自古以來(lái)，城市林業(yè)和城市植樹(shù)活動(dòng)一直是亞洲人居歷史的一部分。對(duì)城市林業(yè)的關(guān)注也延續(xù)至今，而這種傳統(tǒng)必然比20世紀(jì)末“城市林業(yè)”和“森林城市主義”概念的提出更為久遠(yuǎn)。拋開(kāi)城市背景不論，亞洲地區(qū)的森林棲居傳統(tǒng)已有幾千年的歷史。本地林居社區(qū)體現(xiàn)出了一種更大的自然文化世界觀和敘事，所有這些都與社會(huì)生態(tài)意義上的人居環(huán)境建設(shè)實(shí)踐深深交織。盡管亞洲各地有著截然不同的棲居模式，也有著各種各樣的聚落肌理，但它們通常都會(huì)系統(tǒng)地種植樹(shù)木。在全球變暖的背景下，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)重新闡明這一古老的傳統(tǒng)并從中吸取專(zhuān)業(yè)智慧，以應(yīng)對(duì)氣候危機(jī)、創(chuàng)造更健康的居住環(huán)境。
城市林業(yè)；森林城市主義；亞洲傳統(tǒng)；全球變暖；人居環(huán)境建設(shè)實(shí)踐
Towards an Asian Forest Urbanism
布魯諾·德·繆德?tīng)?sup>1
Bruno DE MEULDER
凱利·香農(nóng)1,2
Kelly SHANNON
在西方環(huán)境科學(xué)領(lǐng)域，丹麥－加拿大籍林學(xué)家埃里克·喬根森于1965年首次提出了“城市林業(yè)”（urban forestry）這一概念。三十多年后，另一個(gè)同樣看似自相矛盾的概念——“景觀都市主義”（landscape urbanism）也應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。城市林業(yè)是指“在城市發(fā)展過(guò)程中，為了充分發(fā)揮樹(shù)木在提升城市物質(zhì)效益、社會(huì)效益和經(jīng)濟(jì)效益方面的短期和長(zhǎng)期價(jià)值，而開(kāi)展的一系列樹(shù)木種植和管理活動(dòng)。”城市林業(yè)跳脫了對(duì)行道樹(shù)、庭蔭樹(shù)、觀賞樹(shù)等單一樹(shù)木本身的關(guān)注，而將整個(gè)城市的樹(shù)木作為一個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)來(lái)考量。此外，城市林業(yè)也包含人工與自然、文明與野蠻、人造都市與自然景觀等二元概念，這些概念（及其所涵蓋的領(lǐng)域）間明確的二元性也帶來(lái)了科學(xué)范式的轉(zhuǎn)變。
盡管城市林業(yè)（包括森林都市主義）和景觀都市主義這兩個(gè)當(dāng)代學(xué)科都體現(xiàn)出了科學(xué)范式上的轉(zhuǎn)變，但早在這些學(xué)科被命名的千年之前，這種轉(zhuǎn)變就已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)，而且在亞洲地區(qū)尤為典型。在亞洲城市及周邊鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)的歷史演化過(guò)程中，風(fēng)水和占卜活動(dòng)扮演著重要角色，指導(dǎo)著人類(lèi)在大自然中的活動(dòng)；人們對(duì)土地神、河神和森林神靈的信仰既有現(xiàn)實(shí)的一面，又充滿神秘色彩。越南中部的高原城市大叻被譽(yù)為“千松之城”，曾被法國(guó)殖民者開(kāi)發(fā)為山中避暑勝地。中國(guó)蘇州享有“東方威尼斯”的美譽(yù)，這里不僅河渠縱橫、園林交錯(cuò)，而且森林遍布，令人驚嘆。在日本的城市地區(qū)，樹(shù)木和“永恒之森”被奉為木靈的化身，與神道教淵源頗深。在柬埔寨，樹(shù)木和江河湖泊與“涅達(dá)”神靈體系和佛教關(guān)系密切。傳統(tǒng)的高棉民居建筑多以佛寺的形式建于森林地帶，周?chē)椴贾鹚推渌诮探ㄖＯ柴R拉雅地區(qū)的傳統(tǒng)聚落往往與廟宇、河湖和森林交織在一起。在整個(gè)亞洲地區(qū)，森林和樹(shù)木更是無(wú)數(shù)的儀式活動(dòng)、詩(shī)歌、文學(xué)作品、圣作、神話傳說(shuō)和民謠贊頌的對(duì)象。
中國(guó)儒家典籍《周禮》明確記載，城墻外護(hù)城河沿岸的樹(shù)木種植和維護(hù)工作必須由專(zhuān)門(mén)官員負(fù)責(zé)。根據(jù)書(shū)中解釋?zhuān)顺鲇谟凭玫闹矘?shù)傳統(tǒng)外，沿河岸走廊種植樹(shù)木主要是為了防洪防汛、避免水土流失。都城街道和皇家御道兩側(cè)種植樹(shù)木的主要目的是獨(dú)辟御路、防風(fēng)、遮陰、防洪，以及觀賞等；樹(shù)木死后，必須迅速栽種新樹(shù)。國(guó)家鼓勵(lì)在城市街道和鄉(xiāng)村道路兩側(cè)種樹(shù)，寓意造福當(dāng)?shù)匕傩眨缓芏嗾賳T也因植樹(shù)造林有功而被歷史銘記。
在亞洲很多地區(qū)，造林和栽植行道樹(shù)的傳統(tǒng)是國(guó)家建設(shè)不斷進(jìn)步的重要體現(xiàn)。華裔美籍學(xué)者李成等人指出，在中華民國(guó)時(shí)期（1912—1949年），孫中山曾倡導(dǎo)將植樹(shù)造林作為國(guó)家救亡圖存的重要手段，通過(guò)造福民生將林業(yè)與社會(huì)－生態(tài)公平和防御自然災(zāi)害聯(lián)系起來(lái)。1956年，作為社會(huì)建設(shè)和全民動(dòng)員計(jì)劃的重要組成部分，中國(guó)開(kāi)展了“綠化祖國(guó)”運(yùn)動(dòng)。通過(guò)具體實(shí)踐，專(zhuān)業(yè)樹(shù)木種植知識(shí)傳播到基層群眾中間，植樹(shù)造林也成為了《一九五六年到一九六七年全國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展綱要（草案）》的重要組成部分。草案要求，“從1956年開(kāi)始，在12年內(nèi)，綠化一切可能綠化的荒地荒山，在一切宅旁、村旁、路旁、水旁以及荒地上荒山上，只要是可能的，都要求有計(jì)劃地種起樹(shù)來(lái)。”總之，森林和樹(shù)木成為了城市人居環(huán)境發(fā)展建設(shè)過(guò)程中的重要一環(huán)。德國(guó)的“科學(xué)造林”思想提倡（樹(shù)木種植與砍伐的）集中管理、林業(yè)保育，以及讓樹(shù)木走進(jìn)公眾生活等理念。中國(guó)第一任林業(yè)部部長(zhǎng)梁希也深受其影響。為了解決水文問(wèn)題，他沒(méi)有選擇修建水壩等聲勢(shì)浩大的工程，而是極力倡導(dǎo)大規(guī)模植樹(shù)活動(dòng)，并強(qiáng)調(diào)土壤、水文和樹(shù)木之間的密切聯(lián)系。近年來(lái)，中國(guó)政府不斷強(qiáng)調(diào)，人與自然是生命共同體；“人的命脈在田，田的命脈在水，水的命脈在山，山的命脈在土，土的命脈在樹(shù)。”用途管制和生態(tài)修復(fù)必須遵循自然規(guī)律，如果種樹(shù)的只管種樹(shù)、治水的只管治水、護(hù)田的單純護(hù)田，很容易顧此失彼，最終造成生態(tài)的系統(tǒng)性破壞。
越南領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人胡志明非常重視自然環(huán)境，特別是森林和樹(shù)木。自脫離法國(guó)殖民統(tǒng)治、贏得民族獨(dú)立以來(lái)，胡志明便將國(guó)家（國(guó)土）建設(shè)與山河森林聯(lián)系起來(lái)。他曾明確指出，人類(lèi)必須深刻認(rèn)識(shí)自然、合理使用自然資源、做好環(huán)境的管家。在《森林是金：越南的樹(shù)木、公民與環(huán)境規(guī)范》一書(shū)中，帕梅拉·麥克艾薇揭示了森林及其分類(lèi)與權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)的關(guān)系，指出林木不僅會(huì)帶來(lái)生態(tài)和生物多樣性裨益，更是新社會(huì)和公民管理的重要資源。
比安卡·瑪麗亞·里納爾迪剖析了樹(shù)木和城市林業(yè)規(guī)劃在印度和新加坡后殖民時(shí)代國(guó)家建設(shè)中所發(fā)揮的作用。這些規(guī)劃不僅體現(xiàn)了城市林業(yè)的生態(tài)效益，而且展現(xiàn)了其在國(guó)家認(rèn)同中的審美和文化價(jià)值——觀賞樹(shù)木也是植樹(shù)造林工程中的重要組成部分。里納爾迪分析了賈瓦哈拉爾·尼赫魯和李光耀各自的核心政治主張，并從本土自然環(huán)境著眼，探討了二人是如何通過(guò)森林樹(shù)木呈現(xiàn)文化差異，又是如何通過(guò)植樹(shù)手段修彌殖民歷史創(chuàng)傷的——當(dāng)?shù)厣衷挥?guó)殖民者大肆砍伐，因此，“本土”植樹(shù)造林運(yùn)動(dòng)成為國(guó)家建設(shè)項(xiàng)目的重要推手。在勒·柯布西耶為印度旁遮普邦首府昌迪加爾（1953年建府）所制定的那份聞名于世的城市規(guī)劃中，人工構(gòu)筑和森林體系綠色結(jié)構(gòu)相互交織、相互嵌套。此外，這項(xiàng)規(guī)劃還以“樹(shù)狀網(wǎng)格”為藍(lán)本，確定了城市結(jié)構(gòu)中的樹(shù)木設(shè)計(jì)框架。換言之，柯布西耶將昌迪加爾視為一張全息圖：在常規(guī)解讀下，規(guī)劃中的建成部分（作為現(xiàn)代主義的科學(xué)化體現(xiàn)）展現(xiàn)了國(guó)際主義視角；從另一個(gè)角度看，這項(xiàng)設(shè)計(jì)修復(fù)了由本土物種構(gòu)成的森林環(huán)境，迸發(fā)著傳統(tǒng)生態(tài)智慧，體現(xiàn)了民族主義情懷。在規(guī)劃實(shí)施過(guò)程中，當(dāng)?shù)刂参飳W(xué)家、農(nóng)藝學(xué)家穆新德·辛格·蘭德哈瓦最終完成了主要觀花樹(shù)木品種及組配的選定工作。事實(shí)上，昌迪加爾城市規(guī)劃的成功在很大程度上歸功于國(guó)家層面對(duì)森林樹(shù)木的重視。早在1947年，印度便已設(shè)立了“國(guó)家植樹(shù)周”。而在新加坡，1963年，李光耀親自啟動(dòng)了城市更新進(jìn)程：不僅發(fā)起了“植樹(shù)運(yùn)動(dòng)”，還重新引進(jìn)了大量熱帶樹(shù)木（不限于本土物種）。新加坡于1967年和1971年先后設(shè)立了“花園城市”活動(dòng)和“國(guó)家植樹(shù)日”活動(dòng)。這些行動(dòng)計(jì)劃使新加坡收獲了“卓越熱帶城市”“花園之城”“自然之城”等多項(xiàng)美譽(yù)。新加坡的每一個(gè)角落都能看到樹(shù)木的存在：住宅區(qū)、公園、道路兩側(cè)、公路立交橋旁、橋梁周?chē)谶@一重意義上，昌迪加爾和新加坡都基于樹(shù)木，成功地打造出理想的國(guó)家景觀；在建成環(huán)境和自然環(huán)境的相互促進(jìn)、共同改善之下，由樹(shù)木構(gòu)建的人居環(huán)境超越了人文與自然的邊界。
千百年來(lái)，人類(lèi)一直保留著擇林而棲的傳統(tǒng)。各類(lèi)傳統(tǒng)的林中聚落是自然－人文世界觀與敘事的縮影，而這些皆與社會(huì)－生態(tài)棲居活動(dòng)息息相關(guān)。縱觀都市主義的演變歷程，城市格局與肌理一直深受種植結(jié)構(gòu)的影響。城市是森林體系的一部分，而森林亦是城市肌理的一部分。
回看中國(guó)，1949~1976年，在蘇聯(lián)的援助下，許多新城都修建了林蔭大道，這些冠大蔭濃的行道樹(shù)現(xiàn)如今已成為了中國(guó)城市寶貴的林木資源。即使是在單位大院，種植樹(shù)木的傳統(tǒng)也蔚然成風(fēng)。現(xiàn)在看來(lái)，這些城市的景觀規(guī)劃可能遠(yuǎn)比城市規(guī)劃更重要。在上海等城市，成熟大樹(shù)的數(shù)量已經(jīng)成為衡量現(xiàn)有住宅區(qū)社區(qū)品質(zhì)的主要指標(biāo)。無(wú)獨(dú)有偶，韓國(guó)首爾在始于20世紀(jì)60年代的大規(guī)模戰(zhàn)后重建中修建了大量高密度的公寓建筑，極大地推動(dòng)了城市化進(jìn)程，擁有悠久歷史的建筑群被高聳入云的公寓樓所取代。雖然城市的建設(shè)模式已發(fā)生翻天覆地的轉(zhuǎn)變、城市的建筑密度激增，但政府始終高度重視樹(shù)木種植，在住宅區(qū)域種植了大量林木，仿佛無(wú)意間延續(xù)了城市規(guī)劃與樹(shù)木種植有機(jī)結(jié)合的傳統(tǒng)。
同樣，從基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施層面來(lái)看，越南等很多其他亞洲國(guó)家也擁有沿街種樹(shù)的歷史傳統(tǒng)。在亞洲各國(guó)，不管是大規(guī)模的國(guó)家建設(shè)活動(dòng)還是小規(guī)模的土地開(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)目，基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)始終與植樹(shù)造林協(xié)同推進(jìn)。在土地開(kāi)發(fā)（當(dāng)前房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)疲軟，這種現(xiàn)象已不多見(jiàn)）的同時(shí)，樹(shù)木（雖然侵占了人行道）為人居環(huán)境添加了勃勃生機(jī)。從南到北，越南的各個(gè)城市都散發(fā)著濃郁的熱帶風(fēng)情；行道樹(shù)通過(guò)其在促進(jìn)排澇、穩(wěn)定水土、調(diào)節(jié)微氣候等方面的作用，改善著城市環(huán)境。在城鎮(zhèn)中如此，在農(nóng)村地區(qū)亦是如此。在湄公河三角洲地區(qū)，人們宛如生活在蜿蜒的花園帶中，無(wú)數(shù)寬窄不一的林蔭道散布于河流、小溪、運(yùn)河、道路之間（地勢(shì)略高于這些河流、道路）。包括果樹(shù)在內(nèi)的各類(lèi)樹(shù)木使“高地”花園更加穩(wěn)定，與周邊的田濤（及當(dāng)下的水產(chǎn)養(yǎng)殖區(qū)）形成了景觀映襯，從而打造了優(yōu)美的人居環(huán)境。紅河三角洲的聚落結(jié)構(gòu)更加古老，略有不同的是這里的人居格局不呈花絲條帶結(jié)構(gòu)，而是以村莊島嶼的形式分布在廣闊的洪泛平原上；村莊之間沒(méi)有顯著差異，都栽種了很多樹(shù)木；這里的景觀與壯美開(kāi)闊的平原、高原和水稻梯田，以及林木環(huán)繞的人居環(huán)境形成了的鮮明對(duì)比。
當(dāng)前全球各地的城市化進(jìn)程無(wú)疑正以前所未有的規(guī)模快速推進(jìn)，地球迫切需要更多的樹(shù)木和森林，大規(guī)模植樹(shù)造林行動(dòng)勢(shì)在必行。過(guò)去，不同學(xué)科之間的界限不斷加深。以農(nóng)學(xué)、林學(xué)和都市主義三個(gè)學(xué)科為例，這三者的研究議題均與人類(lèi)“在世界上的實(shí)踐活動(dòng)”有關(guān)。其中，森林是最具“自然”屬性的產(chǎn)物，而農(nóng)業(yè)和城市化更具人文屬性。在工業(yè)化時(shí)代，這些差別愈加突出，而進(jìn)入人類(lèi)世時(shí)代后，濫伐森林的情況也在不斷加劇。勞動(dòng)分工帶來(lái)了規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，促進(jìn)了現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)的蓬勃發(fā)展。相比之下，生態(tài)建設(shè)始終相對(duì)滯后，世界各地頻繁發(fā)生重大災(zāi)難。雖然世界各國(guó)不斷調(diào)整發(fā)展道路，但這似乎還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠。我們必須從根本上扭轉(zhuǎn)思想和觀念，并將隨之而來(lái)的調(diào)整切實(shí)體現(xiàn)在范式轉(zhuǎn)變上。森林都市主義等當(dāng)代跨學(xué)科實(shí)踐正在努力跳脫出人為劃定的界限，以及根深蒂固的自然－人文二元對(duì)立關(guān)系。
在現(xiàn)實(shí)意義層面，城市森林的益處眾所周知：它們能夠緩解城市熱島效應(yīng)，帶來(lái)片片蔭涼，通過(guò)光合作用吸收二氧化碳、釋放氧氣，過(guò)濾空氣中的污染物，甚至還能在一定程度上吸收噪音。都市樹(shù)木的根系有助于調(diào)節(jié)雨洪、防治荒漠化。通常情況下，只要植樹(shù)造林有方，林木就可以提高城市的生物多樣性，讓人類(lèi)與更多的物種和諧共生。這為城市肌理與森林的融合提供了契機(jī)，因?yàn)檫@二者自身都具有豐富的多樣性。將兩者相結(jié)合，可充分發(fā)揮森林的價(jià)值和作用，既能提升人類(lèi)福祉，又能促進(jìn)世界進(jìn)步。在亞洲，大部分地區(qū)已經(jīng)開(kāi)展了相關(guān)行動(dòng)。例如，中國(guó)政府不僅先后開(kāi)展了生態(tài)修復(fù)（20世紀(jì)70年代）、生態(tài)城市建設(shè)（2011年）和海綿城市建設(shè)（2012年）等多項(xiàng)行動(dòng)，還提出了社會(huì)主義生態(tài)文明建設(shè)（2007）的長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)大計(jì)。
“森林都市主義”（forest urbanism）這一概念于2017年被正式提出，其不僅關(guān)注城市林業(yè)，同時(shí)還呼吁從根本上重新審視人居結(jié)構(gòu)與森林的關(guān)系。森林都市主義建立起了景觀設(shè)計(jì)與都市主義之間的橋梁，重塑了土地利用方式，通過(guò)新的融合方式和人居形式的多樣化，打破了林業(yè)、農(nóng)業(yè)和城市化這三者間的界限。
In the Western world of environmental science, the term “urban forestry” was coined by Danish-Canadian forester Erik Jorgensen in 1965. More than three decades before the equally oxymoronic term “l(fā)andscape urbanism,” urban forestry was defined by Jorgensen as “the cultivation and management of trees for their present and potential contribution to the physiological, sociological and economic well-being of the urban society.” It was conceptualized to address urban trees beyond the single plant (street, shade, and ornamental trees) towards an ecological community. It also confronted perceptually different realms: artificial versus natural, civilized versus wild, urban versus landscape. The explicit coupling of dichotomous notions (and the worlds they encompass) led to a scientific paradigm shift.
However, it can be argued that both contemporary disciplines, urban forestry—even forest urbanism—and landscape urbanism, resonate this paradigm shift, which in fact existed millennia before they were named. No more was this the case than in Asia, where cities and dispersed rural settlements historically developed in relation to a worldview that included geomancy (feng shui) and divination, which choreographed the activities of humankind within nature and where beliefs in land gods, river kings, and forest spirits were both practical and mystical. Vietnam’s Central Highlands’ city of Dalat, once a French hill station, is known as the “city of thousands pine trees.” Suzhou, in China, is known as “Venice of the East” and famous for its canals and gardens, yet is embedded in an equally awe-inspiring forest setting. Throughout cities in Japan, trees and “eternal forests” are venerated in relation to kodama (folkloric tree spirits) and Shintoism. Similarly, in Cambodia, both trees and water bodies are worshipped in relation to neak ta and Buddhism. Traditional Khmer settlements are structured by “wats,” forested domains that contain pagodas and other religious buildings. Traditional settlements in the Himalayas are often structured between temples, water, and sacred forests. Throughout Asia, trees and forests are celebrated through numerous rituals, poetry, literature and sacred texts, legends and myths, and folk songs.
In ancient China, The Rituals of the Zhou Dynasty (Zhou Dynasty, 1046–256 BC) verifies that tree planting and maintenance by designated officials along moats of city walls was obligatory. The book documents tree planting along riparian corridors in relation to flood protection and soil erosion, as well as the strong tradition of street planting in cities. Initially, capital city streets and imperial highways were planted to provide separated royal passage, shelter against wind, provide shade, protect roads from flooding, and perform specific visual functions. Whenever trees died, they had to be quickly replaced. “Tree plantings along city streets and country roads were considered as good moral behavior and a blessing to the local people, and state officials were always memorialized for their contribution to the construction of greenways.”
In many parts of Asia, a legacy of afforestation and street tree planting was part and parcel of progressive eras of nation-building. According to Chinese American scholars Cheng Li et al., during the era of the Republic of China (1912 to 1949), the progressive leader Sun Yat-sen “advocated forestry as a means of national salvation,” linking forestry to socio-ecological justice with improved livelihoods and the key to solving natural disasters. In 1956, China promulgated a “Greening the Nation” campaign as a part of a larger social engineering and mass mobilization plans, which was complemented by concrete practices and included the dissemination of expert tree-planting knowledge to the grassroots level. Afforestation was included in the draft National Outline for Agriculture Development (1956–1967), “which aspired to plant trees along all roads, in all residential areas, near all bodies of water, and on all barren land nationwide in twelve years.” In short, forests and trees were an integral component of national development of urban dwelling environment. Xi Liang, the then forestry minister, strongly advocated large-scale tree planting to address hydrological issues (in counterpoint to huge engineering projects such as dams) and underscored the inextricable link of soil, water, and trees. Liang was heavily influenced by a strand of German “scientific forestry” which emphasized centralized management (plating and cutting) and forestry conservation as well as the pervasiveness of trees in daily life. In recent years, Chinese government has continously underscored that mountains, rivers, forests, farmlands, and lakes are a community of life. The lifeline of man lies in the field, the lifeline of the field is in the water, the lifeline of the water is in the mountain, the lifeline of the mountain is in the soil, and the lifeline of the soil is in the tree. Use control and ecological restoration must follow the laws of nature. If those who plant trees only care about planting trees and those who control water only manage the water and those who protect the fields simply protect the fields, it is easy to lose sight of the other and ultimately cause systemic ecological damage.
In Vietnam, the natural environment, specifically forests and trees, plays strongly into Ho Chi Minh ideology and is still drawn upon today. Upon declaring independence from France, Ho likened the country (homeland) to its mountains, rivers, and forests. He explicitly spoke of the necessity of humankind to deeply understand nature, use natural resources economically and steward the environment. In her book, Forests are Gold: Trees, People and Environmental Rule in Vietnam, Pamela McElwee reveals how forestry, as well as its classification, was tied to regimes of power and how forests and trees are much more than ecology and biodiversity but a resource for a new society and the management of citizens.
Bianca Maria Rinaldi has revealed the role of trees and urban forestry plans in the nation-building projects of postcolonial India and Singapore. These plans were motivated by not only urban forestry’s ecological roles, but also its aesthetic and cultural aspects as related to national identities; ornamental trees accounted for a large part of afforestation efforts. Rinaldi draws attention to the key push of political leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru and Lee Kuan Yew, and their understanding of trees as expressions of cultural differentiation and a botanical antidote to their colonial pasts—as a connection to an indigenous natural environment, much of which was felled by the colonizers (in both cases the British Empire). “Indigenous” afforestation became part of the nation-building project. The Punjab capital of Chandigarh (inaugurated in 1953) is widely known for the plan by Le Corbusier, in which the built and green structure are interwoven as warp and woof. Moreover, the plan included a Grille Arborisation which set a design framework for trees in the city structure. In this light, it is tempting to read the plan of Chandigarh as a hologram: it is an internationalist scheme for the built (which is a conventional look to the plan and is emblematic for the supposedly scientific basis of modernism); it is also a nationalist scheme that reproduces an afforested environment recreated with indigenous species (and based on traditional ecological knowledge). Anyhow, the species selection of primarily flowering trees and their composition was done by Mohinder Singh Randhawa, a local botanist and agronomist. The Chandigarh efforts indeed built on a wider importance of trees in the building of the nation—Tree Planting Week was established in 1947. In 1963, the process of urban renewal in Singapore was initiated by Lee Kuan Yew himself and included a Tree Planting Campaign with the massive reintroduction of tropical trees (not only indigenous species). By 1967, the program evolved to a Garden City mandate and a National Tree Planting Day (1971); over time the city-state has been branded as a Tropical City of Excellence, City in a Garden and most recently as the City in Nature. Masses of trees were and are literally everywhere: in housing estates, parks, along roads and camouflaging highway interchanges and bridges. In both Chandigarh and Singapore, ideal national landscapes were created by trees in the city. In a dialectic iteration between the built and natural environment, trees constructed a synthesis—a living environment that transcends culture–nature divides.
Settling with and within forests has occurred for millennia. Indigenous forest-dwelling communities are part of a larger set of nature-culture worldviews and narratives, all which are deeply intertwined with socio-ecologically-articulated settlement practices. And, throughout the history of urbanism, there has almost always been an interweaving of structures of plantation with urban armatures and tissues. Cities have been embedded in forests and forest tissues complemented urban fabrics.
Returning to China, from 1949 to 1976, new cities were realized (with Soviet assistance) with boulevards of street trees. The now-matured trees have become part of the rich heritage of many Chinese cities. Even in the barrack-like housing estates integrated in the “production units” (danwei), tree planting was a prominent feature. Their landscape plans might a posteriori be considered more important than their urban plans. Nowadays, mature trees are the main neighborhood quality of the remaining estates in cities such as Shanghai. Same, same and not so different can be observed in the urbanism of Seoul, Republic of Korea, well known for the drastic postwar shift made in the 1960s towards the construction of dense apartment buildings. The building of apartment estates has accelerated during the last decades, where monumental 30-year complexes have been replaced by even higher apartment blocks of 50 and more floors. In spite of such a radical typological shift and drastic density increase, what characterizes the modern postwar dwelling environments is the abundant planting schemes with trees, as if it were an unconsciously persisting tradition to combine planning with planting (trees).
Similarly, many other countries in the region have an age-old tradition to plant along roads and streets according to elaborate catalogues of infrastructure profiles. From larger scale developments to smaller allotment projects, the construction of infrastructure goes hand in hand with the planting of trees. While waiting (nowadays often in vain, given the real estate crash) for buildings to fill the allotments, trees already generate a lush living environment in the making (while cracking the sidewalks). Throughout Vietnam, from north to center to south, its cities are powerfully embedded in a majestic tropical environment with street trees often defining the reclaiming—draining, stabilizing, and creating bearable microclimates—of urban land. What applies for cities and towns, is all the more applicable for rural settlements. Settling in the quagmire of the Mekong Delta is primarily equated with the continuous weaving of an incredible lace of elongated “garden strips” (miet vuon) and filaments of various widths along (and only slightly higher than) rivers, creeks, canals and roads. Trees (including fruit trees) stabilize “highland” gardens and literally create the dwelling environment, marking a sharp contrast with seas of paddy fields (and nowadays more and more aquacultural mosaics). Although the Red River Delta might have an older and very different settlement pattern, exchanging the linear filaments for villages sprinkled as islands in the majestic floodplain, it does not make the tissue component of these villages very different from that in the Mekong Delta, with systematic presence of trees. The region hosts an abundant variety of contrasting distinctions between majestic open, seemingly empty plains, plateaus, terraces of rice culture and full (of trees) settlements.
Beyond all doubt, the earth, while being urbanized beyond any scale ever witnessed before in history, desperately and urgently needs more trees and forests, and there is a clear call for massive afforestation. Throughout history, categorical distinctions were developed and deepened between disciplines—agronomy, forestry, urbanism—to only name the three that deal with humankind’s “occupation of the world.” In this triad, forests were conceived as the most “natural,” whereas agriculture and urbanization were conventionally thought of as cultured. These distinctions dramatically widened during the industrial era and deforestation accelerated as the Anthropocene unfolded. The division of labour facilitated economies of scale and hence fuelled the modern economy. Ecology, however, rarely entered the equation, and the earth continues to suffer from a cascade of catastrophic consequences. There are numerous initiatives of course-correction, but it is evident that additional changes in approaches are necessary. Thinking and understanding must be radically altered, and a myriad of changes needs to converge into a real paradigm shift. Anyhow, contemporary transdisciplinary practices, such as forest urbanism, attempt to transcend the artificial distinctions and distant themselves from the artificial nature–culture dichotomy that has been so deeply ingrained in disciplinary practices.
As has become common knowledge, and shifting to pragmatics, urban tree canopies cool urban heat islands and offer pockets of shade, absorb carbon through photosynthesis, produce oxygen, filter air pollutants, and even dampen noise. The root systems of urban trees help regulate stormwater and slow desertification. More generally, when strategically distributed over cities, trees and urban forests can increase urban biodiversity and make place for non-human species. This opens a window of opportunity to merge the two realms of the urban and the forest—both already characterized with their own multiplicities—and to (re-)construct a world in which wellbeing for humans (for which forests and trees are of such importance) can go hand in hand with a “wellbeing of the world.” Surely in Asia, important and often pioneering stepstones have been taken into that direction, such as the Chinese government programs of ecological restoration (1970s), eco-cities (2011), sponge cities (2012), and, as a general agenda, the Socialist ecological civilization (2007).
“Forest urbanism,” formally coined as a term in 2017, goes beyond urban forestry and calls for the radical redefinition of settlement structures in relation to forests. Forest urbanism bridges landscape architecture and urbanism and reimagines land occupation to overcome the tripartite system of forestry, agriculture, and urbanization through new hybrids and occupation forms of multiplicity.
De Meulder, B., & Shannon, K. (2023). Towards an Asian Forest Urbanism. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 11(1), 4?12. doi:10.15302/J-LAF-1-010029
版權(quán)聲明：本文版權(quán)歸原作者所有，請(qǐng)勿以景觀中國(guó)編輯版本轉(zhuǎn)載。如有侵犯您的權(quán)益請(qǐng)及時(shí)聯(lián)系，我們將第一時(shí)間刪除。
投稿郵箱：info@landscape.cn
項(xiàng)目咨詢：18510568018（微信同號(hào)）
北京海淀區(qū)
www.lafrontiers.com
lafrontiers@foxmail.com
地址：北京市海淀區(qū)中關(guān)村北大街100號(hào)（北樓）北京大學(xué)建筑與景觀設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院一層 Email：info@landscape.cn
Copyright ? 2013-2022 景觀中國(guó)（www.36byz.com）版權(quán)所有 京ICP備05068035號(hào)
京公海網(wǎng)安備 110108000058號(hào)
