从刊载文献探赜中国风景园林规划设计理论发展——《中国园林》创刊40周年回望

Tracing the Development of Landscape Architecture Planning and Design Theory in China Through Published Literature: A Retrospect on the 40th Anniversary of Chinese Landscape Architecture

关键词:  风景园林  《中国园林》  规划设计  理论  实践

Key words:  landscape architecture  Chinese Landscape Architecture  planning and design  theory  practice

摘要:

以《中国园林》创刊40周年为契机，通过刊载文献系统回顾了1985—2024年中国风景园林规划设计理论的发展历程，并尝试从文献脉络中寻找其所 反映的学科意识，知识体系的建构和理论的探讨与演化轨迹。将《中国园林》创刊40年以来的规划设计理论与实践历程划分为3个阶段：第一阶段为“城市普遍 绿化”时代背景下的学科范畴逐步廓清(1985—1999年)；第二阶段为西风渐进浪潮中的实践爆发与理论体系的探索(2000—2011年)；第三阶段为全球共识、规范发展与知识地图的再构(2012—2024年)。最后指出，40年进程既反映了风景园林的复杂性与独特性，也表明其理论和知识体系仍处于持续探索过程中，相 关问题与路径仍待进一步验证。

Abstract:

Taking the forty years of publication history of Chinese Landscape Architecture (1985-2024) as a mirror, this study attempts to trace the developmental trajectory of landscape architecture planning and design theory in China. By systematically reviewing the body of literature published in the journal, it seeks to uncover the discipline's evolving awareness, the construction of its knowledge system, and the shifting trajectories of theoretical debate and exploration. Against the backdrop of broader social transformations and the changing academic milieu, the analysis identifies three major stages in the theoretical development of the field. The first stage, spanning 1985- 1999, was triggered by the "Universal Urban Greening" campaign proposed by the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. This period marked a phase of comprehensive expansion, during which the profession made a critical transition from classical garden traditions to modern urban greening and the planning of scenic areas, thereby achieving a breakthrough in the scale and scope of practice. At the same time, debates emerged around the reconstruction of the traditional garden knowledge system. Questions such as "If one removes the pavilions, corridors, and garden ornaments, can it still be called a garden?" exemplified the challenges of redefining disciplinary boundaries. The theoretical discourse of this period thus revolved around the extension and re-division of scales, as well as the exploration of planning and design methodologies. The second stage, covering 2000-2011, was characterized by the influx of overseas theories, the rapid expansion of practice, and the continuous exploration of a localized knowledge system. International designers, projects, and theoretical paradigms entered China on an unprecedented scale. Movements such as Art Nouveau, Land Art, Postmodernism, High-Tech, and Critical Regionalism, together with concepts of dynamism, process-orientation, nonlinearity, and parametric design, provided important stimuli for broadening disciplinary horizons and enriching both practice and theory. This intellectual influx coincided with a period of strong economic growth, during which landscape practice flourished nationwide. Large-scale projects proliferated, giving rise to numerous design institutes, studios, and individual designers who produced influential works. The intensity of practice not only expanded professional opportunities but also enabled rapid testing and assimilation of new design concepts, thereby accelerating the formation of indigenous knowledge frameworks and methodological approaches. The third stage, from 2012 to 2024, unfolded in the context of globalization, the establishment of landscape architecture as a first-level discipline in China, and the articulation of six subfields: history and theory of landscape architecture, garden and landscape design, landscape planning and ecological restoration, heritage conservation, plant application, and landscape technology. During this period, the field moved toward institutional standardization and disciplinary consolidation. Yet, significant turning points emerged. In September 2022, the Ministry of Education released the Catalogue of Graduate Education Disciplines and Specialties (2022), in which landscape architecture was reclassified as a professional degree, with its category elevated to the doctoral level. This topdown decision reignited debates within the academic community, prompting renewed reflection on the knowledge system of the discipline. Scholars, through cycles of retrospect and foresight, have attempted to reconstruct cognitive maps of landscape architecture in light of shifting institutional and intellectual landscapes. In conclusion, this forty-year review not only highlights the complexity and uniqueness of landscape architecture in China but also underscores that its theoretical and knowledge system remains in an ongoing process of exploration. The questions, frameworks, and pathways that have emerged require further empirical validation and theoretical refinement. Rather than presenting a closed narrative, the developmental arc of the past four decades demonstrates the dynamic and open-ended character of landscape architecture as both a discipline and a practice