Assignment 3: Future landscapes

From Wikienfk5
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to Assignments


Assigned: Tuesday, Nov. 9

Due: Tuesday, Nov. 29

In this third assignment the focus is on the future of landscapes. You will discuss recent and upcoming approaches, problems, phenomena, policies, and goals. Based on this you will give answers to questions such as:

  • What is a desirable landscape for the future?
  • How does it look like?
  • What is the contribution of the landscape architecture profession to get there?

In order to learn more about differences and similarities between the different participating countries concerning current issues and the future of landscapes, this assignment will be done in internationally mixed groups. The groups will prepare a short presentation, addressing the above mentioned questions along one case study from each of the countries they represent. The overall objective of this assignment is to reflect on how we imagine landscapes to be considered - and thus designed - in the future - which is basically also your professional future.

We want you to approach this discussion in different steps:

Step 1: Look for a case study for future landscapes from your background

Here you will still work separated in your "local" groups. Look for an existing landscape project which you know already well, preferably from your regional background, and give a description of it according to the case study template your find on your wiki page. This landscape should reveal in some way your idea of a desirable future landscape. Please do not forget to consider the theoretical background of this seminar as given in the two lectures by Dora and Galen as well as in the literature resources. The documentation of this case study needs to be finished on Sunday, 21st of November for the latest.

Optional: meet synchonously via skype or chat facilities during this first phase.

Step 2: Read each other's case studies carefully

Step 3: React on each other's answers to the core questions

The case study template includes core questions which refer already to the future landscapes' theme. Each group needs to comment in written form on the others' answers to these questions. Use your group page's discussion page for these comments.

Step 2+3 need to be completed before our seminar meeting on November 23rd during which we will also give some further theoretical insights.

Step 4: Synthesis phase

Sum up the main arguments (from both) and visualise them in a concept map. Add concluding thoughts (bringing arguments together) to this map. In this phase you will need to decide clearly who will do what. Add your concept map and some explanatory text to the last paragraph of your wiki page. A draft version needs to be online on the 26th already, so that we can give you some final comments. This process needs to be finished on the 29th of November. For developing your concept map you can use open source tools such as VUE ( or Cmap ( Please do not use mind mapping tools (such as freemind), they are monocentred and thus not useful for this task (concept maps are polycentric). In case your are not familiar with concept mapping you can explore some examples on the wiki under this link:

Base your work on literature provided on the seminar WIKI among "Resources", given by your instructor and own search for literature and case studies.


As one major reference for your reflection look at the following book:

Specific literature, maybe related to the discussion in the individual countries, are availabe here.

Step 5: Presentation

We plan to have all groups presenting their results in the plenary. Your presentation should include: short note on the case studies (one slide each), the main arguments (one slide for each case) and the synthesis concept map.


  • 5-7 minutes presentation briefly introducing case studies and conclusions as input for the joint discussion; please send your presentation (as or pdf) to Ellen ellen.fetzer(at) for upload in Vitero by November 29.

Evaluation criteria:

  • 50% Content: depth of analysis and reflection; clear communication of findings, creativity in the process of analysis, delivery of products assigned;
  • 25% Communication of content: structure/logical flow of spoken language and slides;
  • 25% Graphic quality: visual quality, organization, cohesiveness of layout, craftsmanship.

Group 1 - Clemson 1 and Wageningen

Group 2 - Clemson 2 and Tartu 2

Group 3 - Clemson 3 and Nürtingen 1 (Fernando, Carla + Balasz)

Group 4 - Clemson 4 and Montevideo 2

Group 5 - Montevideo 1, Kassel and Tartu 3

Group 6 - Montevideo 3 and Nürtingen 2 (Gabriel, Nemanja + Beate)

Group 7 - Nürtingen 3 (Adham, Giselle, Suranjana) and Tartu 1

Back to top