撰文 （美）喬 · 布萊恩 · 布雷 翻譯 狄帆 校對 楊云峰

圖01 路易斯·勞瑞斯和喬·布萊恩·布雷博士在參觀密歇根的一個(gè)露天煤礦。Fig.01 Luis Loures and Dr. Burley visiting a surface mine in Michigan.

案例分析法是了解規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)的重要途徑。其有效之處在于與實(shí)際場地的關(guān)聯(lián)性，不足之處則在于概念性的設(shè)計(jì)案例有諸多的內(nèi)在不足。案例分析通常并不能表明因果關(guān)系，且很難解釋信息的變化性。然而，案例分析能夠?yàn)橐?guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)的深化推進(jìn)提供重要的見解。

馬克·弗朗西斯（Mark Franics）在2001年出版了一本關(guān)于案例研究的著作。這本書應(yīng)該作為規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域分析家和學(xué)者的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)讀物。

成功的案例分析通常開始于提出一個(gè)問題、想法或者主張，并且提供一條論證或者駁斥這一問題/想法/主張的途徑。例如，一個(gè)研究者可提出諸如“某一設(shè)計(jì)概念可導(dǎo)致優(yōu)秀設(shè)計(jì)”的主張，隨后應(yīng)該通過某一案例論證這一主張的存在與否——若無法得出類似結(jié)論，該案例分析則是不完整的。接下來，研究者需要研究并認(rèn)定設(shè)計(jì)的質(zhì)量。判定依據(jù)包括調(diào)查、評價(jià)、公開的數(shù)據(jù)、指引以及現(xiàn)場調(diào)研。

如果研究者無法找到衡量設(shè)計(jì)質(zhì)量的方法，那么對于案例的分析研究就仍然是未完成的。但是，如果能夠鑒別概念的存在與否，或者是設(shè)計(jì)的質(zhì)量，研究者則能通過選擇需要研究的案例來鑒別概念的存在與否與設(shè)計(jì)質(zhì)量。接下來，研究者可以討論該概念為設(shè)計(jì)所帶來的好處，并得出設(shè)計(jì)概念是否能帶來優(yōu)秀設(shè)計(jì)的結(jié)論。案例分析并不是統(tǒng)計(jì)方法，不排除有例外情況的存在。分析的結(jié)果可能引出更多的問題。糟糕的案例分析通常并不遵循這一過程，其結(jié)果也是值得懷疑的。好的案例分析則能提供支持結(jié)論的證據(jù)。

路易斯·勞瑞斯的工作代表了成功的案例分析方法。他仔細(xì)的建立完成其研究的計(jì)劃。他訪問了每個(gè)場地（美國、加拿大、德國、荷蘭以及葡萄牙）。他的目標(biāo)是整理一系列能夠從這些案例分析中得到的規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)原則。這些原則的目的則是建立一系列幫助規(guī)劃師和設(shè)計(jì)師從事后工業(yè)景觀項(xiàng)目實(shí)踐的準(zhǔn)則。因此，勞瑞斯博士必須采取場地調(diào)研，采訪設(shè)計(jì)師，鑒別以及提取規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)原則的方法來完成他的案例分析。如果能做到這點(diǎn)，他的案例分析則是成功的。我們并不知道能得到多少設(shè)計(jì)原則，或是他們在這6個(gè)案例分析中的重疊情況①。設(shè)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的清單可長可短。能得到更多的設(shè)計(jì)原則嗎？很可能。但是該清單就只有勞瑞斯博士所發(fā)現(xiàn)的設(shè)計(jì)原則。其他人會用到這份清單嗎？這取決于在后工業(yè)遺址上工作的規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)師的選擇。對于任何分析來說，作者都期待其研究成果能為專業(yè)人士所用。

對于這份準(zhǔn)則清單而言，勞瑞斯博士能通過調(diào)研的方式進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)的研究。這份清單使得他能進(jìn)行更深入的研究（2010）。這份更深入的研究能表明案例分析及由此產(chǎn)生的更專注的研究之間的關(guān)系。沒有這份準(zhǔn)則清單的話，我們將無法得到適用于研究后工業(yè)景觀的子集方法。

注釋：

①勞瑞斯博士的原文提供了6個(gè)案例，限于篇幅，譯者刪除了其中3個(gè)國內(nèi)讀者比較熟知的案例。

喬·布萊恩·布雷/博士/美國密歇根州立大學(xué)規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)建設(shè)學(xué)院風(fēng)景園林系教授/美國風(fēng)景園林師協(xié)會會士

譯者簡介：

狄帆/1986年生/男/南京林業(yè)大學(xué)城市規(guī)劃與設(shè)計(jì)碩士/哈佛大學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)研究生院風(fēng)景園林學(xué)系碩士生

校對簡介：

楊云峰/1981年生/博士/南京林業(yè)大學(xué)風(fēng)景園林學(xué)院講師/美國密歇根州立大學(xué)訪問學(xué)者/本刊特約編輯/YouthLA核心編輯 (南京 210037)

The case study approach is a valuable technique to understand the planning and design of space. Its strength lies in the aspect that it is connected to real places and sites. Its weakness is that the experimental design can be quite flawed.Case study approaches usually do not illustrate cause and effect and rarely can explain the variance in the information. But the case study approach can yield insight into the type of questions and research that can be further explored in planning and design.

Mark Franics (2001) wrote an excellent primer concerning the case study method. This material should be standard reading for investigators and scholars in planning and design.

Successful case studies usually start by posing a question, idea, or belief, and providing a path to validate or refute findings based upon the question/idea/belief. For example an investigator may pose a question or belief such as “having a design concept leads to quality design.” Then the scholar must be able to define and identify the existence or non-existence of a concept in a project—if it is not possible to determine if a design has a concept or not, then there is no way the study can be accomplished. Next the scholar must be able to define and identify quality in design. Sources could include surveys, critiques, published accounts,an index, and site visits. If the scholar cannot find a method to assess quality, then again the study is unable be accomplished. But if it is possible to identify a concept or lack of concept and it is possible to asses the quality of the design, then the scholar can select the projects (case studies) to be examine, identify the concept or lack of concept in the design, and assess the quality of the design. Then the scholar can discuss merits of having a concept in a design and does it lead to quality design? They can then render their conclusion about whether having a design concept leads to quality design.The approach is not statistical. There may also be exceptions to the general findings. The results may lead to new questions and the thoughtful crafting of experiments to give more empirical results.Poorly conducted case studies many not follow this approach and thus the findings may be very suspect. A good case study thoughtfully builds and presents evidence for the findings.

Luis Loures’ work illustrates the successful case study methodology. Dr. Loures carefully developed a plan to complete his study. He visited each of the sites (United States, Canada,Germany, Netherlands, and Portugal) for his investigation. His goal was to identify a list of planning/design principles that he could extract from the case studies. He engages the designers of these projects to extract the principles. The purpose of the principles was to develop a list of criteria to assist planners and designer to consider in the redevelopment of post-industrial landscape projects. Thus for his case study approach he needed to be able to visit the sites, engage in communication with the designers, and be able to identify and extract a list of planning and design principles. If he could do this, he could successfully conduct his study. There was no notion of how many principles would be discovered or how they might overlap between the six case studies. The list could be lengthy or short. Could there be more principles? Probably yes. But his list is what he discovered. Will anyone use his list? It remains the choice of planners and designers working on post-industrial land transformation projects.For any research projects, acceptance and use by professionals is always hoped for, but a great unknown.

From this list of principles, Dr. Loures can conduct statistical analytical research through surveys. The list provided a place for Dr. Loures to start his deeper investigations (2010). The deeper investigations illustrate a link between conducting a case study and then employing the results of the case study to generate a more focused study.Without the list of principles derived the case study,further investigations would not contain a suitable subset from which to examine post-industrial landscapes.

Finally, I have known Dr. Loures for 9 years.He came to Michigan State University in 2007 to study surface mining (Fig.01), post-industrial land transformation, and to visit potential case study sites. He finished his PhD in 2011 and has been an instructor and professor in Portugal for several years. Dr. Loures is an example of the type of extensive PhD. Research that is expected and conducted by landscape scholars in the West. Dissertations should generate 4 to 7 peer reviewed papers. And the effort takes years of data gathering and analysis. Recently, Dr. Loures has been publishing papers from his PhD and initiating new studies in landscape architecture.In 2012, Dr. Loures was invited back to Michigan State University to participate in critiques and give a lecture concerning post-industrial land development. It is a pleasure to have Dr. Loures have one of his papers submitted to us and successfully pass the review process to be published.

Literature Cited

Francis, M., 2001. A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture. Landscape Journal, 19(2): 15-29.

Loures, L., 2010. Postindustrial Land Transformation Planning And Design: East Bank Arade River, Lagoa- Case Study. PhD. Urban Planning, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal.