首頁  /  發(fā)現(xiàn)   /  讀書   /  正文

  • 《景觀設(shè)計學(xué)》2023年第6期

    作 者：
    王志芳（WANG Zhifang），趙警衛(wèi)（ZHAO Jingwei），劉東瑜（LIU Dongyu），鄧淑惠（DENG Shuhui）等
    類 別：
    景觀
    出 版 社：
    高等教育出版社
    出版時間：
    2023-12

適用于國土空間規(guī)劃和景觀設(shè)計行業(yè)的整體主義研究倡議

A Call for Holism Research in the Realm of Territorial Spatial Planning and Landscape Design

（王志芳，《景觀設(shè)計學(xué)》2023年第6期“主編寄語”）


當(dāng)下，在城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃和景觀設(shè)計領(lǐng)域都存在一大困惑與悖論：相關(guān)學(xué)術(shù)研究常常直接走入其他領(lǐng)域，在適應(yīng)其他學(xué)科科研路徑和研究方法的過程中，逐漸失去了與規(guī)劃設(shè)計實踐的聯(lián)系，進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致研究“科學(xué)性”與實踐“相關(guān)性”之間產(chǎn)生矛盾。這其中的根源在于，規(guī)劃設(shè)計實踐的整體決策需求與現(xiàn)代科研的還原主義體系存在根本差異。

還原主義和整體主義一直都是相對的研究復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)的思維模式，然而現(xiàn)代科研的主體是還原主義——相信可以將復(fù)雜世界的整體現(xiàn)象解構(gòu)成不同的部分進(jìn)行描述和理解。而規(guī)劃設(shè)計實踐卻完全不同，它需要從業(yè)者綜合考量多重場地問題、解決思路及其可行性，從而進(jìn)行場地導(dǎo)向的“整體”決策。由此可見，現(xiàn)代研究和規(guī)劃設(shè)計實踐之間形成了溝通不暢和銜接不足的問題。而其解決之道，就是要在實踐行業(yè)的研究中強(qiáng)化整體主義思維，具體可以從以下三個層面開始。

首先，強(qiáng)化實踐經(jīng)驗的規(guī)律提煉。雖然規(guī)劃設(shè)計是典型的實踐行業(yè)，也一直在做整體主義決策，但依然缺乏對相關(guān)實踐過程中經(jīng)驗與教訓(xùn)的提煉與整理。自古以來，中國文化的傳承一直依賴的是經(jīng)驗提煉，其中最具代表性的是中餐。相較于西餐“鹽幾克”的精確性與科學(xué)性，中餐“鹽少許”的經(jīng)驗時至今日依然有效，且成為家庭餐桌獨(dú)特風(fēng)味的基礎(chǔ)。我們應(yīng)該學(xué)習(xí)古人，不斷總結(jié)規(guī)劃設(shè)計實踐經(jīng)驗中的智慧和教訓(xùn)，并與現(xiàn)代科研手法相結(jié)合，將其提煉成與中餐烹飪相似的經(jīng)驗規(guī)律——只有這樣，才能更好地傳承相關(guān)的經(jīng)驗。

其次，強(qiáng)化系統(tǒng)科學(xué)的整體探究。我們應(yīng)該更加關(guān)注復(fù)雜科學(xué)的相關(guān)研究方法與技術(shù)，嘗試從更為系統(tǒng)、整體的視角來研究城鄉(xiāng)關(guān)系；同時在現(xiàn)有研究的基礎(chǔ)上，更關(guān)注于相對整體性的概念，以更好地理解城鄉(xiāng)系統(tǒng)。復(fù)雜科學(xué)的相關(guān)技術(shù)壁壘或許較高，但在未來的研究中，至少可以納入一些較為綜合的概念，比如生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)（探究不同類型的服務(wù)）、權(quán)衡和博弈（探究不同人群或功能之間的關(guān)系）。

再次，強(qiáng)化跨學(xué)科的知識集成。無論是在生態(tài)學(xué)還是人文學(xué)科方向，相關(guān)專業(yè)都已在現(xiàn)代還原主義研究過程中取得了大量成果。我們要學(xué)會集成使用其他學(xué)科現(xiàn)有的知識與成果，并將其轉(zhuǎn)化成能夠指導(dǎo)規(guī)劃設(shè)計實踐的原則與導(dǎo)則。還原主義將整體系統(tǒng)看作不同部分的組合，其中集成性與轉(zhuǎn)譯性研究就是這一組合的核心環(huán)節(jié)。因而，當(dāng)我們在已有研究的基礎(chǔ)上做決策時，集成性知識便成為這一過程的關(guān)鍵。

規(guī)劃設(shè)計實踐是整體性的決策。盡管還原主義研究能解釋局部現(xiàn)象，但只有整體主義研究才能真正輔助國土空間規(guī)劃和景觀設(shè)計實踐。

 

Nowadays, territorial spatial planning and landscape design face a perplexing paradox: research in these practical realms often directly adapts the research methods from other disciplines, gradually losing its connection with planning and design practices. This results in a contradiction between the “scientific nature” of research and its “relevance” to authentic practices. This dilemma stems from the fact that the demands of holistic and integrative decision-making in planning and design practice differ fundamentally from the reductionist framework of modern scientific research.

Reductionism and holism represent two fundamentally divergent epistemological approaches to understanding complex systems. In contemporary scientific inquiry, reductionism is often the predominant paradigm, grounded in the assumption that the intricacies of complex phenomena can be unraveled by dissecting them into their constituent elements. In contrast, the practice of planning and design is inherently holistic, requiring practitioners to respond to multifaceted site problems, develop solutions, evaluate feasibilities, so as to make “holistic” site-oriented decisions. This has led to the disjunction between modern research and the practices of planning and design. The solution to the disjunction lies in highlighting holism research for related practices, focusing on the following three aspects.

First, enhancing the systematic extraction of practical experiences. Although the professional of planning and design is inherently practice-oriented and always makes holistic decision-making, there is still a lack of refining and synthesizing the knowledge and lessons learned from practical processes. Throughout Chinese cultural history, knowledge has been imparted largely through the systematic extraction of experiences, particularly in Chinese cuisine. In contrast to the specific measurement of salt by grams in Western recipe for scientific accuracy, Chinese recipe often use phrases such as “l(fā)ittle salt” to convey the amount needed. This tradition has been passed down through generations, contributing to unique culinary flavors. We should learn from the wisdom of our ancestors and continuously summarize and synthesize lessons from practical experiences in planning and design. Relevant experiences can be better promoted and passed down by refining them into principles similar to those of Chinese cuisine.

Second, strengthening the holistic exploration of system science. We should focus more on related research methods and approaches related to complexity science, to probe into the urban–rural relationships from a more systematic and holistic perspective. While the technological barriers of complexity science may be formidable, future research can at least embrace some relatively comprehensive concepts, including ecosystem services (to explore different types of services), trade-offs and gaming (to explore relationships between different demographics or functions).

Third, promoting the synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge. Relevant disciplines in both ecology and humanities have made substantial achievements in modern reductionist research. It is necessary to assimilate, integrate, and apply existing interdisciplinary knowledge and research outcomes, then transform them into principles and guidelines for planning and design practices. Reductionism views systems as a combination of different parts. Therefore, synthesis and translational research play a pivotal role in assembling reductive results in order to make decisions based upon existing research.

Planning and design practices require holistic decisions. Reductionist research offers insights into specific phenomena, but only holism research can truly support the practices of territorial spatial planning and landscape design.



發(fā)表評論
您好，登錄后才可以評論哦！

熱門評論

相關(guān)圖書