设计行动主义——一项风景园林教育领域的行动倡议

著：（美）侯志仁 译：李妍

我们正处于一个极具变化性和不确定性的时代。全球近几十年以来极端气候现象不断发生[1]。有历史记录以来，最热的10个年份中有8个出现在过去10年[2]。预计到2023年，全球将有7亿人会因严重的水资源匮乏而流离失所[3]。海平面上升、冰帽及永冻层融化、栖息地缩减及物种灭绝等危机，对地球和人类社会带来的影响也仅仅只是一个开始。

新冠肺炎（COVID-19）疫情的全球大流行，造成了大量的民众死亡及经济损失，而其中低收入人群的死亡率远远高于富裕阶层。这让我们清楚看到，人类社会中一直存在着由阶级不平等及贫富差异所带来的不公平性现象。面对全球气候变化灾害，这些贫困的人群同样是最脆弱的群体。以“提升、尊重并修复作为维生系统的风景园林”以及保护客户和公众的利益为使命①，风景园林师有责任面对环境、社会及政治变化所带来的各种挑战。

近几年来，许多学生和设计课程的获奖作品，显示出新时代风景园林专业的院系及学生对于亟待解决的社会及环境问题的关注，并能够做出积极回应。美国风景园林基金会（Landscape Architecture Foundation, LAF）在其发表的《新景观宣言》中，也重点强调了社会与生态的公平性、韧性及民主性等议题，同时也体现了设计专业对于推动社会及环境改善议题的关注和热情[4]（图1）。最近，在宾夕法尼亚州大学麦哈格中心举办的一次研讨会中，反映了风景园林专业在美国国会与民间倡议中的“绿色新政”（Green New Deal）中对于韧性和公平性的积极响应。

1 2016年在宾夕法尼亚大学举行的风景园林与未来峰会上，美国风景园林基金会研拟《新景观宣言》The 2016 LAF Summit on Landscape Architecture and the Future held at the University of Pennsylvania produced the New Landscape Declaration

然而，鉴于日益增长的兴趣和愿望，当前的风景园林设计教育模式是否为学生提供了必要的技能和知识，以应对平等、公正和气候韧性等紧迫问题？我们如何让学生不仅成为有能力的专业人士，还成为积极主动的从业者，在社会和政治上参与产生变革性成果？我们如何从教育开始改变这个专业和社会？

1 美国风景园林基金会的创新与领导力研究奖金

2019年，笔者有幸成为LAF杰出研究基金项目的资深研究员②。在项目支持下，笔者探索了“为社会变革而设计”定义下的设计行动主义，并将其作为一种推动风景园林教育发展的理念。这一研究也是对LAF《新景观宣言》中，呼吁风景园林师成为“活跃的设计师，参与政治、经济、政策制定、社区服务等领域”这一内容的积极响应[4]。

本研究主要探索了社会实践与设计教育之间的关系，并尝试从先进教育工作者、学生以及专业人士的各个角度出发，发掘其中的不同观点及其面对的挑战与机遇。本次研究采取了3种方法进行调研：1）在美国一系列研讨会中举办工作坊，进行意见汇总③；2）对先进教育工作者及风景园林专业人员进行访谈④；3）以LAF的订阅邮件为渠道，向学校及相关教育培养项目主管发送问卷。

笔者还邀请了来自美国各地的同行加入，组成了一个工作小组（图2）⑤。该小组针对相关技能、挑战、机遇及现行教育模式进行研讨，最后形成了一份完整的文件，其内容包含行动纲领及一系列主要的风景园林教育议题。该文件作为参考指南附在网站链接中，方便对于此议题感兴趣的人获取更多实际案例及相关资源⑥。

2 在2019美国风景园林教育委员会会议中举办的一次讨论工作坊A workshop session at the 2019 conference of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture served as one of the venues for the discussion

2 设计行动主义

行动主义长期以来一直与组织、执行倡导及改变现状的对抗性行动联系在一起，历史上这些行动对社会和政治的进步发挥了重要作用。20世纪60年代，民权运动成功推翻了美国种族歧视及种族隔离的合法性。20世纪60—70年代，美国对于环保运动关注的不断提升，催生了一系列里程碑式的立法，如《清洁水体法案》及《清洁空气法案》等。这些法律措施对当下的环境质量把控和保护起到了至关重要的作用。“设计行动主义”将设计与积极进取的行动主义相结合，设计成为行动的一种载体。“设计行动主义”或“行动主义中的设计”不再将设计作为一种技术型的实践，而是认识到设计作为一种推动社会及环境进步工具的潜力和作用。

风景园林作为一项专业学科，诞生于19世纪重塑城市环境运动中。由此可见，设计行动主义的理念根植于风景园林设计的基因之中。风景园林专业在其诞生之初，就致力于为人类提供改善人居环境的方法和方案。因此不难理解，风景园林设计实践就是一种推动社会变革的行动主义实践。面对当下迫在眉睫的环境和社会问题，对于风景园林专业而言，是时候用行动主义的视角反思及审视自己的专业使命和价值了，也是时候重新审视专业学位教育培养项目背后的教学大纲及专业培养方案了（图3）。

3 美国城市公园运动创造了大量公园，改善了人居环境（图为纽约中央公园）The Urban Parks Movement in the United States led to the creation of large urban parks that improved the living conditions of cities (Central Park in New York)

作为一名专业的从业人员，我们应该关注是否已经采取了充分的行动以面对这个时代的重大难题？除了处理常规的专业事务，我们还需采取哪些具体行动面对这些复杂的挑战，我们是否已经培养本科生及研究生掌握了相应的知识与技能？他们还需要哪些工具，做好哪些准备，才能成为推动社会进步的领导者？鉴于此，现在正是重新认识设计专业的最佳时机，我们应该更全面地理解行动主义，打破认为行动主义是关于政治分裂的偏见和局限。由此，我们必须意识到设计是为保护地球上不同社区的安全和福祉而带来重要改变的力量。设计行动主义并不是简单地对于我们现有工作内容和意义的重新包装，而是一种作为风景园林师必须要掌握并实践的方法。

2017年，由宾夕法尼亚大学麦哈格中心主办的一次线上圆桌会议，是迄今为止关于设计行动主义最中肯且最富有见地的研讨之一⑦。在这次会议上，来自加州大学洛杉矶分校规划专业的Kian Goh教授提出，设计行动主义一方面挑战了权力结构，另一方面延伸了设计作为“应对社会和生态危机的实践途径”的职能。艺术家兼设计师Kordae Henry将设计行动主义视为一种生存方式：“在进行有害且持续分化的设计之外，我们有权选择为被边缘化的群体创造改善、连接并合理分配资源与权力的空间。”在设计教育方面，规划学者Barbara Brown Wilson指出：“并不是所有学校都会教授设计师在设计行动主义方面所需要的技能，如文化胜任性（cultural competency）、和平谈判、深入倾听及实践相关领域（如生态、经济等）的知识，以及如何将个人想法实现转化为集体协作成果的诉求。”

Randolph T. Hester[5]在加州大学伯克利分校环境学院期刊Frameworks创刊号中发表的一篇核心文章，是关于设计行动主义最早的文献之一。该文章根据设计态度（design postures）将设计师由浅到深分为5类，从“具有空间感天赋但无视文脉”的天真设计师（blissfully naive），到“社会进步实践”的推动者（catalysts）。Hester提出“推动者不仅仅将设计看作为一种标志及实用主义的产物，更将其视作是推动上层建筑进步的催化剂”[5]10，他认为所有的设计都是一种设计行动主义[5]8-9，“任何的设计实践工作，都是将权力与权威具体化的政治实践”。

1999年Place Journal出版的一辑期刊，重新回顾了共同参与式设计实践。Mark Francis为设计师提出一种更积极的设计实践方法：“通过研究和分析形成具有长期主义的项目与愿景，突出方案中关于改善环境质量和社会价值方面的设计和实施方法……，并将其作为一种优势运用在风险承担、商务谈判及企业创业中。”[6]这是设计领域的社会活动家、积极推动社会进步的设计师的核心理念。Kate Orff在其著作《走向城市生态学》[7]12一书中提出，我们应对气候变化带来的不同规模的影响进行预测并做出相应的实践：“扩大我们的工作范畴从而推动更大的行为性改变。”同时Orff也指出，上述具有更广泛影响力的设计实践，通常并不来自某个客户的诉求，或者项目开发中常见的任务书–设计委托模式（RFQ）[7]。

在此次LAF研究基金项目的成果文件中，研究团队以“设计作为一种社会进步的载体”作为“设计行动主义”的定义，并将其运用在工作中。在这项研究中，社会进步这一概念除了涵盖环境以及生态设计的维度，同时也强调，对于改善及保护生态环境（包含人居环境）的社会性行为而言，社会的进步（包含政治的进步）是根本所在。此外，研究认为社会进步，应体现其如何从为少数人服务的特权系统发展为服务于每个个体的公平公正的系统。因此本研究将弱势群体以及资源配置不公群体的参与度作为衡量社会进步的重要组成部分。

3 行动纲领

为了更好地促进设计行动主义在风景园林教育中的发展，基于研究中发现的机遇与挑战，研究团队提出了以下行动纲领。

鉴于不同的学校在地域性、文脉及组成结构上有着不同的侧重点，而风景园林课程的规模、组织结构和特色也各有不同。因此，该提议并不是一个对于风景园林教育专业通用的方案，不同教育培养项目及院系可重新评估各自的使命和目标，并与各自的学生、院系成员和相关的设计从业群体一起制定出适合自身的策略和行动。推动系统性的变革需要耐心、策略以及多层次的动员工作。不论是自上而下，或自下而上，还是具有针对性的或者层层部署的推动，相关的地方、区域、国家乃至更大的范围都将发生改变，这些变化需要专业院系、学生、管理者及设计从业者持续不断地努力、创造与创新。

这份行动纲要虽然是针对教育领域的建议，但风景园林的教育与实践之间有着密切的联系。简而言之，这份针对风景园林教育的纲要并不仅仅局限于教育领域，同样可以将其转化应用于更多的相关领域。

3.1“政治化”

当今社会和地球面对的难题通常体现在权力的使用与斗争上，因此从本质来说是政治化的。为了更有效地应对这些挑战，风景园林专业需要更多地参与到政治层面中，特别是当不同力量在公共事务领域中博弈的时候。因此，需要更了解政治运作的系统与沟通方式，通过增加自身的能力从而更好地参与到重要的决策过程中，为推动社会进步发挥更大的作用。政治化，不同于我们所熟悉的概念，在这里并不意味着要介入政党政治对抗，而是代表着专业人员承担起作为民主社会公民相应的责任。若想成为民主社会有影响力的参与者，必须要掌握与公众沟通、发动公众参与，以及发起公众倡议的技巧。

政治化说明了人居环境是伴随社会、经济及政治发展的产物。社会运动的系统与历史，例如压迫及殖民化进程，塑造了今天的专业实践工作、专业教学素材以及学校教授的内容。《为真实世界而设计》一书已出版将近40年，作为设计师兼教育家，Victor Papanek在书中写到，“设计专业院校主要问题是他们过度关注设计教学，而忽视了生态、社会、经济以及政治环境这些让设计生成的领域”[8]21。尽管以上的论述主要针对20世纪80年代的工业设计领域，但这个观点同样适用于今天的风景园林专业，让设计融入我们生活中的“真实世界”还有很长的路要走。

3.2 混杂化

当今的风景园林教育专业需要超越专业传统的核心知识范畴，重新构建与当下社会和环境问题的复杂性和宏大的尺度相匹配的专业知识和能力。高等教育机构有着丰富的专业设置，涉及艺术、环境科学、民族研究、地理学、性别研究、健康、人性化设计、法律、规划、社会工作等，这是高等教育的优势之一。如果可以主动发起并构建跨学科的联系，在研究、教学及实践方面创造丰富的合作机会，科研机构、学生、从业人员及公众将受益更多。

跨学科的合作也可以更好地凸显高等教育的重要性，例如跨学科的合作可以让我们学习其他领域学者的课题生成、拓展及应用的方法，学习其他领域如何测试概念并验证结果，学习其他领域如何参与公众领域并推进议题。通过这些方式互动，我们可以更好地发现本专业的优势和局限，并找到推动自身专业发展的方法。除了从其他专业学习更多的方法，在跨专业领域的融合过程中，我们也同样可以更好地让其他人了解风景园林专业以及风景园林专业可以为社会创造些什么（图4）。

4 Claverito花园技术与健康项目是风景园林和全球健康研究人员合作的成果，旨在解决秘鲁伊基托斯一个非正式社区的健康挑战The Claverito Garden Technology and Health Project was the outcome of collaboration between researchers in landscape architecture and global health to address health challenges in an informal community in Iquitos, Peru

有多种方式可以实现跨专业融合。在风景园林与城市规划合并的科系中，风景园林专业学生已经有更多的课程选择，而规划专业学生一般也对社会议题较为敏感，能对风景园林专业学生产生影响。在研究生培养阶段，学生可以加入跨学科联合项目来发挥自身特色，甚至有可能获得多专业学位。在本科生培养阶段，可以鼓励学生去辅修其他专业，拓展与其他专业的联系，同时需要尽可能地减少跨学科融合发展的障碍，例如晋升及终身职位的评价标准及机制等。

在发展专业教育培养项目方面，也需要融合不同专业背景的学生和教职工。我们需要走出去，让曾经被风景园林专业忽略的科研机构、学校、学生及社会群体更多地了解我们。只有将不同文化、社会经济背景的人纳入风景园林专业，人们才真正开始有能力理解并发现社会中的公平性、多样性及包容性问题。

3.3 全球在地化

当下社会和环境所遇到的问题，与景观和生态系统一样，都与尺度和地点内在关联。为了有效地应对这些相互关联的挑战，须从本土化与全球化2个维度来思考问题并采取行动。从本土化思维来说，教育培养项目除了要与当地设计从业群体建立联系，还应与当地利益相关者建立关系，包括社区、公共机构及民间组织等。这些联系有助于开发实践类课程，帮助学生和学院拓展工作关系并深入了解当地社区面临的问题和挑战。这些经历可以让学生和科研机构意识到地球与全球人类社会面临的问题如何体现在我们生活和工作的社区和周遭上，以及应采取怎样的行动面对这些问题，特别是那些弱势群体所在社区。

本地工作的开展与全球化发展并不矛盾。事实上，同时开展与本地及国际社区的合作，将更有利于打开风景园林专业学生及研究机构的视野，从而更好地探索国际与本地问题的内在关系，培养学生成为世界公民和领导者。全球社区人口多样性日趋丰富，科研机构也需要更加关注其多样性、公平性及兼容性等问题。培养思考本地问题与全球视野下问题之间的内在关联的思维方式，并探索如何将其体现在课程设置和教学实践中，有助于培养新一代的风景园林设计师探索本土文化与跨文化问题的能力。

3.4 灵活适应

在科研经费不稳定或有所缩减的情况下（特别是受COVID-19的影响），美国乃至其他地区的大部分风景园林专业的发展在短期内呈现放缓的趋势。目前，推动设计行动主义成为设计教育的一部分的最有效方法应是充分利用现有资源，例如将设计行动主义纳入课程设置中，目前课程繁重、资源不足等现象已经普遍存在，因此将设计行动主义与专业设计课程相结合可以避免加重教学系统的负荷并降低成本。以具体设计任务为基础的设计课程，往往在教学计划中占比时间最长，更适合与设计行动主义教学相结合。同样地，与设计行动主义相关的内容也适合添加至一些已有课程的相关教学内容中。

除了课程设置外，设计行动主义还可以与已有的系列讲座相结合，作为当下新主题或者重要议题的补充内容。除了推动其在学生和科研机构的影响力之外，设计行动主义还可以以工作坊或者设计专项研讨会的方式出现在年度或双年的会议和活动中，让设计从业人员和社会大众也可以参与其中。同时还应充分挖掘已有的暑期项目，利用好假期的空间和时间资源。灵活适应，或者发掘已有的条件，也意味着充分利用现有项目或社群的优势及资源，例如大学与其他机构的合作项目，可以与之建立伙伴关系的、以社群为基础的社会组织，以及需要使用大学的资源和技术支持的市政机构。

3.5 问题化

基于现有资源及优势的灵活适应，只需要对现行培养项目、课程、大学及周边城市或社区的资源进行盘点即可。没有比向身边的人强调公平性、平等性和韧性这些议题更易行的方式。从课程设置上，是否可以从社会公平性的视角重新审视风景园林专业的历史？相对于一般文献中的叙事，是否可以从少数群体的视角去回顾那些经典的专业著述，包括原住民以及那些因为重大风景园林项目而流离失所的边缘人群？又或者我们是否可以站在社区中那些弱势群体的角度，例如以那些缺乏新鲜食物以及舒适自然环境的人们的角度思考？我们是否可以关注大学校园如何体现可持续性和韧性议题？

明确设想与现有系统之间存在的问题，将有助于加深对问题的理解，采用批判性的立场，这也是行动主义的核心驱动力之一。在我们身边就充斥大量的问题，是否可以将它们问题化并采取行动解决问题。而这些行动也为设计行动主义更好地融入课程系统提供了良好的机会。除了解决身边的问题外，将社会和地球所面对的挑战问题化，也是促成一个全面且创新的解决方案的重要一步。

3.6 真实化

通过项目实践来学习和理解设计行动主义是最好的教育方法。真实的感受不仅来自与社区成员的会面与合作，也包括在集会中发言、参与或加入社区生活等诸多方面，沉浸在这些活动之中，可以慢慢激发目标感、同理心及理解力等感知。相较于通过向学生进行说教或简单的内容陈述的方式让其自行消化理解，以体验式教学方式，创造机会让学生主动探索发现知识往往更有效。创造实践和体验的学习机会是设计行动主义教育的重要组成部分（图5）。

5 华盛顿大学风景园林专业本科生与西雅图唐人街国际区的高中生合作，为该地区夜市创作装置作品Undergraduate landscape architecture student at the University of Washington worked with high school students from Seattle’s Chinatown International District in creating interpretative installments for the district’s night market

真实化或为学生创造真实的体验，让学生与真实环境下的人们互动并参与到实际问题解决过程中。现实环境是学生了解复杂问题、挑战和机会及解决方案的最佳场所。因此在风景园林教育中，与以实践技能为主的设计课、实地授课的课堂或其他创新机制相结合，推动体验式教学模式。打造真实且长远的合作关系需要持续投入时间和精力。只有先促成这一类型的合作并落地，而后才能真正保证其教学模式及内容的真实性。

3.7 创业化

除了设计工作外，为了增加学生在商业和非营利体系工作的机会和成功率，风景园林教育除了培养学生的专业技能，还需要培养其创业技能。即使在公共领域，了解资金支持和资金管理也可以提升项目的效率和成功率。可以继续发挥高等教育拥有跨学科资源的优势，包括针对商业、创业关系及非营利机构的管理及基金申请写作等方面的专业支持。设计专业可以与提供相关课程的学校或工作坊的组织单位建立合作关系，甚至可发展成未来的合作伙伴。

拓展学生有关创业的相关技能可以让毕业生选择更多的从业领域，而疏于培养这些技能已经被认为是设计行动主义发展的障碍之一。增强创业技能同样可以帮助设计师在传统设计领域上开发新的商业模式、创造新的收益流，从而提高收入。对于设计公司来说，拥有更大的财务自由往往会促进其在项目设计时追求创造更好的社会影响力，并为环境发展做出贡献。创业技能同样可以增强公共资源及资产管理的创新性，让管理者更好地利用这些资源帮助当地贫困社区更好地发展。

3.8 （再）组织

我们必须通过不同类型的实践来扩大风景园林与其他专业的合作范围，以应对当今世界性尺度宏大且问题复杂的重大挑战。面对社会和全球环境变化的重大议题，风景园林师不能仅关注本行业。相对于许多关心气候变迁及环境正义的团体，风景园林专业的声音微弱，从业者人数也相对较少的。以美国环境运动（American Environmental Movement）为例，这是一个由百万成员组成的庞大且复杂的运动，不同的民众团体关注并广泛参与环境问题：从野生动植物保护到有毒垃圾及排放物问题，多样的专业组织并以此为相关人员提供大量的工作岗位。

与其另立门户，不如通过与这些运动组织合作，找到自己专业的关键接口（intersection）。通过向现有的组织机构学习他们的成功经验，而不是从零开始积累新的知识和技能。 除了学习并参与其他运动组织的工作，这些接口还可以帮助我们找到盟友并建立合作关系，提升风景园林的能力。除了培养本专业的学生外，我们同样可以与其他组织机构合作开发实践或实习项目，增加自身的组织力和号召力。通过合作，我们可以更好地在其他领域发挥专业能力和影响力，让更多的人认识风景园林师这个职业。

与其他行业开展合作仅仅是一个开始，我们还需要批判性地反思设计专业及教育单位的组织架构方式。现在的专业和教育组织系统是否已经可以很好地服务于大型且复杂的挑战？我们还可做出哪些改变？我们是否可以效仿其他学科及运动的成功经验？我们的影响力应该在哪里得到最好的发挥？我们的实践方式里存在哪些不足与缺失？这些都是风景园林专业在前进发展中必须面对的问题。

3.9 民主化

面对社会的权力结构，首先我们也需要重新审视自己所在教育机构的权力结构，包含决策机制、资源分配机制、责任机制以及财务结构。为了让风景园林专业教育更好地应对这个时代的重大挑战，应该与学生、教职工及从业者团体共同制定战略，以保证战略的准确性和落地性，否则可能导致过程中信息传播的不准确、缺乏支持以至难以可持续发展。

在与校外机构、群体合作过程中，应保证所有的声音与意见都被听到，避免助长或制造一个不公平的结构。除了提供设计的专业支持，也需要提升社区参与公众事务的能力。在开发项目解决方案的工作中，需要确保方案的公平性与多样性，并拥有从地方到全球不同维度的考虑。鉴于风景园林教育院校、科研机构对于培养下一代风景园林师的责任，必须保持本专业的教学理念价值观与发展方向相一致。

4 在实践中学习

在培养学生如何成为领袖之前，我们自己要先成为领导者。作为科研机构、培养项目负责人以及专业人士，我们需要参与到社区及社会相关的事务中来。作为专业人士和积极参与的公民，我们必须对可以做出贡献的问题表明立场。我们将社会和全球所面对的重要问题作为素材，应用在面向学生和大众的教育中。主动面对问题可以更好地意识到问题的复杂性和突破专业上常规解决方法的需求，通过积极的反思，探索更好的应对和解决方法（图6）。

6 西雅图街边水槽项目是由建筑系和风景园林系合作创造的解决方案，以帮助COVID-19疫情期间的无家者The Seattle Street Sink project involved faculty members in architecture and landscape architecture to create mutual aid solutions to address the challenge facing the unhoused during the COVID-19 pandemic

作为关注当地社区及社会问题的教育项目，我们可以与社区组织者、管理人员、行政单位及相关专业人士展开合作并发展成为伙伴关系。通过这些联系，为学生提供实践学习的机会，培养他们的同理心、沟通、谈判能力及实践开发能力。这些工作让我们更好地成长与发展，也将更有能力带领学生参与应对复杂的挑战。因此，这些实践同样有助于我们确认专业及教育培养的发展趋势。让我们通过行动、发声成为学生的榜样，创建一个支持实践的良好环境。

5 想象与开创

风景园林专业中有哪些与行动主义相关的知识与技能？活跃于公民运动的西雅图前市长候选人Cary Moon回应道“对不存在事物的想象能力”。设想及构建是风景园林专业探索及解决项目问题的核心技能之一，风景园林项目或者问题的尺度可能是一个场地、一个社区、一段河流流域或者是一个景观系统，未知问题的想象和发现能力对于这项工作至关重要。我们需要将这个技巧和思维方式应用于教育和专业实践中。这个能力同样有助于为解决大尺度和十分复杂的人类社会与自然环境问题找到突破常规的、全新的方式方法。

回溯100多年前，风景园林专业成立并发展壮大，我们创造了不存在于那个时代的事物。在整个20世纪，风景园林专业伴随着持续的创造和创新不断发展，其中包括创建新型公园和开放空间、新的规划和设计方法，对于人居环境及生态环境发展新的理解等，这些创造离不开行业内外的合作和贡献。为了不断创造新生事物，必须检视过去的失败和错误，包括造成的混乱与不公；还需要突破社会、政治和经济的界限，形成协同的工作模式。

当今社会和环境面临着一系列新的挑战和机遇，号召着风景园林专业再次创造一些尚未存在的事物。我们有责任响应这个号召，笔者邀请风景园林专业从业者参考这个“设计即行动”研究报告（http://designactivism.be.uw.edu/framework/）的信息，然后发展出属于各自的行动纲领。

致谢：首先要感谢LAF的创新与领导力研究奖金支持这项研究工作。感谢创新与领导力基金项目负责人Lucinda Sanders和Laura Solano、第3期的研究员，受邀为这个项目提供批评意见的专家、LAF的工作人员，他们对这项研究给予了很多的建议和支持。这项研究也离不开项目组成员、通过会议接受我们访谈的人士。最后还要感谢参加笔者主持的华盛顿大学设计行动主义研讨会的同学们，他们对该项目的成型和素材积累方面贡献良多。

注释：

① 美国风景园林师协会（ASLA）职业道德准则（https://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/About__Join/Leadership/Leadership_Handbook/Ethics/ASLA_CODE_PRO%202017-02.pdf）。

② 引自https://www.lafoundation.org/what-we-do/leadership/laf-fellowship/laf-fellows。

③ 工作坊分别开展于：2019年在美国加州萨克拉门托市举办的风景园林教育委员会会议（CELA），及分别在2019年（纽约州布鲁克林市）、2020年（亚利桑那州坦佩市）举行的美国环境设计研究协会（EDRA）年会。

④ 访谈了10个项目负责人，分别是（按姓氏排序）：Mark Boyer（路易斯安那州立大学），Meg Calkins（北卡罗来纳州立大学），Katya Crawford（新墨西哥大学），Samuel Dennis（威斯康星麦迪逊大学），Ron Henderson（伊利诺伊理工大学），Alison Hirsch（南加州大学），Denise Hoffman Brandt（纽约城市大学），Joern Langhorst（科罗拉多大学丹佛分校），Stephanie Rolley（堪萨斯州立大学）和Robert Ryan（马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校）以及6个社会活动家、实践者：Leann Andrews（Traction组织），Billy Fleming（麦克哈格中心），Brice Maryman（MIG公司），Cary Moon和Chelina Odbert（Kounkuey设计倡议）。

⑤ 研究团队成员包括：Kofi Boone（北卡罗来纳州立大学），Mallika Bose（宾夕法尼亚州立大学），Chingwen Cheng（亚利桑那州立大学），David de la Peña（加州大学戴维斯分校），Joern Langhorst（科罗拉多大学丹佛分校），Laura Lawson（罗格斯大学），Michael Rios（加州大学戴维斯分校），Deni Ruggeri（挪威生命科学大学）和Julie Stevens（爱荷华州立大学）。

⑥ 研究报告链接：https://designactivism.be.uw.edu。

⑦ 引自https://mcharg.upenn.edu/conversations/what-doesit-mean-engage-activism-through-design-engage-designthrough-activism。

图片来源：

图1～3、5～6由作者提供，图4来自IUCI/Tractions。

(编辑/刘昱霏)

Design Activism: A Call to Action for Landscape Architecture Education

Author: (USA) Jeffrey Hou Translator: LI Yan

We are living in a time of extraordinary change and uncertainty. Around the world, extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades[1]. Out of the ten hottest years recorded in history, eight occurred in the last decade[2]. By 2030, it has been estimated that 700 million people worldwide will be displaced by intense water scarcity[3]. The impact of sea-level rise, melting of ice caps and permafrost, loss of habitat and species extinction are just the initial signs of looming crises facing the planet and the society.

Beyond the death toll and economic disruptions, the COVID-19 Pandemic has also highlighted the persistent inequalities in our society with those in the lower socioeconomic ladder suffering higher death rates than the affluent class.Furthermore, the poorest populations of the world are also expected to be the most vulnerable under global climate calamities. In our role as landscape architects with the mission to “enhance,respect, and restore the life-sustaining integrity of the landscape” and to protect the interests of clients and the public①, we have a responsibility to take on the environmental, social, and political challenges before us.

Already, there is growing interest among a new generation of students and faculty in socially engaged design responses to the urgent social and environmental challenges as evident in recent award-winning student projects and studio work.theNew Landscape Declarationput forward by the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF),with a focus on social and ecological justice,resilience, and democracy is also indicative of this growing interest and aspiration[4](Fig. 1).The recent discussion led by the McHarg Center at the University of Pennsylvania on the role of our profession in the Green New Deal suggests a proactive response to address issues of resilience and justice.

Given the growing interest and aspirations,however, is the current model of landscape architecture education providing students with the necessary skills and knowledge to confront the urgent issues of equity, justice, and climate resilience? How can we prepare students to become not only competent professionals but also proactive practitioners who are socially and politically engaged to produce transformative outcomes?How can we transform the profession and society starting with education?

1 LAF Fellowship for Innovation and Leadership

In 2019, I was fortunate to be selected as a senior fellow of the Landscape Architecture Foundation’s distinguished fellowship program②.This fellowship allowed me to explore design activism, here defined as design for social change, as a concept for transforming landscape architecture education. The investigation was a direct response to theNew Landscape Declarationthat calls on landscape architects to be “active designers, engaging in politics, policy, finance,community service, and more.”[4]

Through workshops at a series of conferences in the United States③, interviews with educational leaders and practitioners④, and a questionnaire that was distributed to schools and programs and through the Landscape Architecture Foundation e-newsletter, the study sought to identify the challenges, opportunities, and perspectives from leading educators, students, program administrators,and practitioners on the relationships between activist practices and design education.

I also invited a group of colleagues around the United States to join me as members of a working group and collaborate on the series of conference gatherings (Fig. 2)⑤. Following a discussion of skill sets, challenges, opportunities,and existing models, a document was developed that included a framework for actions and a list of propositions for landscape architecture education.This document is accompanied by a website that serves as a resource guide for those interested in learning more about existing cases and resources⑥.

2 Design Activism

Activism as a concept has long been associated with advocacy and agonistic actions to produce change. Those actions, including organizing and protests, have played an important role historically in making social and political advancements in our society. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in ending legalized racial discrimination and segregation in the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s, the growing environmental movement in the United States led to landmark legislation such as theClean Water Actand theClean Air Actthat are critical to the quality and protection of our environment today. By linking design to activism,“design activism” considers design as a vehicle for actions. Rather than viewing design as a technical exercise, “design activism” or “design as activism”recognizes the potential and capacity of design as a tool for social and environmental progress.

As a profession founded in a movement to remake the urban environment in the 19th Century, design activism is arguably in the DNA of landscape architecture. Since the very beginning,the practice of landscape architecture has long been an exercise of activism, as evident in its attempt to improve the livelihood of people through ideas and methods that transform the built environment. In the face of the urgency of environmental and social challenges at the present moment, it is time for the profession to reflect on the mission and modalities of its practice through the lens of activism. It is also time for the accredited professional degree programs to re-examine their curriculum and pedagogy in the face of current challenges (Fig. 3).

Let us ask ourselves: Are we doing enough as a profession to address the critical challenges of our time? What specific actions are needed beyond business as usual? Are we providing our students and graduates with the skills and knowledge needed to address the complex challenges? What tools and preparation are needed for them to become leaders of movements and progress? In light of the current challenges, there is no better time for us to reconnect with the premise of our profession.It is time for us to see beyond the limited and even biased notion of activism as divisive politics.Instead, we must recognize the power of design to bring about critical changes to protect the safety and welfare of diverse living communities on the planet. We must see design activism not simply as a rebranding of our work, but as a way to be true to what we do as landscape architects.

An online roundtable hosted by the McHarg Center of the University of Pennsylvania in 2017 provided one of the most insightful and pertinent discussions on design activism to date⑦. Kian Goh, a roundtable participant and a planning faculty at UCLA, reminds us that design activism is design that challenges power structures and expands “the agency of practice in the face of social and ecological exigencies.” Artist and designer Kordae Henry sees design activism as a form of survival, “We hold the power to choose between design that harms and continues to divide us or design that creates spaces that will uplift,connect, and distribute power to those who have been marginalized.” on design education, planning scholar Barbara Brown Wilson notes, “activism often requires skills not all designers are taught in school, such as cultural competency, peace negotiation, community organizing, knowledge of other fields (e.g. ecology or economics), deep listening, and a desire to de-center one’s individual ideas toward a collaborative outcome.”

One of the earliest published references on design activism appeared in the inaugural issue ofFrameworks, a publication of the College of Environmental Design at the University of California, Berkeley. In a leading article from the volume, Randolph T. Hester[5]makes an important distinction between five types ofdesign postures,ranging from the blissfully naive – those who are“spatially talented and contextually ignorant,” tocatalysts– “agents of change.” He wrote, “Catalysts see design not only as a symbolic and utilitarian end but also a stimulus to bring about political transformation”[5]10. For Hester[5]8-9, all design is design activism, “Every design action is a political act that concretizes power and authority.”

In a 1999 issue ofPlaces Journalthat revisits the practice of participatory design, Mark Francis proposes a proactive approach to professional practice, one in which professionals “use skills in risk-taking, negotiation and entrepreneurial enterprise, base their thoughts and actions on social and environmental values, employ advocacy as part of their approach […] employ sound research and analysis, and are involved long-term […] to realize a vision”[6]. What Francis has proposed is essentially the work of design activists or activist designers. In her bookToward an Urban Ecology, Kate Orff[7]12notes that climate change requires us to imagine a different scale of action, “to scale up our work to effect larger behavioral modifications.” She further notes that this type of action is not usually commissioned by a specific client or through an Request for Qualification (RFQ) process[7].

In the document that was produced through the LAF Fellowship, we usedesign as a vehicle for social changeas a working definition ofdesign activism. By social change, we don’t mean to exclude the environmental or ecological dimensions of design. Rather, we argue that social (including political) change is fundamental to how society approaches and safeguards the environment,including living systems. Furthermore, we see the engagement of the vulnerable and underserved as an important part of the social change, from a system the privileges the few to one that strives for justice and equity.

3 A Framework of Actions

To embrace and position design as activism in landscape architecture education, we propose the following framework of actions based on the challenges and opportunities identified in our research.

As educational programs in landscape architecture vary in their focus, size, and organization, and as they respond often to different contexts and constituents, the proposals here are not meant to be one-size-fits-all. Instead, we ask each program and school to reassess its mission and goals and develop appropriate strategies and actions together with students, faculty,and the professional community. Undertaking systemic changes requires patience, strategies, and mobilization at multiple levels. We envision these changes to occur locally, regionally, nationally, and transnationally, starting from the bottom, top, and sideways, through both acupunctural pressures as well as layered approaches. The change we envision requires creativity, innovation, and sustained efforts by faculty, students, administrators, and professional allies.

While the framework and suggested actions are specific to education, we envision that a strong intersection between education and profession is also essential. In other words, while the focus of this study is on landscape architecture education,we do not see the actions as limited to the context of educational institutions only. Rather, we see the need for a broader transformation to occur through such intersections.

3.1 “Politicize”

The social and environmental challenges facing our society and the planet today are in essence political, in the sense that they reflect exercises of power and struggles. To be effective in meeting these challenges, landscape architects need to be engaged with the political – the process in which different forces and struggles converge in the public realm. We must understand better the language and systems of power. We need to have the ability and capacity to engage in the political process to effect change. To politicize is not to align necessarily with partisan interests and viewpoints. It’s not “politicizing” as conventionally or commonly understood. Rather, to politicize is to accept the responsibility of professionals as engaged citizens and as members of a democracy.To be effective participants in a democracy,we must acquire the skills in communicating,mobilizing, and advocating for the public (demos).

To politicize is also to understand that the built environment has always been an ongoing product of social, economic, and political processes. The work that we do as professionals and the materials that we teach and learn in school are shaped by the systems and the history of social movements as well as oppression and colonialization. In the book,Design for the Real World, published almost four decades ago,designer and educator Victor Papanek[8]21argues,“The main trouble with design schools seems to be that they teach too much design and not enough about the ecological, social, economic, and political environment in which design takes place.”Although Papanek was addressing more specifically the field of industrial design, the same criticism could be applied to landscape architecture, not just in the 1980s, but also today. There is much work to be done to engage with the “real world” we live in.

3.2 Hybridize

The scale and complexity of the social and environmental challenges today require landscape architecture to build knowledge and capacity beyond the traditional core of the profession.One of the advantages of higher education is that we reside in institutions with other areas of expertise, including arts, environmental sciences,ethnic studies, geography, gender studies, health,human-centered design, law, planning, social work,etc. There are abundant opportunities to explore collaboration in research, teaching, and service that can mutually benefit students, faculty, the professional community, and the public if we are willing to invest in building the connections and taking the initiatives.

By connecting and working with other disciplines, there are also opportunities to reflect critically on how we operate as a field. For instance,we can learn from the methods that the other fields use to generate, disseminate, and apply knowledge.We can also observe how they test ideas and verify results. We can draw from the way they engage the public and advance their agenda. Through these interactions, we can learn about our strengths and limitations and find ways to advance our profession. Conversely, by hybridizing, we can also make others aware of landscape architecture and what we can bring to the table. Rather than taking on the challenges on our own, hybridizing allows us to join forces with others (Fig. 4).

There are different ways in which hybridization can occur. In programs that are housed together with planning programs, for instance, students already can benefit from the availability of courses and the company of cohorts often with a strong social justice focus and sensibility. At the graduate level, students can develop specializations,participate in joint projects, or even pursue concurrent degrees. At the undergraduate level, we can encourage students to pursue minors in other fields to broaden their relationships with other units, steps must also be taken to reduce barriers including tenure and promotion criteria and process.

At the program level and as a profession,we must also hybridize our ranks by recruiting more diverse students and faculty into education.We must reach out to schools, communities, and students that are historically underrepresented in our profession. Only by bringing those from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds into the profession can we begin to have the capability of understanding and addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion in society.

3.3 Glocalize

Just like landscapes and ecosystems, today’s social and environmental challenges are also interconnected across scales and locations. To be effective in meeting these interconnected challenges,we must think and act both locally and globally.Starting with the local, educational programs can build connections with local stakeholders,including communities, public agencies, and civic organizations, not to mention the local professional community. These connections are important for developing a service-learning curriculum and providing students and faculty with opportunities to develop working relationships and gain insights into the issues and challenges facing the local communities. These insights allow students and faculty to understand how issues facing the planet and the global society are manifested locally and how we can begin to undertake actions in communities and places where we live and work,particularly the vulnerable communities.

Developing local ties needs not be done at the expense of global connections. In fact, by working both locally and globally with partners and communities abroad, landscape architecture programs can explore the interconnectivity of global and local issues, broaden the horizon for students and faculty, and prepare students to become global leaders and citizens. As demographic compositions diversify in communities across the globe, institutions are increasingly required to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.Cultivating the local and global connections and exploring curricular and pedagogical opportunities can also help build the cultural and intercultural capacity for the next generation of landscape architects.

3.4 Improvise

With fiscal uncertainty or declining financial support (and more recently with the impact of COVID-19), most landscape architecture programs in the United States and perhaps elsewhere are likely not in a position to grow rapidly. As such,the most effective way to move forward with the agenda of integrating design activism into design education is to make use of what already exists. For instance, studios present an excellent opportunity to integrate design activism into a curriculum. Given the common problems of crowded curriculum and systems that are already overstretched, using a design studio to introduce and embed design activism can be done with the least cost and disruption to a curriculum.The project-based approach and the significant time assigned to design studios also make it an appropriate venue. Similarly, content related to design activism can also be layered or inserted into existing courses whenever it’s appropriate.

Aside from the coursework, a program can also build on an existing lecture series to introduce new themes and substance focusing on critical issues of our time. It can offer workshops/charrettes on an annual or biennial basis providing opportunities to engage not just students and faculty but also the professional community and members of the public. Summer programs provide yet another opportunity to utilize existing resources, in this case, the availability of space and time during the summer. Improvising, or working with what you have, also means utilizing strengths and assets that are already in place in a program or a community. These may include existing community-university partnership programs on campus, community-based organizations that one can develop partnerships with, and city agencies that can use resources and support from university programs.

3.5 Problematize

To improvise with existing resources and strengths, one doesn’t need to go far than to look at an existing program, curriculum, university, and the nearby city or communities. There is arguably no better way to address issues of equity, justice, and resilience than to look at what’s immediately around us. Starting with the courses, what if we take a social justice lens to re-examine the history of our profession? Rather than following the typical narrative in the literature, what if we revisit it from the perspectives of the subaltern groups, including the indigenous communities and marginalized groups whose lands were expropriated to make ways for some of the most iconic works of our profession? What if we take on the disparities that exist already in our communities, such as access to fresh food and green spaces? What if we look at how university campuses are addressing issues of sustainability and resilience?

To problematize our assumptions and existing systems is also to develop a deeper understanding of issues and take a critical stance that is in essence the source of activism. There is an abundance of issues that we can take on at our doorsteps if we can problematize them and make them the focus of actions. These actions are in turn provide the opportunities through which design activism can be introduced and integrated into the curriculum.Starting in one’s programs, institutions, and communities also presents opportunities to be engaged and to connect theories and concepts to realities. Beyond one’s immediate surroundings,problematizing the societal institutions and challenges facing the planet is also a critical step toward developing holistic and innovative solutions.One must develop appropriate solutions by first asking the right questions.

3.6 Authenticize

Design activism is best learned and understood in actions. An authentic experience including, but not limited to, meeting and working together with community members, tabling or speaking in a rally, and staying or living in a community, can go a long way in instilling a sense of purpose, empathy, and understanding by being immersed. Rather than indoctrinating students or simply delivering content and expecting the students to accept and digest on their own, it’s often more powerful to provide opportunities for self-discoveries through experiential learning.Providing opportunities for actions and experiences is thus a critical component of design activism education (Fig. 5).

Authenticize, or creating an authentic experience for students, involves working with people in the actual context with real issues. The reality is the best material for students to learn about the complexity of issues and challenges as well as the opportunities and pathways for solutions. Creating opportunities for experiential learning, therefore, needs to be integrated into landscape architecture education, either through service-learning studios and field classrooms or other innovative mechanisms. Long-term investment of time and commitment is needed to ensure an authentic and long-lasting relationship for collaboration. The collaboration can only be as authentic as the relationships that enable the collaboration to occur in the first place.

3.7 Entrepreneurize

For alternative practices to be viable and successful in the market economy or the competitive nonprofit ecosystem, landscape architecture education needs to provide students not only with technical knowledge but also entrepreneurial skills.Even in the public sector, understanding funding and fund management is critical to program effectiveness and success. Again, one advantage of higher education institutions is their proximity and access to a variety of resources and expertise,including programs that support businesses,entrepreneurship, nonprofit management, and grant writing. Programs can develop partnerships with their counterparts on campuses that offer appropriate courses and workshops and can become partners in potential initiatives.

Having the additional skills in entrepreneurship can open the door for graduates to pursue alternative forms of practice, the lack of which has been identified as a barrier to design activism.Stronger entrepreneurial skills can also help existing practices to become more successful financially by developing new business models and revenue streams. With greater financial resilience, firms will have more ability to pursue projects and initiatives with greater social impacts and environmental contributions. The entrepreneurial skills can also potentially translate into a stronger and more creative way of governing public assets and resources and for the profession to become more capable of supporting the revitalization of local communities that struggle in today’s economy.

3.8 (Re)organize

To take on the scale and complexity of the critical challenges today, we must “scale up” our practice by collaborating with other professions,by pursuing different models of practice, and through different ways of organizing. Landscape architects are far from being alone in addressing the critical changes facing society and the planet.To say the least, our capacity is modest compared to the number of people and organizations that are already mobilized to fight the systems that produce climate change and social and environmental injustice. Take the American Environmental Movement as an example, it is a movement with a collective membership of millions of people, a sophisticated web of organizations, and providing job opportunities for many professional organizers and staff, engaged in a wide variety of issues ranging from wildlife conservation to toxic waste.

Rather than re-inventing the wheel, we can collaborate with these movement organizations and find critical intersections of our work. Instead of producing new skills and knowledge from scratch,we can learn from these organizations and the work they have done successfully already. Beyond learning from and participating in the work that other movement organizations are doing, pursuing these intersections also means finding allies and building coalitions and capacity for the profession.Rather than training the students on our own,we can collaborate with others in developing practicum and internship programs to build skills and knowledge in organizing and advocacy. By joining coalitions of movements and organizations,we can better identify opportunities for the field to contribute and assert our presence and influence.By working with others, we also make the work of landscape architects more visible to a broader audience.

Working with others is certainly a way to begin. But at some point, we also need to reflect critically on the way our profession and educational programs are organized. Are the profession and the education system organized in a way that addresses the scale and complexity of the challenges at hand? What are the alternatives? Can we emulate the success of other movements and disciplines?Where can we have the largest impact? What is missing from our practice model? These are some of the questions that we need to address as a profession as we move forward.

3.9 Democratize

To take on the power structure in society, we must also reexamine the power structure within our educational institutions. This includes how decisions are made, how resources are allocated,whom we are accountable to, and even how educational institutions are funded. Starting with developing strategies to make our programs more responsive to the critical challenges of our time,we must make sure that students, faculty, and even the professional community are fully engaged in the process of deliberation and implementation.Without their input and support, the strategies would risk being misinformed or lacking the support to sustain.

In partnering with communities outside the university, we must also ensure that all voices are included in the process and that we do not end up sustaining the structure of injustice through our work. More than just design assistance, our involvement must help build capacity in the community we work with. In developing solutions for projects, we must ensure that they address equity, diversity, and inclusion at different scales,from local to global. As a profession and as educational institutions responsible for training future generations of professionals, we must hold ourselves to the same set of values and principles that our work is intended to embody.

4 Leading by Doing

To show students how to be leaders, we need to be leaders ourselves. We, as faculty, program leaders, and professionals need to be engaged with issues that matter to our communities and society. We must take a stance on issues that we can contribute to as professionals and as engaged citizens. We must look at the critical challenges facing the planet and society as teachable moments for our students and the public. By taking on these issues ourselves, we also become more aware of their complexity and the necessity to go beyond the normative approaches enshrined in the profession.We become reflexive and educated about possible responses and solutions (Fig. 6).

As programs and courses take on issues that matter to local communities and society,opportunities can arise for collaboration and partnerships with those including community organizers, agency staff, elected officials, and professionals. These interactions also provide teachable opportunities for empathy, negotiation,and co-creation. As we become better at these processes ourselves, we will be more able to engage our students in navigating the complexity of change. Furthermore, we will become more capable of identifying future directions for the profession,including education. By getting our hands dirty, so to speak, we set an example for our students and create a supportive environment for engagement.

5 Imagine and Invent What Has Yet to Exist

Asked about what specific skills and knowledge in landscape architecture are relevant to activism, Seattle activist and former Mayoral candidate Cary Moon responded: “being asked to imagine what does not exist.” Imagining and inventing what does not yet exist is indeed one of the most powerful skills we have as a profession as we address issues and challenges in a site, a neighborhood, a watershed, or a network of landscapes. We must bring those skills and mindset to addressing the challenges facing our own education and profession. In the face of the scale and complexity of challenges facing humanity and the planet, we need to explore methods and models that may not exist yet in the current model of education and professional practice.

Looking back more than a century ago, the profession of landscape architecture was able to emerge, grow, and make great strides because we made something that did not exist at the time.Throughout the 20th century, the profession continued to evolve, each time creating something new and innovative. They include new types of parks and open space, new methods for planning and design, and a new understanding of the built environment and ecological processes. To invent something new, we must also revisit and examine the past fallacies and mistakes, including the legacies of displacement and injustice. Inventing something will also require collaboration and working across social, political, and disciplinary borders. It’s important to recognize that those inventions in the past would not have been possible without the contribution of many others both within and outside the profession.

The issues facing the planet and society today present a new set of challenges and opportunities.They signal a call to action for the profession to again invent something that has yet to exist. It’s our responsibility now to rise to the call. I invite you to reference our report in developing your own framework of actions – http://designactivism.be.uw.edu/.

Acknowledgments:

I wish to thank first the Landscape Architecture Foundation for supporting this work through its Fellowship for Innovation and Leadership. The project benefitted from the comments and inputs from the program leaders Lucinda Sanders and Laura Solano, the members of cohort 3, the many invited critics, and the LAF staff. This work also would not be possible without the contribution of the working group members as well as those who were interviewed for this project and those who participated in the series of conference meetings. Finally, the students in my Design Activism seminars at the University of Washington, Seattle,also played an important role in producing the materials and shaping the project.

Notes:

① ASLA Code of Professional Ethics (https://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/About__Join/Leadership/Leadership_Handbook/Ethics/ASLA_CODE_PRO%202017-02.pdf).

② https://www.lafoundation.org/what-we-do/leadership/laffellowship/laf-fellows.

③ Workshop sessions were organized for the 2019 CELA (Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture)Conference in Sacramento, CA, and the annual conferences of EDRA (Environmental Design Research Association) in Brooklyn, NY (2019) and Tempe, AZ (2020).

④ Ten program leaders were interviewed, including (in alphabetical order by last name) Mark Boyer (Louisiana State University), Meg Calkins (North Carolina State University), Katya Crawford (University of New Mexico),Samuel Dennis (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Ron Henderson (Illinois Institute of Technology), Alison Hirsch(University of Southern California), Denise Hoffman Brandt(City College of New York), Joern Langhorst (University of Colorado, Denver), Stephanie Rolley (Kansas State University), and Robert Ryan (University of Massachusetts,Amherst). Six activists/practitioners were interviewed,including (in alphabetical order by last name) Leann Andrews (Traction), Billy Fleming (McHarg Center), Brice Maryman (MIG), Cary Moon, and Chelina Odbert (Kounkuey Design Initiative).

⑤ The working group members included Kofi Boone (NC State University), Mallika Bose (Penn State University), Chingwen Cheng (Arizona State University), David de la Peña (University of California, Davis),Joern Langhorst (University of Colorado, Denver), Laura Lawson (Rutgers University), Michael Rios (University of California, Davis), Deni Ruggeri (Norwegian University of Life Sciences), and Julie Stevens (Iowa State University).

⑥ The URL of the Website is https://designactivism.be.uw.edu.

⑦ https://mcharg.upenn.edu/conversations/what-does-itmean-engage-activism-through-design-engage-designthrough-activism .

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1-3, 5-6©the author; Fig. 4©IUCI/Tractions.

(Editor / LIU Yufei)