1 Introduction
In the article entitled
Characteristics of Modern Landscape Architecture and Its Education[1] published twenty years ago, the author pointed out the importance of the dual character of landscape architects, who, in their broad knowledge, must master both explicit and systematic research (scientific) methods and creativity in design, which is otherwise typical of more artistic professions. The author started from the assumption that a true landscape architect is a kind of dual personality: a creative planner and a systematic, analytical artist (designer). The author also wrote that this dual character of landscape architecture—scientific (systematic analytical) and artistic (creative)—must also be reflected in the profile of the graduate, so school programs must be sufficiently broad (interdisciplinary) and flexible. In twenty years, the author still stands by this conclusion, especially because many European Landscape Architecture (LA) study programs have gone through quite a few structural and substantive renovations and through various accreditation processes, also with the aim of recognizing the LA profession as a regulated profession within the European Union (EU). This article tries to briefly shed light on the process of formal regulation of the profession and study programs, in the context of mandatory study areas that must be covered by LA studies.
2 Origins of European Landscape Architecture Schools in Different Academic Environments and a Diversity of Study Programs
The interdisciplinary character of LA is reflected in the variety of existing study programs, individual specializations, and a wide range of individual courses. Even a quick review of the curriculums of LA schools shows the differences in the range of individual courses. The differences are to a large extent conditioned by the faculties where the LA study programs were created. It is interesting how individual sets of spatial problems influenced the formation of study programs, depending on the faculties within which LA studies were established. For example, a focus on the design of open spaces around buildings, design of urban open spaces, emphasis on art, aesthetic issues, etc. often sponsor the formation of LA study programs at faculties of architecture or even within art academies. The design of garden art objects (gardens, parks, and other types of green spaces), with an emphasis on the knowledge and importance of plant materials, often led to the establishment of LA studies at agriculture and horticultural faculties, also at forestry schools with an emphasis on the cultivation and use of plants, gardening, arboriculture, and the like. Since the 1950s, the interest of LA in environmental problems with an emphasis on spatial (landscape) protective planning has led to the establishment of departments and study programs at faculties of natural sciences. Later, the programs began to be coordinated, and a consensus was formed on which core competencies graduates in LA must acquire. However, qualitative heterogeneity of the programs remains, which can also be a problem in certain formal and procedural issues.
Regardless of differences in the origins of LA studies, the profession and study programs relatively quickly began to be organized around two poles: landscape design and landscape planning. There are many definitions of landscape planning and landscape design, which are supplemented and developed throughout the history of the profession. We return to them again and again, they are still a frequent topic of professional conferences
[2]. The wide range of schools that provide a formal framework for the emergence of the study of LA around the world certainly contributes to these definitions, since it is a matter of different understanding of basic professional concepts, let alone fields of study or areas of work of landscape architects. This is influenced by a number of factors, among others also by the tradition of spatial planning in each country and the legal regulation of planning
[3].
Landscape design, a part of LA that historically originated from garden art, eventually went beyond the design of private gardens. Centuries ago the design of gardens and parks followed the client's requirements, even the whims of royal clients. With the appearance of the first public urban parks, landscape design focused on the design of urban open spaces in general, especially public open spaces. The design of public green areas with diverse groups of end-users of the space and the technological development of cities required complex approaches and detailed knowledge of the structure and functioning of cities. In addition to established aspects of garden design, landscape architects had to deal with the demographic and sociological characteristics of users of public urban open spaces. At the same time, they also had to master a design of complex infrastructure systems (e.g., traffic, energy, communal) to a certain extent, both functionally and technically. There are still relatively narrowly focused design and horticultural study programs available to students, which offer enough knowledge for a more "traditional" approach to landscape design. However, in the period after the Second World War, landscape design went far beyond horticultural frameworks, to which many studies around the world, not only in Europe, adapted. If we add to this awareness of environmental problems and, in the 21st century, key questions about sustainable development and design to reduce climate problems, modern landscape design includes methods and knowledge typical of landscape planning and requires the mastery of many specific skills from sciences related to LA and work in interdisciplinary teams.
Complex environmental problems thus contributed to the creation of courses, modules, and independent master programs in landscape planning from the 1960s onwards. One part of the study programs that train for work in the field of landscape planning was developed at "planning schools" with well-established planning approaches typical of broader spatial and regional planning and with a strong emphasis on geography, planning methods, demography, spatial policies, etc. The second part of the programs was formed as a more specialized study of landscape planning within already established schools of LA or as completely independent programs.
It should be pointed out that the aforementioned diversification of study programs was also encouraged by the organization of a five-year study of LA according to the three-year undergraduate program and two-year master program (so-called "3 + 2" organization of studies). This division of studies, which has been carried out in the USA and some countries in Western Europe for decades, has supported the accreditation of various, even very specific, master studies within schools of LA. Many historic European universities, which had homogenous five- or fouryear undergraduate programs and otherwise updated them on the fly, experienced major changes in the last 25 years with the Bologna Process in the EU, which, in addition to ensuring the comparability of standards and the quality of higher education qualifications, also influenced the restructuring of the study vertically. A result was that most of European countries switching to the "3 + 2" organization of studies. In this place, the author would not analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the introduced structural changes, but briefly reflect on what happened to the study of LA in this process. The mentioned structural changes formally enabled having bachelor studies and developing specialized master programs even under different, narrower oriented title. Namely, in accordance with the Bologna Process, the schools of LA have to fulfill two requirements: one is that the graduates of the first degree are employable and that it is possible to transfer between master programs, and the other is to enable the enrollment of other first-degree graduates to LA master programs under certain conditions. This further increased the interdisciplinarity of masters in LA, who can, after their previous first-level education, hold, for example, a diploma in Biology, Forestry, Agronomy, Geography or Urban Planning (all examples at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia). In many European countries with the old rigid university education, this leap in mentality and acceptance of the diversity of pre-education was a welcome change.
Let us return to the renewed and newly created, some very specific master studies, which no longer even use the title of "Master of Landscape Architecture" for their graduates. In my opinion, three groups of study programs in LA can be identified.
1) More "general" LA study programs, which are aware of the interdisciplinary nature of the profession and the breadth of necessary knowledge, and try to equip students with a broad knowledge of the landscape. They can still formally divide subjects into more design and planning courses, but they combine methods in solving spatial problems and blur the boundaries between planning and design. Graduates still boast the title of "Master of Landscape Architecture."
2) Study programs that are recognizable more for "design" or "planning" and can move away from complex LA landscape in their specialization. Master's degrees can still be called "Landscape Architecture, " but there are also other professional titles obtained from these studies (e.g., Master of Landscape Planning).
And 3) new study programs that could hardly be described as "Landscape Architecture." Some still retain this title for the profession, but most graduates are named according to the narrower specialization obtained during their studies.
The much larger number of narrowly specialized study programs is one of the first differences compared with the situation the author described in the article twenty years ago. Namely, the development of the profession and new study programs within schools of LA increase interdisciplinarity and create new specializations, including new academic titles. The creation of new master programs should not be seen as a weakness, as it means the maturity of the profession. These, however, can at some point become so extensive and demanding that they require their own independent study. It is important that the competencies of the graduates of these study programs are clearly defined and that the relevant institutions respond to them. Everything depends on the organization and involvement of the profession by professional associations in individual countries (according to which the acquired competencies will be sufficient to practice the profession of LA).
3 Efforts of the European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools to Unify Study Programs in LA
The mentioned three types of programs can be found among the members of the European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools (ECLAS). ECLAS is an association of schools based on the voluntary membership of institutions and individuals, and since its founding in 1991 it has followed the philosophy of strengthening the profession of LA by including also "marginal" studies in its organization. Membership was certainly welcome for the emerging programs and helped to establish LA as a profession in many European countries. ECLAS enabled the development and additional education of colleagues from countries where the profession was not yet well positioned or even established and the study of LA had not yet been formed.
The implementation of LE: NOTRE projects such as the LE: NOTRE thematic network in 2002 and then the continuation into the LE: NOTRE Plus, LE: NOTRE TWO, LE: NOTRE Mundus, LE: NOTRE TWO+, and Le: NOTRE Ⅲ projects enabled the realization of the ECLAS set objectives: "giving Landscape Architecture a clear European identity and a voice in European policy making; positioning Landscape Architecture as a strong and active partner in relationships with neighboring disciplines and providing legitimacy for conducting exchanges with practice-based stakeholder organizations"
[4].
In 2006, ECLAS also launched its academic journal—Journal of Landscape Architecture, which, in addition to broad landscape architectural topics, deals with various aspects of pedagogical work in the field of LA and, together with the annual ECLAS conferences, and offers a broad platform for the exchange of pedagogical experiences.
The focal point of ECLAS efforts was the so-called "Tuning Project." "In the framework of the Tuning Project, a methodology has been designed to understand curricula and to make them comparable. " Also, five lines of approach have been distinguished to organize the discussion in areas of 1) generic competencies of transferable skills, 2) subject-specific competencies, 3) the role of ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) as an accumulation system, 4) approaches to learning, teaching, and assessment, and 5) the role of quality enhancement in the educational process.
[5]The Tuning Project was also a reaction to the transformation of European study programs in accordance with the Bologna Process, which sought to unify all university European study programs into five-year programs, with a clear division into undergraduate and postgraduate programs. The most frequently used approach, also at ECLAS schools, was to reorganize the study of LA according to the already mentioned "3+2" formula. The Tuning Project assumed that the first cycle program must contain "all core competencies in the field of landscape architecture, while a 2nd cycle program may be more specialized... [with] focus on developing research skills or professional development"
[5]. Reorganization of study programs within the EU, including compliance with the aforementioned recommendation, but above all the development of the profession and the need for new skills, all together led to the formation of completely independent study programs, which, however, move away from LA, at least in name, partly also in terms of content. Some individual specializations were expected, and their naming is also understandable. Such are, for example, master in Landscape Management, Landscape Development, even master program in Landscape and Well-being
[6]. It is important to point out that these are programs at universities where there are otherwise high-quality and established studies in LA, and these master's degrees actually represent a specialization within our profession.
In countries and universities with strongly positioned LA, narrow specializations are not problematic. The author personally sees a bigger problem in those countries where LA as an independent study is not sufficiently strong and widespread and is too tied to the study of Architecture, for example, which is also reflected in the names of the programs: Master in Architecture and Creative Practices for the City and Landscape, Master in Land Landscape Heritage, and Master in Garden Design. The problem is that these programs are a kind of "substitute" for a complex and high-quality study of LA.
It is interesting to note that too much dependence on the "host school" still occurs even in completely new study programs. In this context, the author's attention was drawn to the Master of Science in Synthetic Landscapes, an American program at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (Los Angeles). A decision was brought within the School of Architecture to establish a new study of LA, which they named with this rather unusual name. It is a oneyear, three-semester program focused on advancing knowledge and developing expertise in the emerging topics of LA. It is difficult to judge the quality of the program because the author is limited by the information available on the school's official website. Their starting point of the program reads interestingly: "In contrast to traditional landscape design programs that focus on the stewardship of nature and traditional western cultural values associated with picturesque or sublime images of nature, this program emphasizes a global perspective where the coevolution of natural and artificial systems is shaping an ever more synthetic world." On the other hand, their presentation of the curriculum is quite ordinary (traditional) for LA: "… the curriculum will incorporate the development of skills and technical knowledge integral to a landscape architecture practice today. Traditional fields of knowledge such as botany, horticulture, soil engineering, and land use policy will be studied in conjunction with new areas of expertise such as geographic information systems, data analysis, and advanced representational technologies"
[7]. In their presentation film, individual problems of the modern world are highlighted, from climate change to specific landscape problems, which they want to solve through the newly created program. Of course, each school has its own development strategy, and consideration of the need for a "new" study that would educate graduates to solve such problems. It is interesting, however, that these are problems that we deal with on a daily basis in established studies of LA, at least for the last fifty years. The vocabulary used today by all of us who are connected in one way or another with spatial planning in the broadest sense of the word includes terms such as: sustainability, sustainable development, global warming, climate changes, ecological awareness and concern, green design, green architecture, green infrastructure, New European Bauhaus, and the like
[8]. Obviously, new and even marginal programs are better established in terms of public relations and know how to market themselves better. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly present LA, underscore the competencies of landscape architects, highlight examples of good practice, and ultimately even participate in the political activities, both through the political programs of parties and within civil initiatives, to clearly present what our profession has to offer.
If the author returns to the review of study programs and the assessment of the quality of a whole range of diverse studies that want to be LA, one must check their curricula and the content of individual course (syllabus). Still, the only real mirror of the graduates' profile is the review of student works and their achievements. Therefore, presentations of student projects are welcome in traditional "year books, " individual reports, overview exhibitions, or via the websites of studies
[9]. From the description of the problems, work methods, and graphic presentations of individual project phases, and above all from the results (final maps, models, and descriptions of the solutions), we can fairly well judge the basic orientation of the program as well as its quality.
4 Recognition of Professional Qualifications for Landscape Architects in Europe
The heterogeneity of study programs can be an advantage, especially if we understand it from the perspective of interdisciplinarity (switching between programs) and mobility (fulfilling part of the study obligations abroad). Then why the need for greater unification of programs, and which was also the purpose of the aforementioned Tuning Project? The answer to these is simple: more unified programs become important criteria in formal procedures, especially in international accreditation of the study of LA, and in procedures for the recognition of previously acquired education either for continuing studies at another university or for the needs of pursuing a profession in another country. Most often this happens in three cases: 1) in the accreditation process of LA studies in individual country; 2) in the process of obtaining any of the international accreditations; and 3) in procedures for professional recognition (at least inside Europe).
National accreditations of LA studies are in principle not a problem. The procedures are subject to national legislation in the field of higher education and formal requirements as determined by the relevant ministries or national agencies in the chosen country. Naturally, the definition of the profession, the definition of the field of work, and the requirements for competences that future graduates of LA must acquire come to the fore. Nowadays, it is difficult to put together a study program without starting from the experience of similar programs abroad. In the accreditation process of the "Bologna study" of LA in Slovenia, for example, the national agency required a comparison with three similar foreign programs. In doing so, the alignment of the reformed program with the already mentioned Tuning Project which played a constructive and positive role, was also highlighted. It offered the reference to the already agreed common starting points of the study, as defined by ECLAS, and brought the expected results—easier and faster accreditation of the study program.
Obtaining international accreditation should not be problematic either. Anyone who wants to obtain any of international accreditations simply has to fulfill the prescribed requirements set by the chosen institution whose accreditation he/she wants. For example, the International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) offers accreditation to LA degree programs that must meet very clear requirements. Schools must submit a rather complex package of required documents. Among other things, the knowledge and skills of the graduates must be clearly described, a list of individual subjects (courses) must be provided, and the number of ECTS must also be determined for each one. In this case, the accreditation at the IFLA organization of the BSc and MSc LA programs of Ljubljana University is also taken as an example. Since the beginning of the studies fifty years ago, Ljubljana University tried to form the program in a similar way as it was arranged at the best European schools, and followed the ECLAS Tuning Project
[10] to renovate the programs in accordance with the Bologna document. In this process, the author was surprised by a fact that only 14 European countries have so far obtained IFLA accreditation for their 20 programs
[11]. The number is surprisingly low, especially if we know that there are 25 EU members and a total of 73 schools in them, which have 132 BSc and MSc programs in LA
[12]. If we add to this 13 schools from the United Kingdom and three Swiss schools, together with their 36 programs, we get over 160 study programs, of which only 20 are accredited by IFLA. The reason for such a low number of IFLA-accredited European programs is not a possible failure to meet the requirements for accreditation, but the simple fact that many countries in which landscape architecture is a recognized and valued profession (e.g., Great Britain, most Scandinavian countries) do not see any need for additional international accreditations.
The unification of study programs and the determination of the common competencies of graduates become crucial in the efforts of ECLAS and IFLA for the recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive (PQD) for landscape architects in Europe in the last five or six years. The final goal of the regulation of the profession is that the study programs would be equalized to the extent that graduates could transfer between countries without the additional verification of their competences to practise the profession. This does not mean that certain requirements depending on the regulation of the profession in the individual country, for example, obtaining a design license would be eliminated, but the overall process should be much simpler and faster.
For this, a concept of the Common Training Framework (CTF) for LA is needed in order to set standards for professional qualification
[12] [13]. In fact, it all started with the activities of IFLA thirty years ago and then ECLAS joined in efforts in 2010
[14]~[17]. In more recent times, it is worth highlighting the EULAND21 project
[18], which determined how LA study programs should be designed to achieve common criteria for recognition of the profession five years ago. It is important here that three specializations/fields of work of landscape architects have been recognized: "To be recognized as a component of professional recognition, landscape architecture programs delivered by university-level institutions must teach competence in the core area of the discipline, which is landscape planning, design and management"
[18].
The aim of recognition process can also be presented by referring to specific objectives of the InnoLAND Project, a project that was further conceived to support the process with appropriate documents, considerations, and proposals. Specific objectives of the InnoLAND project were: "implementing Professional Qualifications Directive requirements to foster automatic recognition of LA profession in Europe; establishing pan-European quality standards for LA study programs and homogenizing LA education in Europe; developing an exemplary master study program framework in line with the European Common Training Framework"
[12].
The core of the CTF for LA follows the logic that was implemented by the Bologna Process, which clearly introduced the use of professional language in terms of presenting required knowledge through defining competencies and skills. When it gets to competencies, the same three groups of competencies (as in Bologna Process) are described: core competencies, subject specific competencies, and generic competencies (more specifically transformative, instrumental, interpersonal, and systemic competencies). The last version of the CTF for LA proposed by the partners of InnoLAND was sent for verification to the LA European schools on October 28, 2022. In the chapter Fields of knowledge, understanding and skills it specified the following:
"Landscape architecture projects, programs and strategies need to be both feasible and sustainable. They should grow out of and fit into their social, environmental, economic and cultural context, with the participation of all relevant actors. For this, landscape architecture study programmes must result in acquiring competencies in landscape planning, landscape design and construction, landscape management as established by the guidance documents of the European landscape architecture organisations for higher education and professional practice:
a. Landscape Planning for developing plans, strategies, scenarios, and visions for sustainable urban and rural landscapes;
b. Landscape Design for the creation of sustainable, functional, meaningful landscapes of an outstanding design quality;
c. Landscape Management for developing ecologicalbased tactical, strategical, and operational landscape management plans."[19] The document further defines individual competencies that should be included in the study program of LA (BSc + MSc). However, the idea behind EU accreditation or recognition of profession is to keep the requirements as simple as possible—only 12 main fields written on one page. Such broadly defined conditions should enable the inclusion of a wide range of schools of LA. This would continue the tradition of broad (and numerous) membership of various interdisciplinary programs to be included in ECLAS. The author's personal opinion, though, is that the requirements for automatic recognition of the profession are thereby too generalized, although must admit that the mentioned wide range of knowledge covers both the field of landscape planning and design. There is a problem in the procedures that will follow in individual countries, where detailed decisions will be made. However, with a constructive and positive understanding of the list, the result should be successful.
The required level of knowledge is in accordance with level 7 of the European Qualification Framework—the level of master's degrees. The IFLA Europe recognition standards now define a training of at least four years. In some countries, a diploma course or bachelor level can give admission to the register of the National Association or the Chamber. Since the CTF does not overrule national regulations and landscape architects need to be on the same level of competence as other disciplines (e.g., architects), a master level is essential and does not compromise the national context. Here we can have a problem with those masters in LA who hold BSc degree in other discipline and have completed only a twoyear master's degree with a one-year transition or preparation year (in total: three years of LA training only). Are their acquired competencies sufficient? One argument in support of these graduates is, that masters with different BSc degrees will further increase the interdisciplinary nature of LA. A second argument is, the relevance of acquired knowledge, or competencies of those masters of LA with less than five years' education, who want to practice the profession of landscape architects will be regulated by the chamber system through professional exams and obtained authorizations (licenses). Nevertheless, the author thinks that landscape architects with a five-year degree in LA still have a bit more knowledge and experience in the profession at least when we talk about young graduates with no practical experience yet. For that reason, it is crucial, that after successful graduation of a master an additional professional traineeship under supervision of a qualified landscape architect is required. The organisation and recognition process of this traineeship must be defined by the competent national bodies.
It is interesting that the CTF document does not provide specializations, although this article pointed out many of them. The authors of the document make an explanation: "There are no specialisations for LA programmes defined in the CTF. Some argue for mentioning landscape planning and landscape design. As long as landscape architecture programmes meet the standards of the CTF, programmes can have different focuses in the content or HEIs [higher education institutions] can have courses with different specialisations. There might be confusion if two specialisations are mentioned because this would call for a specification of the standards and competencies for each specialisation"
[13].
The whole idea of regulation is quite broad. The structure and length of LA programs is not included in the CTF. Given the diversity of the programs, the author still thinks that a requirement in the number of ECTS (per year and in total) would be welcome. The acquisition of missing or additional competencies will be left to the candidates (students). It works in study systems that are largely implemented with many elective courses, and above all with a flexible schedule of courses (as, for example, at most universities in the USA). However, that in the relatively rigid European universities, taking additional courses will be tied to fairly rigid schedules and the organization of the school calendar, which can prolong studies. This may discourage candidates from taking the necessary additional courses. Further advice on the content of programs, conversion masters, and the acknowledgment of previously acquired competencies can be included in the ECLAS guidance.
In case of required practical work, the author agrees with the idea that the issue of mandatory practice should remain in the domain of national regulators. In small countries (such as Slovenia), there are relatively few suitable LA bureaus where students could do practice as part of their regular study obligations. Therefore, it is better to leave the requirement to complete a two-year internship for the time after graduation and before taking the professional exam.
5 The Complexity of the Study Problems, the Transition Between Scales, and the Ongoing Formation of the Planning Process in the Design Studio
Given the described awareness of the interdisciplinarity of LA and individual specializations, how do we then approach the teaching of individual subjects, especially design studios in our daily practice? This is a common thread of almost all annual ECLAS conferences. Of all the conferences in the rich thirty-year history of the ECLAS organization, the author would like to point out two recent ones: the 2019 ECLAS conference in Norway and the 2022 conference in Slovenia.
The Norwegian conference presented to the professional public many contributions from
The Routledge Handbook of Teaching Landscape[20], which is entirely devoted to the pedagogical approaches to teaching LA, from basic courses to design studios. In the handbook, the design studio is highlighted, which according to ECLAS recommendations is the most suitable form of imparting knowledge and should comprise at least half of the curricula (contact hours). It is about establishing project work in studios and daily interaction between teachers and students. With the development of digital tools and the large amount of high-quality spatial data available, the relationship between the individual phases of the planning process is already changing. Carl Steinitz said that in the future, working with computers will be very easy, with a huge amount of available data, so we have to teach students methods, since the initial inventory phase is almost no longer necessary (as quality spatial data is available) and the analytical phase is accelerated by computer modeling. In his opinion, the classic one-semester studio will thus turn into a one-month studio, because much of the introductory work will be done in time
[21]. A development in digital spatial data collections and increasingly powerful GIS packages undoubtedly make the work easier, but at the same time, can also be problematic. Namely, the speed and ease of accessing the available data, in the author's experience, to a certain extent, puts students to sleep and too often they do not learn and remember important information about the space or can even misinterpret the space. Therefore, the teacher must ensure "that students are able to connect all relevant information, that they learn how to evaluate the mass of data available to them and choose suitably. Students need to understand that the new media are an aid to the designer but are not necessarily an advantage for a quality solution, and that too-rapid use of digital presentations may be too superficial, to the detriment of substantive solutions to spatial problems"
[22].
Digitization blurs the transitions and the boundaries between scales, which must be used as an advantage in the planning process. Former dependence on specific scale is no longer important. The computer is "scaleless." Students must take into account two starting points. The first is that there is no scale, or it is determined by a clear definition of the problem and the selection of the method by which the problem will be solved. Only substantive questions and dilemmas, in accordance with the availability of spatial data during the planning process, define a concrete scale. The second point is that, if necessary, we transfer (switch) across different scales, all in the service of a high-quality final solution.
Spatial problems are so complex that many established methods and practices are no longer useful. Landscape architects must organize and conduct strategic stages of designing for long-term changes within complex systems, which is especially important in the study process. The author has participated in a design studio in which students focused on small-scale or large area planning projects, and then continued on larger-scale, small area design based on previous planning decisions. Spatial scenarios were designed for selected time windows with differing levels of response to a set of identified driving forces such as climate and demographic changes. The scenarios explored the spatial consequences of giving different priorities to environmental, societal, and economic goals. This exercise exposed various conflicts and different strategies of achieving global and local goals and offered a unique perspective to optimize spatial scenarios. The comparison of evaluations allowed the students to directly compare the effectiveness of different strategies/goal definitions in space and time.
The scenario development and evaluation serve as a reference and provide argumentation for planning proposals. In this process, students identify the key spatial decisions that need to be made and process them at the local level with more detailed criteria at selected locations, which is otherwise a common approach in spatial planning and design studios. Students are aware of the whole complexity of the problem and choose more thoughtful solutions. By that, students learn how strategic decisions can alter the detailed physical reality of the landscape, or in other words how to deal with complex problems, by understanding rather than "just" learning to respond to the driving forces and produce flexible proposals (instead of "fixed" solutions) to these problems
[23].
In practice and in the pedagogical process, we encounter a set of broad spatial problems. At the BSc level, the problems in the studio can still be tied to the specific type of open space and students in the first year studio, for example, start with a garden next to a single-family house, continue with a children's playground, a cemetery, a small city park, etc. Later (in MSc design studios), we can no longer follow "traditional" types of open space, for which there are several reasons. One reason is that there are simply too many types of spaces or landscapes or there are no longer types at all. The problems are also so complex that we often have to "invent types of space" on the fly, combine very different uses, and take into account very different specific criteria for solutions. For example, you are designing a public park for half a million citizens, but you have to take into account a specific habitat, plant or animal species, spaces for socializing, a children's playground, as well as an educational ecological path. In doing so, you jump between regional scale (e.g., ecological processes, green infrastructure) and local scale.
Another reason is that there is simply not enough time within a school year to systematically process all different types of landscapes. Therefore, the right approach is the one via which the students themselves have to choose a basic topic (interest), define a problem, and try to solve it at a given location. It is the phase of searching and defining the problem that opens up opportunities for asking the right questions, which is often more important than offering the right solutions. Here we find ourselves faced with a dilemma: are teachers still able, given the amount and complexity of the problems, to guide students to appropriate solutions? Or are we really more focused on asking the right questions? On the Slovenian conference, Steinitz said that the pedagogical approach according to which "we are training more than we are educating" is wrong. Teachers must be aware that they "must know a lot about a little and a little about a lot!" And as he added, "strategy across disciplines is more important than detail in one of them if the problem is complicated"
[21]. Therefore, it is crucial, that the ideal teacher of a design studio is "a knowledgeable and theoretically well-versed landscape designer who, in addition to design itself, also masters the teaching of theoretical aspects, is a skilled art critic and who knows how to recognize the potential of an individual student"
[22].
It is about defining the problem in an interdisciplinary spirit, so that we can then solve it with our knowledge and expertise. This supports the diversity of MSc programs and combined degrees in terms of content, as MSc students who do not have a landscape architectural background are often better in the end because they come to study being more mature and knowledgeable in other skills than BSc-educated landscape architects. If this process continues (also in Europe), the first level of LA studies will be sufficient for "landscape architectural operatives"—designers of green spaces (gardens, parks, cemeteries), while masters will be more capable in solving more complex global problems, because of achieved knowledge at other programs in addition to LA. This can also be achieved through the aforementioned professional requirements in the chamber system. Similar to the case of physicians, who must first do an internship and then specialize (in practice) in the chosen field after completing their studies. Even landscape architects, just like the whole set of other professionals, will have to think about continuing education and acquiring competences in practice, so that we can make up for those subjects that interest us or are necessary for specific work, but we did not acquire them through the regular study.
6 Instead of a Conclusion
As already pointed out in the article, we are constantly faced with various definitions of the profession, its specialist branches, teaching methods, the organization of the design studio, and the like. We are constantly supplementing, adjusting, and improving our thinking, professional definitions, as well as formal legal definitions. At schools, we must react to all of this and decide which content (knowledge) we include in study programs. We pedagogues are committed to continuous and ongoing updating of curricula and syllabuses. We must respond to problems, invite experts to the studio, behave in an interdisciplinary manner, and introduce new contents and courses. It is practically impossible to predict what specific spatial problems will be acute in 30 or even 50 years from now, so it is not easy to create a curriculum. However, the profession is aware of this and sees the diversity of study programs as an added value to LA. Technical knowledge and craft skills can be acquired in practice, but at the faculties we must teach students to recognize and understand problems and to be creative in the broadest sense of the word. Armed with this knowledge, they will be able to participate in interdisciplinary groups and will ask the right questions in the future.
Competing interests The author declares that he has no competing interests.
PDF
(1032KB)
