景观公正—英国格林威治大学风景园林学院院长艾德·沃尔教授专访

Interpretation of Landscape Justice: Interview with Professor Ed Wall, Dean of the School of Landscape Architecture, University of Greenwich, UK

采访：叶郁 李升Interviewers: YE Yu, LI Sheng摘要：艾德·沃尔（Ed Wall）是英国格林威治大学风景园林学和城市规划学的学术带头人，在风景园林研究与教育领域具有广泛影响力。在专访中，艾德围绕景观公正阐述了自己在风景园林研究、实践与教学方面的核心思想。在研究方面，他强调景观和城市的公共性，尤其是公共场所产生的交叉方式在规划、设计、使用和维护公共空间中非常重要。在实践方面，他提出设计不仅要确定城市的物理环境和物质维度，更要理解和熟悉景观的过程。在风景园林教学中，格林威治大学的学生正在学习和研究侧重于景观开放性和不完整性的设计方法，学生们还需要牢记他们对环境和社会公正的专业责任。关键词：景观公正；公共空间；交叉过程；景观不完整性

Abstract: Ed Wall is the academic leader for landscape architecture and urbanism at the University of Greenwich, UK, and has a wide influence in the field of landscape architecture research and education. In this exclusive interview, Ed expounds his core ideas on research, practice and landscape architecture teaching that give emphasis to landscape justice. In terms of research, he is interested in the publicness of landscapes and cities, especially the way that sites of publicness are informed by practices of planning, design, use and maintenance. For Ed, design should not only determine the physical environment and physical dimensions of the city, but also be understood and inform processes of landscapes. In landscape architecture teaching, University of Greenwich students are studying design methods that consider the open-ended processes and incompleteness of landscapes. Students are also required to keep in mind their professional commitment to environmental and social justice.

Keywords: landscape justice; public space; intersecting way; landscape incompleteness

2019 年 10 月 12—13 日，由北京林业大学、中国风景园林学会主办的“世界风景园林师高峰讲坛——韧性景观”在北京林业大学成功举办。本次高峰讲坛邀请 15 位来自中国、荷兰、美国、英国、澳大利亚、德国等国家风景园林界知名专家学者围绕“韧性景观”这一主题展开精彩讲演，探索如何构建韧性景观，平衡自然本底与城市发展的需求。应邀作为论坛演讲嘉宾的艾德·沃尔教授，在参会期间接受了叶郁副教授、李升副教授的联合专访，就其在设计研究与实践、风景园林教学等方面的核心思想展开了深入探讨。

LAJ：《风景园林》杂志社Ed：艾德·沃尔

LAJ：我们知道您是英国格林威治大学风景园林的学术带头人，并且在2007 年建立了关注于景观、城市和领土的研究平台“项目工作室” （ Project Studio）。能否介绍一下您早期是如何介入这一领域的研究与实践的？

Ed：在获得伦敦政治经济学院的城市专业博士学位之前，我先是在曼彻斯特（英国）学习风景园林，然后在纽约学习城市设计。在几家顶尖的设计工作室工作后，我渴望将研究教

学的学术生活与设计实践的创造性结合起来。我的工作一直侧重于对场所公共性和过程公共性的研究，主要包括场所的多尺度性、景观的时间与实践性，以及公共性在解决城市环境、公共空间和空间公正等问题方面的潜力。

LAJ：景观公正是个宽泛的议题，能否结合您的研究实践介绍一下您的关注点？

Ed：我的研究重点是景观和城市的公共性，特别是公共场所产生的交叉方式。我对规划、设计、占用、使用和维护公共空间的政治和实践很感兴趣，这些场所与设计实践一样，受政策决定、文化活动、日常活动和集体行动的影响。谁有或谁没有机会参与这些过程的问题常常成为一个核心问题。我发现帕特里克·格迪斯（Patrick Geddes）的山谷剖面是一个有用的模型，可以在我们当代生活的背景下，探索其中一些关系的复杂性（图1）。

LAJ：长久以来，在城市规划方面，都认为时间优于空间，因而在空间设计与规划上并没有充分考虑人文因素，而更追求经济效益。那么，若要使空间规划与设计更具人文精神，您认为需要在哪些方面做出努力？在城市空间的规划与设计方面，如何兼顾人文精神与社会经济效益？国外的实践经验是怎样的？

Ed：如果我们创造的景观可以被认为是一系列交叉过程的结果，那么在这些过程中涉及或排除的人员可以作为这些项目和空间的有效指标。因此我认为，对于设计师来说，设计出能够创造新空间的框架，比仅仅确定城市的物理环境和物质维度更具挑战性。景观可以被定义为一个过程（或多个过程），这是人们普遍接受的，但我们需要更多地关注如何设计流程，同时抑制设计产品的冲动。我与格林威治大学的学生们一起研究的一种方法侧重于景观的不完整性（图 2），这使场所的问题不断地发挥作用。

在这样的挑战中，设计师面临的困难之一是放弃控制权，不管是通过接受其他学科来承认自己知识的局限性，还是通过寻找其他被排斥的个人和社区来创建更民主的设计项目。设计师的创造力能够决定项目的总体规划以及细部设计，项目也能够在这些新环1境中调节社会关系，如果我们在这个过程中只是渴望创造一种景观，那设计师的创造力就会出现问题。因此，在项目设计中，能够保证来自社区的、没有经过设计培训的人们参与到公共空间的设计、运营和管理中是至关重要的。

另一个困难是平常维护，活动举办、材料更新和日常活动会不断地创造和改造景观。设计师需要成为这些过程的一部分，这些过程应该是具有包容性的，并且在实际构建项目的时间范围之外也是可获取的。在设计项目中，应该更加注重清洁程序、维护实践、景观管理、城市治理和历史改造的创造潜力，同时也应该强调在设计项目中促进公共行动、政治讨论和竞争的必要性。

我相信这些挑战使风景园林更加有趣，我也喜欢在自己的实践中探索这些问题。我在 2011年带领的一个入围竞赛项目Park Works（图3）试图解决其中的一些问题。但我认为伊斯图迪·马尔蒂·弗朗奇（Estudi Marti Franch）的作品是将景观作为过程来思考的优秀案例，在设计过程中将维护作为设计工具，并能够广泛地与众多的个人和团体合作。

LAJ ：城市中的绿地、公园、道路、广场等是人们生活的公共空间，在这些空间的规划与设计方面，如何考虑多样化社会群体的差异性，进而体现社会公正？这其中又该如何考虑人文因素？例如，一些绿地或公园的修建是让人远远观望的，还是可以舒适使用的？

Ed：如何确保新的城市空间以社会公正为核心?我认为我们需要找到一种方法，让尽可能多的人参与进来——老人、年轻人、居民、游客、移民者、专业人士（例如设计师、规划师和政治家）——贯穿项目的规划、设计、使用和管理的各个方面。在伦敦，就像世界上许多其他城市一样，空间公正的问题反复出现：我们需要停止驱逐居民，并且改善他们的生活；我们需要质疑地区的士绅化和人口的迁移，以及风景园林在这些过程中的作用；我们需要抵制城市和公共空间的私有化；我们需要提倡在新的公共场所举办各种各样的活动，让更多的人参与进来；我们需要确保公共空间可以被用作政治途径，这样人们就可以围绕关心的问题走到一起。

我认为，如果从景观的角度来构建公正的话，那么还需要进一步考虑其他一些问题，例如材料的来源及其供应链、生态破坏和气候变化。风景园林师简·赫顿（Jane Hutton）在她的《相互的景观》（ Reciprocal landscape, 2019年）一书中探讨了景观材料起源地的景观与用这些材料建成的景观之间的关系，在追溯景观材料起源地的过程中研究分析了很多类似于采料工人们的工作环境等问题。人们

2020/09 3 Park Works，2011 年入围的参赛作品

Park Works, a shortlisted competition entry in 2011

和他们的物质世界是如何与多种不同的景观联系在一起的，这对于设计师来说是一个复杂的问题，但也是一个让景观变得更有趣的问题。

LAJ：城市公共空间是否需要越建越多？与人们生活的私人空间边界应如何划分？当前公共空间与私人空间之间产生的矛盾纠纷非常突显，例如社区中的空间争夺等，如何解决这些矛盾？如何兼顾公共空间与私人空间的多样化需求？

Ed：我认为，我们都需要更多隐私的空间，以及其他使我们能够在集体和政治方面实现参与的空间。在我居住的伦敦，无论是将国有化改为私有化的空间，还是城市发展区的新的准公共空间，都很难明确区分公共空间和私有空间，这可以理解为所有权模式变化的结果。公共空间与私人空间的边界划分也可以通过安保、治安和维护的法律与实施架构来明确和改变。这些变化会影响到个人的生活，比如无家可归的人，他们依靠公共空间来从事我们通常认为是私人的活动。与此同时，纵观历史，私有空间为公共话语提供了一个讨论场所。

LAJ：当前中国的首都北京正努力推进疏解非首都功能，其中重要的就是非正规空间的大力整治与清理，但也引发了一些问题，如清理了一些能够满足居民日常生活需求的空间场所（小餐馆、菜市场、便利店等），进而留白增绿，改善环境。国外是否发生过类似的城市发展过程阶段？又是如何推进的？面对其中的矛盾，采取了哪些措施？

把现有及未来居民的日常事务和管理工作联系在一起，而不是排除现有的规章制度，我们才有希望把人们团结在一起。因此，这是一个比重新定义公共空间更为复杂的空间形式设想，需要政治家、城市管理者、风景园林师和城市规划师的共同努力。

LAJ：您有多年的教学经历，关于风景园林的教学工作，您近期关注于哪些问题？您认为未来10年中，风景园林学面临的重要问题或是挑战是什么？

Ed：我认为，未来10年风景园林面临的最大挑战与全球变暖和气候变化造成的气候危机有关。风景园林师和城市规划师需要牢记他们对环境和社会公正以及政府和商业客户的经济抱负的专业承诺。在过去的30 年中，已经证明了我们可以修复被污染的土地和减轻工业与气候带来的不利影响，但在未来几十年，我们需要更加积极地担任领导者，转变我们的碳依赖型经济，以避免进一步损害我们的世界。气候危机是一个重要的景观公正问题，它将令人担忧的社会公正和环境公正2个问题纠结在一起。人们将受到什么影响，如何保护自己不受海平面上升、森林火灾和水资源短缺的影响，这将考验我们应对气候变化的方法是否公正。从政策到商业，从设计师到社区，都需要富有想象力的方法。这将要求风景园林师变得更加政治化，参与并成为政治家，更积极地采取直接行动来保护生态系统和社区。气候变化的科学性是无可争议的，在创建有韧性的城市、减缓气候变化和修复受损景观的工作中风景园林师将承担关键角色，并成为避免此类危机的未来领导者。图片来源：

图 1由艾德·沃尔绘制；图2由艾德·沃尔和艾玛·科尔瑟斯特绘制；图3由梅斯·卡尔索姆绘制。

（编辑 /王亚莺）

Interviewers: YE Yu, LI Sheng

LAJ：Landscape Ed：Ed Wall

LAJ: We know that you are the Academic Leader of Landscape at the University of Greenwich, and you founded Project Studio in 2007 as a platform for design and research collaborations focused on landscape, cities and territories. How did you start to work in this field in the early years?

Ed: I trained originally in landscape architecture in Manchester (England) and then Urban Design in New York City, before following a Ph.D. in Cities at the London School of Economics. After working for several leading design studios, I was keen to combine an academic life of research and teaching with the inventiveness of design practice. My work has consistently focused on sites and processes of publicness through engaging with the multiple and simultaneous scales, temporalities and practices of landscape and its potential for addressing concerns for urban environments, public space and spatial justice.

LAJ: Landscape justice is a broad topic. Can you introduce your concerns based on your research practice?

Ed: My research focuses on the publicness of landscapes and cities and, in particular, the intersecting ways that sites of publicness are produced. I am interested in the politics and practices of planning, designing, occupying, using and maintaining public spaces — sites that are informed as much by policy decisions, cultural events, daily routines and collective actions as they are by design practices. And frequently the question of who is and who is not afforded opportunities to be part of these processes becomes a core concern. I have found the valley section of Patrick Geddes a useful model to explore the complexity of some of these relations in the context of our contemporary lives (Fig. 1).

LAJ: For a long time, in urban planning, space has been considered second to time. Therefore, human factors have not been fully considered in space design and planning, and more economic benefits have been pursued. So, in order to make space planning and design more humane, which aspect need to be worked on? In terms of urban space planning and design, how to balance humanistic spirit with socio-economic benefits? Is there any practical experience?

Ed: If the landscapes that we create can be considered the result of a range of intersecting processes then who is involved or excluded from these processes can be a useful indicator to how just these projects and spaces are. I think, therefore, that there is a greater challenge for designers in devising frameworks that can produce new places than merely determining the physical conditions and material dimensions of cities. That landscapes can be defined as a process (or processes) is commonly accepted but more attention needs to be given to how we design processes while resisting the urge of designing products. An approach that I have developed with students at University of Greenwich focuses on the incompleteness of landscapes (Fig. 2), this keeping the issues of sites constantly in play.

One of the difficulties in such a challenge is for designers to cede control, whether this is through recognizing the limits to their own knowledge by embracing other disciplines or by

2020/09 seeking out otherwise excluded individuals and communities to create more democratic projects. The myth of the designer as able to determine projects from masterplans to detail, projects that are also able to condition social relations in these new environments, is extremely problematic if we are to aspire to creating just landscapes. Ensuring that local communities and people less trained in design are part of the design, operation and management of public spaces is essential.

Another difficulty is that landscapes are constantly made and remade through maintenance routines, staging of events, material adaptations and daily activities. Designers need to be part of these processes that should also be inclusive and accessible beyond the timeframe of physically constructing projects. The creative potential of cleaning routines, maintenance practices, landscape management, urban governance and historic renovation should be given greater emphasis in design projects — as does the need to facilitate public actions, political discourse and contestation within designed projects.

I think that these challenges make landscape architecture more interesting and I have enjoyed exploring some of these questions in my own practice. Park Works (Fig. 3), a shortlisted competition entry that I led back in 2011, was an attempt at addressing some of these concerns. But I think that the work of Estudi Marti Franch provides some of the best examples of working with landscape as process, using maintenance as a design tool, and working with a broad range of individuals and groups in the process.

LAJ: Green spaces, parks, roads, and squares in cities are public spaces where people live. In terms of the planning and design of these spaces, we would like to know how can we reflect the differences of diverse social groups to show social justice? And How to consider human factors? For example, are some green spaces or parks built to be seen from a distance, or can they be used comfortably?

Ed: How can we ensure that new urban spaces have social justice at their core? I think that we need to find ways to include as many different people as possible — old, young, residents, visitors, migrants, businesses (as well as designers, planners and politicians) — throughout all aspects of the planning, design, use and management of our design projects. In London, as in many cities around the world, there are recurring questions for spatial justice: we need to stop evicting people from neighborhoods in order to improve them; we need to question the gentrification of districts and the displacement of populations — and the role of landscape architecture in these processes; we need to resist the privatization of cities and public spaces; we need to advocate for a broad range of activities and people to be included in new public places; and we need to ensure that public spaces can be appropriated for political means so that people can come together around issues of concern.

I think that there are some further concerns if justice is framed through terms of landscape, such as the sourcing of materials and their supply chains, ecological destruction and climate change. The landscape architect Jane Hutton, in her book Reciprocal Landscapes (2019), explores the relationships between landscapes where building materials come from, as well as the working conditions of the populations tasked with extracting these resources, and the designed landscapes constructed. How people and their material worlds are bound up with multiple, different landscapes is a complex concern for designers, but one again that makes landscapes more interesting.

LAJ: Do more urban public spaces need to be built? How should the boundaries of private space with people live be divided? At present, conflicts and disputes between public space and private space are very prominent, such as space competition in communities. Then we would like to know how to solve these issues and how to balance the diverse needs of public space and private space?

Ed: I think that we all have a need for spaces that provide greater privacy and other spaces that allow us to engage collectively and politically. In London where I live it is difficult to mark clear distinctions between a public and private spaces. This can be understood as the result of changing patterns of ownership, whether privatizations of formerly state spaces or new quasi-public agencies developing parts of the city. It can also be seen through changing legal and operational structures of security, policing and maintenance. These changes can impact the lives of individuals, such as homeless people, who rely on publicly accessible spaces in order to engage in activities we would normally consider to be private. At the same time, and throughout history, there have been privately owned spaces that provide a forum for public discourse.

LAJ: Recently, Beijing is working hard to unblock the non-capital functions. The most important one is to rectify and clean up the informal space, and it has also caused some problems, such as cleaning up some places that can meet the daily needs of residents (small restaurants, Food market, convenience store, etc.), and then improve the environment by leaving white space and increasing greening. Has such a process of urban development occurred abroad? If so, how did it get promoted? What measures have been taken to face the contradictions?

Ed: These are critical conflicts in producing public spaces that designers need to be more engaged with. There are many issues at stake in the back and forth between providing more openness for diverse activities and ways of living public spaces and, on the other hand, controlling the public realm to maintain order, cleanliness and imageability. These tensions can be between commercial activities of privatized public spaces and the public expectations of democratic public space — but they are also evident in the management of state mandated areas of cities.

I believe that it is essential to ensure that there are areas of cities that have a looseness in how they work, leaving opportunities for informal activities to occur, alongside more carefully managed, maintained and curated public spaces. In any of these scenarios, however, it is necessary to recognize that public spaces are places for people and for politics. As the geographer Don Mitchell describes, public spaces are public to the degree to which they are, and can be, taken and made public. This cannot happen if public spaces are too tightly controlled.

LAJ: At present, the interest needs of urban residents are increasingly reflected in the spatial dimension with community living rights as the core, and it also lead to Contradictions and disputes between the owners’ committees, property management, grassroots governments and community residents because of the interest. Then, is there a good cracking strategy? What about the foreign practical experience?

Ed: In a city like London there are examples where residents have been afforded rights but the politics of where and how people are able to live is also highly contested. The provision of housing has become an increasingly politicized issue in recent years, whether this is due to the cost of private homes, the limited availability of council houses, segregation of private owners and social renting tenants, exclusive green spaces, gated communities, the lack of maintenance, or negligence towards safety standards. Different organizations are drawn into these discourses, from national and local government to housing activists and from community groups to commercial developers. Concerns for housing and the rights of existing and future residents are intertwined with the design of neighbourhoods so landscape architects and urban planners have an important role in advocating for social justice in these situations as well as designing high quality, accessible public spaces.

A recent example in the UK of local government and designers attempting to address some of these concerns is the Goldsmith Street development in Norwich that has brought together considered design with new ambitions for council housing. This is, however, only a small development and in the context of rising land values and limited resources available to local government such projects are extremely difficult to achieve. In the UK the provision of housing remains dominated by commercial developers who have a greater interest in the profitability of their residential developments than they have for the social justice achieved across their neighborhoods.

LAJ: From a sociological perspective, in current cities, social stratification and social space are linked, which means stratification and spatial differentiation are related, and differences between social stratification are often manifested in spatial isolation. So, is it possible to eliminate the stratification by eliminating spatial differentiation? As we know, In developed countries, spatial segmentation is often associated with race or ethnic group. So how does the government solve the urban problem of segmentation?

Ed: I think this goes back to how inclusive the processes for making public spaces are, architecturally, culturally and socially, and how accessible this resultant public realm can be. We can only bring together different people if we consider all the processes and relationships that are involved in producing our public spaces, including the policies for including different people in the design process, consultation with existing and future residents, management routines that do not exclude, and regulations that aspire to bringing people together. This is therefore a more complex scenario than redefining the spatial forms of public spaces and it requires the commitment of politicians and city managers as well as landscape architects and urban planners.

LAJ: You have many years of teaching experience. What are your recent concerns about landscape teaching? What do you think are the important problems or challenges facing landscape architecture in the next 10 years?

Ed: I think that the greatest challenges we face in landscape architecture over the next 10 years relate to the climate crisis created by global warming and climate change. Landscape architects and urban planners need to remember their professional commitment to environmental and social justice as well as to the economic ambitions of governments and commercial clients. In the last 30 years we have proven we can remediate polluted lands and mitigate the impacts of adverse industries and weather patterns. But in the next few decades we need to be more active as leaders in transforming our carbon dependent economies in order to avoid damaging our worlds further. The climate crisis is an important issue of landscape justice, bringing together issues of social and environmental justice through an entanglement of concerns. How populations are differently impacted and able to protect themselves from rising sea levels, forest fires and water shortages will be the test of how just our approach to climate change is. There needs to be imaginative approaches from policy to business and from designers to communities. This is going to require landscape architects to become more political, engaging with and becoming politicians, and to be more activist to ensure that direct action is taken to protect ecosystems and communities. The science of climate change is indisputable and while creating resilient cities, mitigating climate change and remediating damaged landscapes will be a key role of landscape architects, future leaders will be striving to ensure that such crises are avoided.

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1 © Ed Wall; Fig. 2 © Ed Wall and Emma Colthurst; Fig. 3 © Mais Kalthoum. (Editor / WANG Yaying)