Landscape theory: a missing link between landscape planning and landscape design?

Abstract

Before concentrating on the differences between landscape planning and landscape design it is useful to search for similarities which unite the two sub-disciplines. Where they exist, these similarities should be reflected in the form of a common theoretical base. Conversely, if there is no common theoretical base this divergence will occur naturally and may not be undesirable. The relationship between landscape planning and landscape design is investigated by considering the two alternative propositions: that the landscape profession/discipline is and is not a unified one. In doing this reference is made to possible definitions of the profession and to the overall framework of theory developed by Steinitz. However, landscape design and landscape planning are, at least superficially, very different in nature, dealing not just with different scales of landscape and different types of intervention, but often with different types of client with different motivations and even apparently stressing different methodological approaches. The potential categories of theory applicable to both a unified and a divided landscape profession are considered. Although the development of an all-embracing theoretical basis for the profession/discipline is clearly not something which can be accomplished overnight, if at all, one can begin to try and develop a specification for that theory by describing the sorts of task it should perform. Landscape architecture can be defined as being is concerned with the relationship of man (kind) to his/her environment, dealing particularly with how the environment is perceived, valued and manipulated. Breaking the man (kind) environment relationship down into its component parts provides a useful starting point for the process of specifying theory; it also provides another way of looking a landscape design and landscape planning through which to investigate their differences and similarities.