The Development of Landscape Architecture

Over the past decade, as an educator, researcher, and practitioner in urban and landscape planning and design at the Peking University Landscape Architecture Research Institute, I have been privileged to witness the earth-shaking transformations across China and to participate in them as a small part of this torrent of change. Reflecting on and understanding the evolution of China's landscapes over these years, alongside the development of landscape architecture as a discipline and practice, is something each of us can and should do. This collective reflection can build a shared wisdom about these transformations. More precisely, this text chronicles a journey of the mind—a process of confronting China's major challenges and seeking answers. It must be emphasized that while written from my personal perspective, this journey has always been a collective exploration, particularly with my colleague Professor Li Dihua and the doctoral and graduate students at the Institute of Landscape Architecture. Both the experiences and lessons learned belong to the entire team.

From a professional perspective, after thirteen years of continuous exploration, I firmly believe that the fundamental solution to China's severe human-land relationship contradictions lies in:

First, the spatial planning approach: Through wise, ecology-based spatial planning and the establishment of ecological infrastructure, we can strengthen and fully utilize ecosystem service capacities to restore harmony between humans and the land. In contrast to traditional urban planning methodologies, I summarize this approach as the “anti-planning” approach.

Second, advocating a new aesthetic in design: By uncovering and showcasing low-energy, low-emission design landscapes (including cities, buildings, and their environments), we redefine the inherent concept of “urbanity,” subverting old aesthetic traditions to champion the beauty of wild grass—a new aesthetic grounded in land and environmental ethics. I term this aesthetic “Bigfoot Aesthetics” or low-carbon aesthetics.

These two aspects form the core values and methodology of my teaching, research, and practice in landscape and urban planning design. Faced with unprecedented ecological and environmental crises and the heavy burden of traditional thought and methodological systems, we must undergo a revolution in thought and methodology. I summarize this as the “Bigfoot Revolution”—a professional commentary on how to advance toward an “ecological civilization.”

1. The Macro Context of Thirteen Years of Landscape Architecture at Peking University

Public statistics reveal that over the past thirteen years (1997–2010), China's GDP surged from over 7 trillion yuan to nearly 35 trillion yuan—a nearly fivefold increase. The urban population grew by nearly 15%, while urban construction land expanded by nearly 3 million hectares—equivalent to five times the size of Shanghai. Concurrently, arable land decreased by 3 million hectares, equivalent to 1.5 times the arable land of Zhejiang Province. During this decade, expressways spread across China's landscape. By the end of 2009, the total expressway mileage reached 65,000 kilometers, ranking second globally. While Chinese motorists enjoyed the convenience of extensive connectivity, vast tracts of land were fragmented, rural communities severed, and natural processes and biological flows disrupted. On May 20, 2006, the final concrete pour for the Three Gorges Dam was completed, marking the conclusion of the main construction phase for the world's largest hydropower project. Beyond building the world's tallest dam, China also boasts the highest number of dams globally—over 25,000 in total (compared to just over 8,700 in the United States). This has wrought devastating changes to China's surface water systems, with countless rivers effectively dying; In 1998, China endured the most severe flooding of the 20th century (with the Yangtze River reaching its highest flood levels, though not the largest total flood volume). “Strict defense and vigilance” became a slogan known to all, women and children alike. Thus, over the following decade, we witnessed flood control embankments designed for once-in-a-century and even once-in-five-centuries events firmly locking down the Yangtze, Yellow, and Pearl Rivers, along with vast stretches of coastline. Simultaneously, we witnessed the disappearance of the Yangtze River's baiji dolphin, the proliferation of blue-green algae in Lake Taihu, and mass fish deaths in Dongting Lake... We also observed that humanity's strengthened control over the land and rivers did not reduce natural disasters. On the contrary, the destructive force of natural disasters has grown more ferocious in recent years, and the risks to life and property have not diminished. The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and the 2010 Zhouqu mudslide both taught us profound lessons—in the face of natural forces, we need wiser strategies. Over the past decade, the shadow of global warming has loomed over the entire world, growing increasingly chilling. If rising sea levels and desertification seemed distant enough to leave us indifferent, the sight of rivers drying up before our eyes, wetlands vanishing in vast swathes, and groundwater levels steadily declining shows us we are no longer worrying needlessly. In response to drought and water scarcity, we witness the expansion of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project, which will soon become another “striking landscape” stretching across China from north to south. Yet science tells us this is not the ultimate solution. From the 1999 Kunming World Expo to the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 Shanghai World Expo, China's urban beautification campaigns have unfolded in rapid succession. We have witnessed the emergence of oversized public buildings, municipal projects, wide avenues, and vast plazas—creating a contemporary Chinese urban landscape characterized by spectacle, at the cost of immense land waste and carbon emissions. In early 2006, the “Several Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Promoting the Construction of a New Socialist Countryside” was issued as the Central Document No. 1. Consequently, the wave of landscape transformation spread from urban cores, along waterways and road networks, under the banners of “urban-rural integration” and “new countryside construction,” reaching vast rural areas and the expansive countryside. All this unfolded within the past decade—a transformation of China's landscape unprecedented in five millennia.

Landscape reflects social structures, embodying society's values, aesthetics, and overarching ideology imprinted upon the earth. Through these profound transformations in landscape patterns and processes, we witness our society learning, awakening, recognizing the significance of harmony between humanity and nature, and grasping the true essence of existence. Following the devastating floods of 1998, on October 20 of that year, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council issued the “Several Opinions on Post-Disaster Reconstruction, River and Lake Management, and Water Conservancy Development.” Subsequently, beginning in 1999, the Party Central Committee and the State Council made the major decision to implement the Grain-for-Green Program and the Grain-for-Lake Program to improve the ecological environment, leading to many positive changes in the national landscape. On February 16, 2004, the Ministry of Construction, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Land and Resources, and the Ministry of Finance jointly issued a notice explicitly suspending the construction of wide urban roads and large public squares. Although the urban beautification campaign did not cease entirely, urban landscapes consequently became a topic of concern for national leaders. In 2003, the Third Plenary Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee first proposed the concept of the Scientific Outlook on Development. This was incorporated into the new Party Constitution at the 17th CPC National Congress in 2007. That same year, General Secretary Hu Jintao called for “building an ecological civilization” in his report to the 17th CPC National Congress. This marked the first time a ruling party had enshrined the concept of “ecological civilization” in its program of action, heralding a new chapter for China's landscape.

The development of China's landscape architecture discipline and profession unfolded against this backdrop of monumental social and economic transformation and its vivid projection onto the land. Within the constraints of this limited space, comprehensively depicting this epic-scale narrative proves challenging. I can only reflect, through my personal experience—akin to an extra in a grand drama—on how my team and I stepped to the pulsing rhythm of the times, playing our respective roles.

2. Thirteen Years of Exploration

Ecological security of the land and harmonious human-land relations are China's foremost priorities. Unwise land use and urban expansion have severely damaged the structure and functions of the Earth's living organism, causing comprehensive decline in the service functions of terrestrial ecosystems. This includes frequent floods and droughts, diminished self-purification capacity of the Earth's life systems, species extinction, and the erosion of urban character.

For over a decade, addressing China's critical challenges in human-land relations, national ecological security, and urbanization, my team and I have pursued relentless theoretical and practical exploration. We strive to bridge ecological science with landscape, urban, and regional planning practices, translating scientific understanding of living land into the structural language of physical space at the landscape interface. This ultimately aims to make land use and urban development planning more scientifically sound and prudent.

2.1 Landscape Security Patterns

Recognizing that resolving China's tense human-land relationship requires not merely quantitative adjustments but crucially spatial pattern transformations, I proposed the concept of Landscape Security Patterns during my doctoral studies at Harvard University (1992–1995). This framework seeks to safeguard national ecological security by establishing critical landscape configurations. Inspired by the spatial strategy of Chinese Go, I proposed the idea of Landscape Security Patterns—a framework for efficiently safeguarding the health and security of specific natural and human processes by controlling key spatial configurations. This concept was subsequently published in academic journals both domestically and internationally. The distinctive feature of Landscape Security Pattern research is treating horizontal landscape processes as a series of control mechanisms. These horizontal processes must overcome spatial resistance to achieve landscape coverage and control. To maximize the efficiency of landscape coverage and control opportunities, it is necessary to occupy elements, local areas, spatial positions, and connections of special strategic significance. Against the backdrop of China's extremely limited land resources, the Landscape Security Pattern holds practical application value in efficiently utilizing land, particularly in reconciling the conflict between conservation and land development. Following 1998, three additional National Natural Science Foundation projects were led to advance landscape security pattern research, which was subsequently applied extensively in planning practice. This foundational methodological exploration laid the groundwork for subsequent landscape ecological planning at national, regional, and urban scales, as well as the establishment of ecological infrastructure networks.

2.2 Ecological Infrastructure

Recognizing that China's ecological security challenges primarily stem from compartmentalized management across sectors and single-function “micro-decisions,” which fragment ecological processes and landscape patterns on the ground. Therefore, through integrating theoretical research on landscape security patterns with extensive urban and regional planning practices, our team at Peking University's Landscape Architecture Research Group systematically proposed and refined the concept of Ecological Infrastructure (EI). This framework integrates diverse ecosystem services, weaving fragmented landscape security patterns into a cohesive national landscape security network. We further developed spatial strategies for establishing EI at urban, regional, and national scales.

EI serves as the foundational structure enabling cities and their residents to sustainably access ecosystem services, encompassing functions such as production, regulation, life support, and aesthetic enrichment. It extends beyond conventional urban green space systems to broadly include all urban green spaces, forestry and agricultural systems, and protected area networks capable of delivering these natural services. Furthermore, it can be expanded to encompass historical heritage and cultural landscape networks set against natural systems. Just as sustainable urban development relies on forward-thinking municipal infrastructure (road systems, water supply and drainage systems, etc.), the sustainability of urban ecology depends on forward-thinking EI. The term “ecological infrastructure” itself is not a novel concept introduced by the author. Internationally, the term EI has been used before, but only as a descriptive term within the field of biodiversity conservation. Our contribution lies in systematically and explicitly defining EI as a landscape pattern that integrates various ecosystem service functions and heritage conservation functions. It then evolves into a foundational structure that guides and defines urban spatial development, manifested in: (a) Integrating EI with comprehensive ecosystem service functions, emphasizing the integrated service capabilities of foundational landscape structures—including production, stormwater management and climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, heritage preservation, recreation, and aesthetics—to establish scientifically measurable functional indicators for EI. This enhances the scientific rigor of national land planning, urban and regional planning, particularly in designing national ecological security patterns. (b) Utilizing landscape security patterns as the fundamental technical approach for identifying and establishing ecological infrastructure, integrated with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and spatial analysis techniques. (c) Positioning EI as the foundational structure for national ecological security and urban/regional development, aligning it with existing national land and construction plans at macro, meso, and micro levels to form the fundamental spatial framework for ecological civilization construction.

Under this conceptual framework and theoretical system, the Peking University Landscape Architecture Research Institute completed the research project “Study on National Ecological Security Patterns” commissioned by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, as well as the “Beijing Ecological Security Pattern” study commissioned by the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources. Additionally, it conducted landscape security pattern and ecological infrastructure planning for multiple cities and regions, enabling us to validate systematic approaches for constructing ecological infrastructure across different scales—from national to regional and local. Through the proactive efforts of departments at all levels, including the Ministry of Land and Resources, these approaches have been applied to varying degrees in national land planning, regional ecological planning, and spatial planning for individual cities.

2.3 “Anti-Planning”

Recognizing that one of the primary causes of China's systemic urban ecological and environmental crises lies in current planning methodologies and systems, it is imperative to comprehensively rethink the material spatial planning approach oriented toward “population-scale-nature” that emerged under the planned economy. Existing urban and regional development planning approaches (i.e., the “population-function-layout” model) fail to enable the implementation of ecological infrastructure with integrated service functions. The ideals of ecology and harmony are difficult to achieve under the old development planning paradigm. Therefore, an “anti-planning” approach is proposed, which involves starting with ‘reverse’ planning methods and “negative” planning outcomes. By establishing ecological infrastructure, this approach guides and defines urban spatial development in the context of rapid urbanization. This approach emphasizes: (a) A “reverse” planning process—land use planning for cities and regions prioritizing the health and safety of living land and enduring public interests over immediate developer gains and development demands. (b) “Negative” planning outcomes—reversing the figure-ground relationship between built and unbuilt areas. The planning outcome manifests as a mandatory non-development zone, specifying its types and control intensity, forming the city's restrictive and guiding framework. Development zones are treated as variable “figures,” left to the market for refinement. This restrictive framework simultaneously defines buildable land, serving as the structural support for the city's spatial form. It is not merely “blank space” or undeveloped land, but a critical structure safeguarding the integrity and health of living landscapes. (c) Integrated Solutions: The “anti-planning” approach seeks to establish ecological infrastructure—a comprehensive landscape security framework ensuring the safety and health of natural and human processes. This infrastructure holistically addresses national ecological security, urban environmental issues, transportation challenges, and urban character and form. Years of research have yielded a comprehensive set of operational methodologies and numerous case studies. “Anti-planning” serves as a concrete methodology for realizing Landscape Urbanism and Ecological Urbanism, and represents a practical pathway for China's current ecological city planning. Upon its introduction, “Anti-planning” sparked intense debate within urban and national land planning, cultural heritage preservation, and environmental protection circles. Two entirely contrasting schools of commentary emerged, with some planning authorities strongly resisting it. Conversely, I observed “anti-planning” gaining widespread acceptance among numerous localities and departments. We witnessed Beijing's master plan originating from “anti-planning,” Shenzhen vigorously implementing it, and leaders in cities like Taizhou, Dongying, Chengdu, and Heze finding pathways to escape traditional planning dead ends through “anti-planning.” In the planning of China's main functional zones, overseen by the National Development and Reform Commission, we similarly observe the influence of “anti-planning.” In recent years, the Ministry of Construction's revisions—from the “Revised Methods for Urban Planning Compilation” to amendments to the “Urban Planning Law”—have all been shaped to varying degrees by “anti-planning” concepts. Recently, the Ministry of Land and Resources has also been earnestly incorporating “anti-planning” concepts and methodologies into its land use planning. “Anti-planning” proclaims: it is the landscape ecosystem, not buildings, that will determine a city's developmental form and character; it is ecological processes and patterns, not population and socioeconomic projections or assumptions, that should and ultimately will dictate a city's spatial development and layout.

2.4 Positioning Landscape Architecture as the “Art of Survival”

Recognizing that for millennia, our ancestors continually wrestled with and reconciled themselves to nature to secure their right to survive, these accumulated experiences of survival crystallized into wisdom about the harmonious relationship between humans and the land. This constitutes the origin of landscape design studies—an art of survival. Yet this “art of survival” has long been obscured and mutilated in China and worldwide by the so-called art of garden-making within the dominant culture. While garden artistry does reflect human-land relations to some extent, it remains partial and often deceptive. Therefore, to establish landscape architecture as a survival art, we must dispel the fog and see the sun—beginning with a critique and exposure of the traditional gardens of feudal literati. To this end, since returning to China in 1997, I have authored a series of critical essays challenging the notion of gardens as a “national treasure,” while simultaneously exposing decades of misguided urban landscaping practices in China. This critique is exemplified in my analysis of the seepage prevention project at the Old Summer Palace. The aesthetic values and principles of traditional gardens constitute a major root cause of contemporary Chinese urban environmental construction and urban beautification campaigns. They represent feudal remnants that the New Culture Movement must eliminate but has failed to do so. My position is clear: traditional gardens are a precious heritage. We must not, in the name of inheriting and promoting our nation's outstanding traditions, burden this heritage with the critical mission of solving the environmental problems China must confront today. China requires a new discipline to address the escalating crisis in human-land relations—this new discipline is landscape architecture. It finds its origins in another Chinese tradition: the survival techniques and arts concerning the relationship between humans and the land, not the leisurely garden arts of emperors and literati. This tradition of survival arts is the authentic foundation for the poetic and picturesque quality of China's landscapes, the basis for a productive, secure, beautiful, and healthy “Peach Blossom Spring.” In contemporary China, as the balance between humanity and nature is disrupted and the agricultural-era “Peach Blossom Spring” fades, the survival of the Chinese nation faces renewed challenges: environmental and ecological crises, the loss of cultural identity, and the disappearance of spiritual homelands. This presents an unprecedented opportunity for landscape architecture. It must reclaim its essence as the “art of survival” and assume vital responsibility in creating new “Peach Blossom Springs.” To fulfill this role, landscape architecture must utterly abandon the pretense and hollowness of garden artistry, returning instead to the authentic “art of survival” that harmonizes human-land relationships. It must position and develop itself within genuine human-land interactions, within the ordinary and the everyday, rather than getting lost in the illusory realm of “gardens.” Spatially, it must guide urban development through “counter-planning” to construct ecological infrastructure, protect ecological and cultural heritage, and restore harmony among heaven, earth, humanity, and the divine. Just as ancient feng shui layouts safeguarded the health and security of natural processes on the land, the survival of the contemporary Chinese nation depends on establishing ecological infrastructure that maintains the safety and health of ecological processes. This, therefore, will also be the core content of contemporary landscape architecture.

2.5 Criticizing the Urban Cosmetic Movement, Advocating for the Beauty of Barefoot Culture and Wild Grass

Recognizing that China's obsession with grandiose, Western-style urban development and the vulgar accumulation of urban landscapes stem from the accumulated grime of peasant mentality, nouveau riche mentality, and feudal authoritarian consciousness. Without sweeping away this grime, scientifically rational, high-quality urban landscapes cannot emerge; resource-efficient ecological cities will remain beyond China's reach; the vernacular landscapes of vast rural areas will go unprotected; and China's crisis in human-land relations will remain unsolved. Our cities, architecture, and landscapes, much like the classical Chinese prose once criticized by Hu Shih, are saturated with “abnormal landscapes”—or classical prose masquerading as landscapes.

They are devoid of substance, moaning without cause, detached from life, disconnected from the people, and alienated from the fundamental functional needs of cities. They not only mimic the ancients but eagerly emulate both ancient Westerners and modern imperial Westerners. Consider those so-called “poetic and picturesque” imitation classical gardens, detached from the land and life, hollow and insincere. They crossbreed with the decaying genes of Western Baroque, adorned with the ghosts of ancient Roman ruins and the ruins of the Old Summer Palace, then subjected to all manner of vulgar, garish cosmetic embellishments—thus giving birth to the monstrous offspring of contemporary Chinese urban landscapes. To sweep away feudal grime and create landscapes and cities for contemporary China, we must carry the New Culture Movement through to its conclusion. We must thoroughly critique two millennia of feudal ideology. Professionally, we must challenge the traditional garden-building philosophies of emperors and feudal literati, championing the beauty of grassroots culture and wild grasses. We must return to the land, return to the ordinary, return to authentic human-land relationships, and forge a new rural identity for New China. This new rural landscape must originate from China's soil, meet the needs of contemporary Chinese people, and employ modern technology and materials to most effectively address China's ecological, environmental, energy, and resource challenges—in essence, the sustainable survival and livelihood of the Chinese people.

2.6 Rural Cultural Landscapes and Industrial Heritage

Guided by our understanding of rural and vernacular landscapes, we have undertaken research into rural cultural landscapes and learned from them. My fascination with rural landscapes began two decades ago through the study of “feng shui.” To a large extent, “feng shui” represents a rural landscape distinct from the architecture and landscapes of scholars and royalty, embodying the deeper meaning of the art of survival. To this end, we have revealed the deeper meanings of the “feng shui” model from two perspectives: survival experiences in human evolutionary development and cultural-ecological experiences in ethnic development. We propose that the ideal “feng shui” model represents a schematic pattern embedded in the biological and cultural genes of the Chinese people. After 1998, research on rural landscapes expanded to broader pastoral and settlement contexts, increasingly integrating with planning and design practices. From the study of the rural cultural landscape in Yunnan's Honghe region, to research and design practices in the rural landscapes of the Western Sichuan Plain and Tibetan areas, and most recently, the case study of Magang Village planning in Shunde, Guangdong—conducted in response to potential rural landscape destruction from new rural construction—all reflect my fascination with rural landscapes. At the core of this cultural landscape lies the pastoral realm—an art of survival embodying the harmonious unity of truth, goodness, and beauty. It represents the wisdom crystallized over millennia as humanity adapted to natural processes and patterns. This landscape carries the history of survival and life for people in specific regions while offering new hope for contemporary humanity confronting ecological and energy crises. Facing the surge of new rural construction, I foresaw imminent large-scale destruction of indigenous landscapes. Thus, upon the release of the 2006 Central Document No. 1, I submitted two proposals to State Council leadership regarding safeguarding the foundations of a harmonious society: “Proposal to Expedite the Development of a ‘National Ecological Security Pattern and Rural Heritage Landscape Network’” and “Proposal to Establish a ‘Grand Canal National Heritage and Ecological Corridor’.” These received high-level attention from State Council leadership and were adopted by relevant national departments. This actively spurred the National Cultural Heritage Administration to conduct the Third National Cultural Heritage Survey with a focus on protecting rural cultural heritage. It also propelled systematic research on the Grand Canal National Heritage Corridor, culminating in the completion of the first comprehensive study on the Grand Canal commissioned by the National Cultural Heritage Administration. Subsequently, I actively participated in the Grand Canal's World Heritage nomination process, with a key focus on completing the planning for the Jining section of the Grand Canal in Shandong Province.

Based on our understanding of vernacular and vernacular landscapes, we have also undertaken research and practical applications for the transformation and utilization of China's industrial heritage. For a long time, China's industrial heritage was not included in the national cultural heritage protection system. A large number of seemingly ordinary, rusty, and “ugly” industrial heritage sites were completely destroyed in the rapid urbanization process. Just as we once treated ancient cities and streets uncivilly, we are now rapidly destroying the legacy of the industrial era left on Chinese soil. To address this, since 1999, the Landscape Architecture Research Institute of Peking University and Turenscape have collaborated on industrial heritage research and conservation practices. This includes the transformation and reuse of the Yuezhong Shipyard in Zhongshan, Guangdong (Qijiang Park), Subsequently, the institute led design projects for the former Shenyang Smelter site, the Suzhou Taihe Flour Mill renovation, the repurposing of the former Beijing Yanshan Gas Appliance Factory site, preliminary research for the central green space at the 2010 Shanghai World Expo Park, preliminary studies for the relocation of the Capital Iron and Steel Works, and reuse design research for the Datong Smelter. Drawing lessons from numerous successes and failures, and drawing on international research and case studies in industrial heritage preservation—particularly the International Charter for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage—I submitted the “Recommendations on the Protection of China's Industrial Heritage” to the State Administration of Cultural Heritage in April 2006. I also served as the primary drafter of the “Wuxi Recommendations,” aimed at safeguarding industrial heritage. On April 18, 2006, the Wuxi Recommendations were adopted at China's inaugural Industrial Heritage Conference in Wuxi, hosted by the National Cultural Heritage Administration. This marked the formal inclusion of China's industrial heritage conservation efforts on the national agenda.

As research into vernacular cultural landscapes deepened, studies on China's rich linear cultural heritage and heritage corridors—including the Grand Canal—increasingly entered our research scope. In fact, many of our master's and doctoral students' research topics relate to this field. While completing the “Research on the Ecological Security Pattern of the Nation” commissioned by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, we conducted research on linear heritage networks at the national scale. This identified 17 cultural heritage routes across China that hold significant historical and cultural value and are strategically important for the protection of the nation's cultural heritage. Concurrently, we expanded the concepts of cultural heritage and cultural landscapes to include studies of water-adaptive landscapes in cities along the Yellow River basin and agricultural landscapes across diverse regions and historical periods. This broadened our perspective to encompass comprehensive heritage landscape research across the entire national territory.

2.7 New Rural Landscape Demonstrations

Recognizing the critical importance of demonstration projects, I have spearheaded numerous urban and rural ecological environment construction and urban development demonstration initiatives nationwide. These projects have been extensively featured, cited, and reviewed in leading international professional journals. These demonstration projects have repeatedly won international awards for their ecological integrity and regional cultural distinctiveness. Among them, eight projects received the Award of Excellence and Honor Award from the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), propelling contemporary Chinese landscape design onto the global stage. These projects serve as model solutions to China's pressing environmental, energy, and resource challenges, embodying the “New Rural Landscape” philosophy I have consistently advocated.

Among these internationally published and referenced award-winning projects: Qijiang Park in Zhongshan, Guangdong, embodies the beauty of grassroots culture and wild grasses. It advocates a new ethics and aesthetics that respect local culture and environments, transforming decay into wonder. This ordinary former shipyard site has become a beloved new urban landscape and recreational space for citizens and tourists alike, while also raising national awareness of industrial heritage preservation. Shenyang Jianzhu University's Rice Field Campus champions land conservation and vernacular landscapes, vividly recreating China's agricultural production process within a contemporary urban campus. By treating landscape as both production and experience, it allows young Chinese to grasp the essence of “farming and learning,” rebuilding the spiritual connection between humanity and the land; Zhejiang Yongning Park advocates the art of coexisting with floods through establishing an urban ecological flood control system and integrating ecological infrastructure—a philosophy that transcends mere engineering or cosmetic solutions. Red Ribbon in Green Shade—Tanghe Park demonstrates how minimal human intervention can organically blend contemporary art with ecology, effectively “urbanizing” natural wastelands while preserving the integrity of natural systems and their ecological services, setting a benchmark for resource-efficient urban green spaces; The Taizhou case of “anti-planning” systematically applies “anti-planning” theory and methods to urban spatial development planning, achieving an organic integration of smart conservation and smart growth; Shanghai's Houtan Park, developed after the 2010 World Expo, earned this year's sole Outstanding Design Award. This project transformed a heavy industrial brownfield into a living landscape featuring water quality evolution, flood regulation, habitat conservation and restoration, and comprehensive ecosystem services for both production and recreation. Tianjin Qiaoyuan transformed over 20 hectares of urban wasteland into a rainwater collection basin through topographical design, creating diverse native habitats while providing residents with a vibrant recreational space; The 16-kilometer Qinhuangdao Coastal Restoration Project employs systematic ecological engineering to rehabilitate severely degraded coastlines and bird sanctuaries into recreational zones that integrate habitat conservation with tourism and leisure functions.

Practice demonstrates that these exemplary projects have played a highly positive role in advancing urban and regional ecological development, particularly in promoting the construction of resource-efficient urban green spaces. They have garnered significant international attention and propelled Chinese landscape design onto the global stage.

2.8

Education Recognizing that under China's current system, ecological planning concepts and outcomes must be realized through urban and regional development decision-makers, this has become a crucial responsibility for contemporary researchers. To this end, Li Dihua and I co-authored the book Pathways to Urban Landscape: Conversations with Mayors (reprinted over 10 times in 7 years) and delivered lectures to mayors and ministers, benefiting tens of thousands of officials at the municipal and bureau director level and above. If landscape is the projection of human consciousness and values onto the earth, then transforming the values and environmental awareness of decision-makers is the most effective path to creating good landscapes.

Recognizing that isolated research and projects alone cannot resolve China's systemic human-land relationship crisis, and that traditional disciplines face significant limitations in addressing the severe ecological security crisis of the national territory, the task of rebuilding harmonious human-land relations relies on a new disciplinary system and a large pool of specialized professionals. These individuals must be equipped with land ethics, systematic scientific knowledge, sound humanistic cultivation, and mastery of modern technology. This science and art of systematically analyzing, planning, protecting, managing, and restoring the land is landscape architecture—or more precisely, “land design.” To this end, I have spared no effort in advancing disciplinary development and talent cultivation. This includes co-founding the Peking University Landscape Architecture Research Institute with colleagues, establishing a Master of Science program in Landscape Architecture under the geography discipline, and launching a professional Master of Landscape Architecture program for working professionals. This initiative significantly advanced the development of related disciplines nationwide and directly contributed to the establishment of the newly defined profession of landscape designer by relevant national authorities. This profession is defined as: the science and art of coordinating human-land relationships, enabling cities, architecture, and all human activities to coexist harmoniously with the living Earth. All these explorations ultimately led me to deeper contemplation and inquiry into land ethics, values, and aesthetics. This led to my recent writings on the “Big Foot Revolution,” synthesizing my spatial planning methodology, explorations in new aesthetics, and a series of planning and design practices into two pathways for advancing this revolution: First, liberating the Big Foot through multi-scale spatial planning to rebuild national ecosystems with integrated ecological services; second,

revealing the beauty of the Big Foot through novel design approaches.

3. Conclusion

Over a decade of dedicated effort has profoundly convinced me that addressing China's severe ecological security crisis and human-land relationship crisis demands systematic breakthroughs and innovations. This encompasses concepts, theories, methodologies, educational systems, talent cultivation models, and even the very concept and mechanisms of “scientific research” itself, coupled with active engagement in social practice. Only then can the “Scientific Outlook on Development and Harmonious Society,” “Restoring Beautiful Mountains and Rivers,” and “Creating an Ecological Civilization” cease to be mere slogans. These represent the thoughts and concerns that have occupied me for over a decade, as well as the actions I have taken during this period.

I extend my gratitude to Professor Li Dihua and numerous colleagues who have worked alongside me tirelessly over the past ten years, and to the many students who have joined me in this journey without faltering. With their companionship, I have experienced neither solitude nor boredom, but boundless joy. The work described above is also the crystallization of collective exploration by the faculty, students, and hundreds of colleagues at the Peking University Landscape Architecture Research Institute.