Landschaftsplanung zwischen Querschnittsund Fachorientierung: Dilemma oder Chance einer modernen Planungsdisziplin

On the one hand, landscape planning appears as integrating master planning, on the other hand as specialised field planning. Both forms of planning exist next to each other, and often this dualism has been made responsible for the failure of the entire profession. The idea of this specific German construction can be derived from the environmental movement of the seventies, which combined emancipatoric and conservative currents. Although both trends were committed to the philosophy of holism. The transformation of the environmental movement into a rational and administratively sound (landscape) planning discipline could take place by taking up holistic theories from ecology as the appropriate basic science. The result was an (apparently scientifically founded) holistic planning approach. Particularly the integrative branch of landscape planning, however, was bound to conflict with the basic democratic principle: The ideology of holism contains clear anti-democratic features, with state and society being perceived as an organic wholeness. This view excludes the free development of the individual. Owing to its holistic perspective landscape planning faces another institutionalised master planning discipline: regional planning. However, the latter is much better compatible with liberal and democratic ideas because of its explicit utilitarian orientation. The claim that landscape planning should take over many of the functions of regional planning - because all social activities have to be co-ordinated in accordance with the ecosystem - could politically not be redeemed in the context of an individualistic and democratic society. The fields of work in landscape planning have been redefined based on this analysis and on a more precise definition of the planning term 'querschnittsorientiert' (integrative planning) in contrast to 'gesamträumlich' (planning of space entities). With this new self-image a dilemma between the two branches 'specialised field planning' and 'integrative master planning' cannot exist any longer. At the same time the conflicts of competence with regional planning disappear.