，
环境与社会 14 (2011)，69-87；马修·甘迪，《从城市生态学到生态城市主义:一条模糊的轨
迹》，第 47/2 期(2015 年)，第 150-154 页；玛丽亚·凯卡，“不要再叫我有韧性了！”:作为
免疫学的新城市议程。。。或者。。。当社区拒绝与“智慧城市”和指标“环境和城市化”
联系在一起时会发生什么 29/1 (2017)，89-102。

8 Council of Europe 2000, Article 1: Council of Europe, European Land-scape Convention

(Florence, 2000), https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCom-monSearchServices/DisplayDCTMCon
tent?documentId=09000016802f80c6, accessed 9 August 2019;see also Michael Jones, Peter
Howard, Kenneth R. Olwig, Jørgen Primdahl and Ingrid Sarlöv Herlin, 'Multiple Interfaces of the
European Landscape Convention', Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift—Norwegian Journal of Geography
617/4 (2007), 207-215;and , Kenneth R. Olwig, 'The Practice of Landscape "Conventions" and the
Just Landscape: The Case of the European Landscape Conven-tion', Landscape Research 32/5
(2007), 579-594, for the multiple tensions inherent to this definition.

8 欧洲委员会，2000 年，第 1 条:欧洲委员会，《欧洲景观公约》(佛罗伦萨，2000 年)，

https://RM . Coe . int/CoermPublicComm-Monsearchservices/DisplayDCTMCon 帐篷？
documentId=09000016802f80c6，2019 年 8 月 9 日访问；另见迈克尔·琼斯、彼得·霍华德、肯
尼斯·奥尔韦格、耶尔根·普里姆达尔和英格丽德·萨尔洛夫·赫林，《欧洲景观公约的多重界
面》，挪威地理杂志 617/4 (2007)，207-215；肯尼斯·奥尔韦格，《景观“惯例”的实践和公
正的景观:欧洲景观惯例的案例》，《景观研究》32/5 (2007)，579-594，该定义固有的多重
张力。

3 See, for example, Antoine Picon, 'What Has Happened to Territory?', Architectural Design 80/3
(2010), 94-99;Greet De Block, 'Ecological Infrastructure in a Critical-Historical Perspective: From
Engineering Social Territory to Encoding Natural Topogra-phy', Environment and Planning A 48/2
(2016), 367-390;Vera Vicenzotti, 'The Landscape of Landscape Urbanism', Landscape Journal 36/1
(2017), 73-84;Lizzie Yarina, 'Your Sea Wall Won't Save You', Places Journal (March 2018),
https://doi.org/10.22269/180327; and Greet De Block and Vera Vicenzo-tti, 'The Effects of Affect: A
Plea for Distance between the Human and Non-Human', Journal of Landscape Architecture 13/2
(2018), 46-55.

3 例如，参见安托万·皮康的《领地发生了什么？》，建筑设计 80/3 (2010)，94-99；《批判

历史视角下的生态基础设施:从工程社会领域到自然地形编码》，环境与规划 A 48/2
(2016)，367-390；维拉·维琴佐蒂，《景观都市主义的景观》，景观杂志 36/1 (2017)，73-
84；利齐·亚利纳，《你的海墙救不了你》，《场所杂志》(2018 年 3 月)，
《https://doi.org/10.22269/180327;与格蕾丝·德·布洛克和薇拉·维琴佐-蒂》，《情感的影响:人
类与非人类之间距离的请求》，《风景园林杂志》13/2 (2018)，46-55。

9 See Yarina, 'Your Sea Wall Won't Save You', op. cit.(note 3);and Yarina et al. in this issue.

9 见 Yarina，“你的海堤救不了你”，同前。(注 3)；和 Yarina 等人在这一期发表的论文。

10 Kaika, 'Don't Call Me Resilient Again!', op cit.(note 2).

10 Kaika，‘不要再叫我韧性了！’，同前。(注 2)。

11 See Waldheim, The Landscape Urbanism Reader, op. cit.(note 1);and Charles Waldheim,
Landscape as Urbanism: A General Theory (Prince-ton: Princeton University Press, 2016).

11 见瓦尔德海姆，《景观都市主义读者》，同前。(注 1)；和查尔斯·瓦尔德海姆，《作为都
市主义的景观:一般理论》(普林斯-顿:普林斯顿大学出版社，2016 年)。

4 Erik Swyngedouw, 'Apocalypse Forever?', Theory, Culture & Society 27/2-3 (2010), 220.

4 埃里克·斯温吉多乌，《永远的天启》？，理论、文化与社会 27/2-3 (2010)，220。

12 Erik Swyngedouw and Maria Kaika, 'Radical Urban Political-Ecological Imaginaries: Planetary
Urbanization and Politicizing Nature', Dérive 55 (2014), 15-20;Ash Amin, 'Lively Infra-structure',
Theory, Culture & Society 31/7-8 (2014), 137-161.

12 Erik Swyngedouw 和 Maria Kaika，《激进的城市政治-生态想象:全球城市化和政治化的自

然》，Dérive 55 (2014)，15-20；阿什·阿明，《生动的基础结构》，理论，文化与社会 31/7-
8 (2014)，137-161。

5 See www.eclas.org/about-eclas/ landscape-architecture-the-european-dimension, accessed 15 July

2019.

5 见 2019 年 7 月 15 日查阅的《www.eclas.org/about-eclas/风景园林——欧洲维度》。

6 George Brugmans and Jolanda Strien (eds), Urban by Nature: Cata-logue of the IABR 2014
(Rotterdam: IABR, 2014).

6 乔治·布鲁格曼斯和乔兰达·斯特里恩(编辑)，《城市的本质:2014 年 IABR Cata-罗格》(鹿特

丹:IABR，2014 年)。

13 David Garland, 'What Is a "History of the Present"?On Foucault's Geneal-ogies and Their
Critical Preconditions', Punishment & Society 16/4 (2014), 372.
13 大卫·加兰，《什么是“现在的历史”？《论福柯的一般理论及其批判前提》，《惩罚与
社会》16/4 (2014)，372。

7 See, for example, Martin Prominski and Hille von Seggern (eds.), Design Research for Urban
Landscapes: Theo-ries and Methods (London/New York: Routledge, 2019);Karsten Jørgensen et al.
(eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Teaching Landscape (London/New York: Routledge,
2019);Ellen Braae and Henriette Steiner (eds.), Routledge Research Companion to Landscape

7 例如，见马丁·普罗明斯基和希勒·冯·西格恩(编辑。)，城市景观设计研究:理论与方法(伦敦/
纽约:路特雷奇，2019)；karst en Jrgen sen 等人(编辑))，The Routledge Handbook of Teaching
Landscape(伦敦/纽约:Routledge，2019)；Ellen Braae 和 Henriette Steiner(编辑。)，Routledge
景观研究指南

14 The guest editors in particular would like to express their thanks to the authors for working with
tight deadlines, and the reviewers for their very generous comments.

14 特邀编辑特别要感谢作者在紧迫的期限内完成的工作，以及审稿人非常慷慨的评论。

Journal of Landscape Architecture / 32019

风景园林杂志/ 32019