《景觀設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)》2023年第3期

基于景觀的遺產(chǎn)研究與實(shí)踐

Landscape-based Heritage Research and Practice

（周詳，李驥，劉祎緋，《景觀設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)》2023年第3期“主編寄語(yǔ)”）

1 關(guān)聯(lián)性視角下的文化景觀

“遺產(chǎn)”是受到啟蒙思想影響而誕生的現(xiàn)代概念。作為一種文化實(shí)踐，遺產(chǎn)的本質(zhì)涉及一系列關(guān)于價(jià)值的理解與建構(gòu)，及其不斷被納入規(guī)范化的過(guò)程^[1]。20世紀(jì)后半葉，全球各民族國(guó)家被認(rèn)證的遺產(chǎn)數(shù)量激增。聯(lián)合國(guó)教科文組織（UNESCO）于1972年頒布的《保護(hù)世界文化和自然遺產(chǎn)公約》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱《公約》）便是在權(quán)威遺產(chǎn)話語(yǔ)體系發(fā)展和制度化過(guò)程中的一座里程碑：它不僅確立了對(duì)具有突出普遍價(jià)值的文化與自然遺產(chǎn)進(jìn)行認(rèn)證和保護(hù)的國(guó)際制度，還將遺產(chǎn)的存在確定為一個(gè)重要國(guó)際議題，并以制度化的形式進(jìn)一步發(fā)展始于19世紀(jì)的保護(hù)理論。與此同時(shí)，遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的對(duì)象與景觀的關(guān)聯(lián)性也逐步加強(qiáng)?！豆s》所闡釋的遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)范疇包括了“人與自然共同的作品”，隨后在此基礎(chǔ)上產(chǎn)生了“文化景觀”這一特定遺產(chǎn)類型。

20世紀(jì)初，美國(guó)地理學(xué)家卡爾·索爾首次明確定義了文化景觀。隨后，德國(guó)地理學(xué)家?jiàn)W托·施呂特在研究區(qū)域聚落形態(tài)及其科學(xué)分類時(shí)，呼吁人們充分認(rèn)識(shí)文化在景觀形成過(guò)程中的作用，并建議明確區(qū)分文化景觀與自然景觀^[2]。這促發(fā)人們基于景觀與環(huán)境的關(guān)聯(lián)性來(lái)確定不同的景觀區(qū)域，并將“文化”與“景觀”相結(jié)合，進(jìn)一步拓展了文化景觀的概念^[3]。20世紀(jì)末，瑞典地理學(xué)家唐·米切爾指出“景觀的產(chǎn)生機(jī)制”才是理解景觀的關(guān)鍵。在他看來(lái)，景觀是一種關(guān)于社會(huì)或文化關(guān)系自然化、再生產(chǎn)和轉(zhuǎn)化的社會(huì)–政治過(guò)程，因此應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)在地性的行為、活動(dòng)和表現(xiàn)來(lái)定義景觀^[4]。受其影響，美國(guó)地理學(xué)家肯尼斯·奧維提出景觀是人們的文化實(shí)踐方式及價(jià)值變遷的歷史，基于景觀的遺產(chǎn)研究與實(shí)踐應(yīng)當(dāng)重視景觀與地方性、社區(qū)和法規(guī)習(xí)俗的關(guān)聯(lián)性^[5]。因此，“文化景觀”概念的提出與發(fā)展不僅增強(qiáng)了遺產(chǎn)與景觀的關(guān)聯(lián)性，也極大擴(kuò)展了人們對(duì)于遺產(chǎn)價(jià)值的認(rèn)知^[6]。

受上述研究轉(zhuǎn)向的影響，許多擁有文化景觀屬性的遺產(chǎn)日益受到關(guān)注，“文化景觀遺產(chǎn)”一詞也逐漸出現(xiàn)在相關(guān)研究與實(shí)踐中。在遺產(chǎn)的性質(zhì)層面，文化景觀逐漸擴(kuò)展為一種促進(jìn)景觀管理和遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的途徑；在遺產(chǎn)的范疇上，文化景觀則擴(kuò)大到區(qū)域空間尺度，并突破精英化的價(jià)值認(rèn)定，開(kāi)始將日常景觀甚至是退化的景觀納入研究。這與2000年頒布的《歐洲景觀公約》中強(qiáng)調(diào)的通過(guò)關(guān)聯(lián)性視角看待景觀的理念，以及2008年發(fā)布的《什么是突出普遍價(jià)值》報(bào)告中指出的可能越來(lái)越多提名列入《世界遺產(chǎn)名錄》的遺產(chǎn)不再是傳統(tǒng)意義上的文物古跡的理念等相符。2020年，《中華人民共和國(guó)文物保護(hù)法（修訂草案）》首次明確了文化景觀等新型文物類型的法定保護(hù)地位，這標(biāo)志著關(guān)聯(lián)性視角下的文化景觀研究已經(jīng)進(jìn)入到一個(gè)全新的時(shí)代。

2 整體性視角下的歷史性城市景觀

2021年，UNESCO的《關(guān)于歷史性城市景觀的建議書(shū)》頒布10周年。在全球一體化浪潮的沖擊下，眾多城市的文化遺產(chǎn)和歷史格局被侵蝕，城市記憶與城市特質(zhì)正在變得模糊。隨著遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)與現(xiàn)代發(fā)展的矛盾沖突在國(guó)際社會(huì)不斷升級(jí)，歷史性城市景觀（Historic Urban Landscape，HUL）概念的提出旨在將遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的重心進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)移——從保護(hù)紀(jì)念性建筑轉(zhuǎn)移到構(gòu)筑城市生活的城市價(jià)值，從而將文化遺產(chǎn)納入城市空間發(fā)展的核心內(nèi)容^[7]。作為遺產(chǎn)研究領(lǐng)域近年來(lái)的新思潮，HUL超越了傳統(tǒng)“歷史中心”的概念，涵蓋了更為豐富的城市背景及其地理環(huán)境；其不僅有助于理解城市歷史地段的全生命周期，還提供了一種在保護(hù)與發(fā)展的矛盾中指導(dǎo)歷史景觀相關(guān)工作的整體性方法，是遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)領(lǐng)域受到景觀理念影響的典型研究與實(shí)踐代表^[8]。

國(guó)際上，世界遺產(chǎn)中心與亞太地區(qū)世界遺產(chǎn)培訓(xùn)與研究中心（WHITRAP）率先推動(dòng)了HUL在文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)中的實(shí)踐應(yīng)用。代表性試點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目包括東非斯瓦希里海岸世界遺產(chǎn)城市保護(hù)（如莫桑比克島、桑吉巴爾石頭城和拉穆古城），歐洲城市保護(hù)發(fā)展（如荷蘭阿姆斯特丹、意大利那不勒斯），以及WHITRAP全球性試點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目（如巴基斯坦拉瓦爾品第、厄瓜多爾昆卡、澳大利亞巴拉瑞特、中國(guó)上海和蘇州）。近年來(lái)，HUL的研究和實(shí)踐也更多地被納入中國(guó)北京、平遙和麗江等歷史文化名城的保護(hù)規(guī)劃工作中^[9]~[11]。這類實(shí)踐嘗試從景觀載體的角度解讀景觀的概念及其方法內(nèi)涵，囊括了要素、價(jià)值、相關(guān)群體和執(zhí)行程序等方面；也進(jìn)一步明確了文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)不僅要關(guān)注遺產(chǎn)的價(jià)值保護(hù)與傳承體系，還要提升居民的生活品質(zhì)和遺產(chǎn)管理能力，并將遺產(chǎn)資源納入城市發(fā)展的整體規(guī)劃框架^[12]。

3 多元化視角下的遺產(chǎn)與景觀

2022年是《公約》誕生50周年。從最初的一紙共識(shí)到今天由一系列術(shù)語(yǔ)、規(guī)范與制度構(gòu)成的復(fù)雜體系，世界遺產(chǎn)已經(jīng)成為人類文明賡續(xù)和世界可持續(xù)發(fā)展的風(fēng)向標(biāo)之一?？v觀世界遺產(chǎn)的發(fā)展進(jìn)程，從對(duì)“歷史風(fēng)貌”的完美復(fù)原，轉(zhuǎn)向?qū)Α俺鞘芯坝^”的動(dòng)態(tài)管控；當(dāng)代遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)在注重歷史縱向“歷時(shí)性”過(guò)程的同時(shí)，還應(yīng)關(guān)注每一個(gè)時(shí)間斷面上景觀要素的“共時(shí)性”和空間特性。景觀的概念自誕生之日起便具有綜合性與關(guān)聯(lián)性的特征。景觀的綜合性視野推動(dòng)著文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)方法不斷發(fā)展，催生出更具關(guān)聯(lián)性、整體性和動(dòng)態(tài)性的文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)實(shí)踐。在西方文化語(yǔ)境中，景觀和審美實(shí)踐總是與特定的意識(shí)形態(tài)相關(guān)聯(lián)，從而使景觀產(chǎn)生文化、美學(xué)與社會(huì)學(xué)上的意義。在這種語(yǔ)境下，景觀不僅承載著傳統(tǒng)的社會(huì)審美價(jià)值，經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化、生態(tài)等要素在景觀維度上展現(xiàn)出關(guān)聯(lián)性^[13]。而在全球城市化的語(yǔ)境中，景觀強(qiáng)調(diào)在遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)與管理過(guò)程中對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)、文化和自然空間層積性的整體把握，是多學(xué)科知識(shí)體系交叉運(yùn)用的整體觀的集中體現(xiàn)。因此，基于景觀的遺產(chǎn)研究與實(shí)踐有助于人們更好地理解以地方性為基礎(chǔ)的人與環(huán)境的互動(dòng)及其動(dòng)態(tài)過(guò)程與管理，以及公眾參與的這類互動(dòng)的可能性和挑戰(zhàn)^[14]。

從“文化遺產(chǎn)”到“文化景觀”，從“歷史城市”到“歷史性城市景觀”，基于景觀的遺產(chǎn)研究與實(shí)踐作為一種理念與方法，正在建構(gòu)起一個(gè)豐富的學(xué)術(shù)體系。對(duì)于自然與文化關(guān)系的思辨，產(chǎn)生了文化景觀的概念；對(duì)于空間和交流的理解，催生出文化線路與遺產(chǎn)廊道的類型；對(duì)于傳統(tǒng)與現(xiàn)代之間矛盾的調(diào)和，衍生出HUL的觀點(diǎn)；對(duì)于城鄉(xiāng)二元發(fā)展困境與出路的關(guān)懷，則促成鄉(xiāng)村景觀遺產(chǎn)與可持續(xù)發(fā)展議題的廣泛討論。近幾十年來(lái)，景觀已經(jīng)成為風(fēng)景園林學(xué)、城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃學(xué)、建筑學(xué)、文化地理學(xué)、考古學(xué)、生態(tài)學(xué)、心理學(xué)、社會(huì)學(xué)等學(xué)科的研究對(duì)象。這一發(fā)展趨勢(shì)進(jìn)一步增強(qiáng)了景觀研究的綜合性與多元性，相關(guān)領(lǐng)域的研究和實(shí)踐也明顯呈現(xiàn)出學(xué)科交叉、多方參與和多元共治的特點(diǎn)。

4 面向未來(lái)的遺產(chǎn)景觀研究

近年來(lái)，數(shù)字技術(shù)在遺產(chǎn)研究與實(shí)踐中扮演著愈發(fā)重要的角色。以物聯(lián)網(wǎng)、大數(shù)據(jù)和人工智能為代表的新基建、新數(shù)據(jù)、新方法的迅猛發(fā)展正深刻地影響、改變著城市及人們看待城市的方式，并為基于景觀的遺產(chǎn)研究與實(shí)踐帶來(lái)了變革可能。2017年，第19屆國(guó)際古跡遺址理事會(huì)全體會(huì)議將“數(shù)字賦權(quán)時(shí)代的文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)和闡釋”作為會(huì)議核心議題之一，這表明數(shù)字化保護(hù)已成為當(dāng)代遺產(chǎn)景觀研究和實(shí)踐的新興領(lǐng)域與重要趨勢(shì)?？枴ざ艩柺┑热?sup>[15]的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，人們對(duì)于視覺(jué)環(huán)境中的地理信息特征非常敏感；通過(guò)建構(gòu)一種以地理文化視覺(jué)參照為基礎(chǔ)的“計(jì)算性地理文化建?！狈椒?，發(fā)現(xiàn)數(shù)字技術(shù)可以幫助我們更好地回應(yīng)遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的基本問(wèn)題——人們?nèi)绾卫斫夂褪褂脷v史空間，歷史空間又以何種方式影響人群的行為。信息技術(shù)支持下的遺產(chǎn)景觀研究是數(shù)字化時(shí)代遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)中最具成長(zhǎng)潛力的學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域之一，而依托數(shù)字技術(shù)對(duì)遺產(chǎn)景觀的空間要素與景觀特征進(jìn)行量化解析將有助于拓展傳統(tǒng)遺產(chǎn)研究的廣度與深度。

當(dāng)前，全球城市化進(jìn)程中的城市保護(hù)與發(fā)展之間的矛盾膠著不下。保護(hù)歷史性空間結(jié)構(gòu)、維持傳統(tǒng)社區(qū)網(wǎng)絡(luò)與促進(jìn)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展等依舊是HUL需要重點(diǎn)關(guān)注和持續(xù)疏解的核心城市問(wèn)題。盡管數(shù)字技術(shù)的研究潛力巨大，但仍存在一些在技術(shù)層面的基本問(wèn)題，包括如何確定遺產(chǎn)景觀的價(jià)值、真實(shí)性與完整性。而在這些問(wèn)題面前，數(shù)字技術(shù)只能作為輔助研究的工具。如何利用新技術(shù)加深對(duì)遺產(chǎn)景觀的理解、提升遺產(chǎn)管理效率、實(shí)現(xiàn)遺產(chǎn)信息向后代的傳播等是需要我們持續(xù)探索的共同議題。

1  Understanding Cultural Landscape From the Relevance Perspective

“Heritage” is a modern concept inspired by the Enlightenment. As a cultural practice, the nature of heritage involves a range of understandings and building of values, as well as the process of becoming norms^[1]. The number of designated heritages in different national-states worldwide has risen since the latter half of the 20th century. The UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (“the Convention” hereafter) developed in 1972 is a milestone in the development and institutionalization history of the authoritative heritage discourse—it has not only established an international certification and protection system for natural and cultural heritages with outstanding universal values, but also promoted the existence of heritage towards an important international issue and institutionalized the conservation ethic dating back to the 19th century. Meanwhile, heritage protection objects witnessed a stronger relevance to landscape. Demonstrated in the Convention, heritage includes the “combined works of nature and man,” which gave rise to cultural landscape, a special heritage type.

In the early 20th century, Carl Sauer, an American geographer, first explicitly defined cultural landscape; subsequently, Otto Schlüter, a German geographer, stressed the role of culture in forming landscapes and suggested a distinction between cultural landscapes and natural landscapes^[2] in the study of regional settlement patterns and their scientific categorization. His idea prompted the identification of different landscape areas based on the relevance between landscape and environment, and the enrichment of the connotation of cultural landscape by combining “culture” and “l(fā)andscape”^[3]. At the end of the 20th century, Swedish geographer Don Mitchell pointed out that “the mechanics of landscape production” is the key to understanding landscape^[4]. In his view, landscape, as a cultural practice, is a socio-political process of naturalizing, reproducing, and transforming social or cultural relations, thus landscape should be defined according to the locals’ behaviors, activities, and performances^[4]. Influenced by such ideas, American geographer Kenneth Olwig proposed that landscapes are the history of humans’ cultural practices and changes of values, and the landscape-based heritage research and practice should emphasize landscape’s relevance to locality, community, regulations, and customs^[5]. Therefore, the proposal and development of cultural landscape has enhanced the relevance between heritage and landscape, and greatly expanded people’s perception of heritage values^[6].

The research evolution above has been accompanied with the increasing attention on heritages with cultural landscape attributes, and the term “cultural landscape heritage” has emerged in relevant research and practice. To the nature of heritage, cultural landscape becomes an approach to promoting landscape management and heritage conservation; while to the scope of heritage, cultural landscape expands to regional scales and goes beyond the elitist valuation towards focusing on ordinary landscapes or even degraded landscapes. This is in line with the idea of interpreting landscape from the relevance perspective (as emphasized in the European Landscape Convention issued in 2000) and the notion that more and more nominated properties in World Heritage List may not be the monuments in a traditional sense (as highlighted in the Outstanding Universal Value published in 2008). The Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics (Revised Draft) publicized in November 2020 firstly clarified the legal protection status of the new types of cultural relics (e.g., cultural landscapes), opening a new horizon for the research on cultural landscapes from the relevance perspective.

2  Interpreting Historic Urban Landscape From the Holism Perspective

The year 2021 marks the 10th anniversary of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. Under the impact of globalization, numerous cities’ cultural heritage and historical patterns have been eroded, losing urban memories and urban identities. As the conflicts between heritage conservation and modern development escalate in global society, the concept of Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) was proposed to shift the emphasis of heritage conservation from the protection of monumental architecture to the construction of city life and values, so as to incorporate cultural heritage into the core of urban spatial development^[7]. As a new trend among recent heritage studies, HUL transcends the traditional history-centered notion to encompass a more inclusive urban context and geographical environment. HUL not only helps understand the full life cycle of historic urban areas, but also provides a holistic approach to guiding the practice about historic landscapes amidst the contradictions between conservation and development. Influenced by the concept of landscape, HUL offers a paradigm for the research and practice of heritage conservation^[8].

Internationally, the World Heritage Centre and the World Heritage Institute of Training and Research for the Asia and the Pacific Region (WHITRAP) take the lead in promoting the application of HUL in cultural heritage conservation practice. Representative pilot projects include the World Heritage-designated cities on the Swahili Coast in East Africa (e.g., the Island of Mozambique, Stone Town in Zanzibar, Lamu in Kenya); European historic cities (e.g., Amsterdam in Netherlands, Naples in Italy), and WHITRAP pilot cities (e.g., Rawalpindi in Pakistan, Cuenca in Ecuador, Ballarat in Australia, Shanghai and Suzhou in China). Recently, the research and practice of HUL have also been integrated in the conservation planning of historical and cultural cities/towns in China such as Beijing, Pingyao, and Lijiang^[9]~[11]. Such practices interpret the connotation of landscape regarding landscape as a medium, covering elements, values, stakeholders, and implementation procedures, and also clarify that cultural heritage conservation should focus on the value preservation and inheritance system and improve citizens’ life quality and their heritage management ability, so as to integrate heritage resource into the overall planning of urban development.^[12]

3  Exploring Heritage and Landscape From the Diversity Perspective

The year 2022 enters the 50th anniversary of the Convention. From an initial consensus to today’s complex system of terms, norms, and institutions, World Heritage has symbolized human civilization continuance and the world’s sustainable development. The development of World Heritage has shifted from the integral restoration of “historic landscape” to the dynamic management of “urban landscapes.” Not only should the contemporary heritage conservation focus on the diachronicity of history, but it also needs to pay attention to the synchronicity and spatial characteristics of landscape elements in each temporal section. The concept of landscape emphasizes holism and relevance since its emergence. The holism perspective drives the advance of cultural heritage conservation methods, leading to practices of greater relevance, holism, and dynamics. In Western cultural contexts, landscapes and aesthetic practices are always associated with certain ideologies that give cultural, aesthetic, and sociological meaning to landscapes. Thus, landscape carries traditional social aesthetic values and exhibits the relevance to economy, culture, and ecology^[13]. In the context of global urbanization, landscape emphasizes a holistic understanding of economic, social, cultural, and natural spaces in heritage conservation and management, and a holistic view that combines and applies multidisciplinary knowledge hierarchies. Thus, landscape-based heritage research and practice contribute to a better exploration of human-environment interactions upon locality and the related dynamics and management, as well as the possibilities and challenges of public participation in such interactions^[14].

From “cultural heritage” to “cultural landscape,” from historic city to historic urban landscape, landscape-based heritage research and practice, as a concept and a method, are constructing a productive academic system. The speculation of the relationship between nature and culture led to the birth of cultural landscape concept; the understanding of spaces and communications enriched the typologies of cultural routes and heritage corridors; the mediation of the conflicts between the traditional and the modern stimulated the views on HUL; and the concerns on the urban-rural dichotomy resulted in an extensive discussion about rural landscape heritage and sustainable development. In recent decades, landscape has been studied by different disciplines including landscape architecture, urban and rural planning, architecture, cultural geography, archaeology, ecology, psychology, and sociology. This trend enhances the synthesis and diversity of landscape research, and also promotes multi-disciplinary studies, multi-stakeholder participation, and multi-entity governance in associated fields.

4 Heritage Landscape Research Towards Future

Recently, digital technology plays an increasingly important role in heritage research and practice. New infrastructure, data, and approaches (e.g., the Internet of Things, big data, and artificial intelligence) are profoundly changing the city and the ways we see the city. All of these are bringing existing opportunities to landscape-based heritage research and practice. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) General Assembly took “protecting and interpreting cultural heritage in the age of digital empowerment” as one of the core topics, suggesting that digital conservation has become an emerging interest in contemporary heritage landscape research and practice. Carl Doersch et al.^[15] found that people are sensitive to the geo-informative characteristics of visual environment. Through computational geo-cultural modeling that is featured with geo-cultural visual reference, their research shows that digital technology can help us better respond to basic questions in heritage conservation—how to understand and utilize historical space, and how historical space affects people’s behaviors. In digital era, heritage landscape research supported by information technology is of great potential, and quantitative research of the spatial elements and characteristics of heritage landscapes will help improve traditional heritage research in width and depth.

At present, conflicts between urban conservation and development still intensify along with global urbanization. HUL needs to keep its focus on the preservation of historic spatial structures, maintenance of traditional community networks, and promotion of socio-economic development. Despite its promising potential, digital technology is still inadequate to respond to fundamental technical problems, for example, how to determine the value, authenticity, and integrity of heritage landscapes. In other words, digital technology at present can only be an assistive tool to our research. How to utilize new technologies to deepen our understanding of heritage landscapes, to enhance the efficiency of heritage management, and to keep and spread the heritage information and knowledge to future generations are common issues that need to be continuously explored.

REFERENCES

[1]   Smith, L. (2006). Use of Heritage. Routledge.

[2]   Whitehead, J. (1981). Urban Landscape: Historical Development and Management. Academic Press Inc.

[3]   Conzen, M. P. (1990). The Making of the American Landscape. Routledge.

[4]   Mitchell, D. (1994). Landscape and surplus value: The making of the ordinary in Brentwood, CA. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, (12), 7–30.

[5]   Olwig K. R. (1996). Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86(4), 630–653.

[6]   Liu, Y. (2015). Three dimensionalities of value inspired by cultural landscape: Take World Heritage Cultural Landscape as example. Landscape Architecture, (8), 50–55.

[7]   Li, J., Jing, F., & Shao, Y. (2022). Global practices of the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape: Ten-year review and insights for Chinese urban heritage protection. City Planning Review, 46(11), 90–98.

[8]   Liu, Y. (2017). Historic Urban Landscape. Landscape Architecture, (6), 4–5.

[9]   Li, J., Krishnamurthy, S., Pereira Roders, A. R., & van Weswmael, P. (2021). Imagine the Old Town of Lijiang: Contextualising community participation for urban heritage management in China. Habitat International, (108), 102321.

[10]       Lv, Z. (2022). Cognition and protection of Beijing central axis from the perspective of Historic Urban Landscape. Landscape Architecture. 29(4), 20–25.

[11]       Shao, Y., Hu, L., & Zhao, J. (2016). A research on the conservation plan of the human-habitat World Heritage: Case study of Pingyao Ancient City. Urban Planning Forum, (5), 94–102.

[12]       Veldpaus, L., & Pereira Roders, A. R. (2017). Historic Urban Landscape Approach as a Tool for Sustainable Urban Heritage Management. In: S. Asikainen, C. Brites, K. Plebańczyk, L. Roga? Mijatovi?, & K. Soini (Eds.), Culture in Sustainability: Towards a Transdiciplinary Approach (pp. 62–74). University of Jyv?skyl?.

[13]       Zhou, X., Liu, Z., & Shi, J. (2022). Evaluation on visual landscape perception under the support of digital footprint: A case study of Historic Urban Landscape of the Qinhuai River Area. Landscape Architecture, 29(9), 18–25.

[14]       Stenseke M. (2018). Connecting ‘relational values’ and relational landscape approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, (35), 82–88.

[15]       Doersch, C., Singh, S., Gupta, A., Sivic, J. & Efros, A. A. (2012). What makes Paris look like Paris?. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 31(4), 1–9.

主編寄語(yǔ)

基于景觀的遺產(chǎn)研究與實(shí)踐／周詳，李驥，劉祎緋

論文

基于歷史性城市景觀與數(shù)字足跡視角的遺產(chǎn)廊道選線方法——以中國(guó)南京市歷史城區(qū)為例／周詳，湯雨杭，蘇俊吉

基于多元利益群體支付意愿的國(guó)家公園景觀資源價(jià)值貨幣化核算評(píng)估／王鵬，何友均，李樂(lè)，李楠，謝和生，楊欣，沈偉航

中國(guó)大熊貓國(guó)家公園社會(huì)影響評(píng)估研究——基于界內(nèi)、門戶和邊緣社區(qū)的比較分析／張雨琦，張引

觀點(diǎn)與評(píng)論

歷史性城市景觀范式——平衡城市保護(hù)過(guò)程中價(jià)值與變化的工具／肯·泰勒

基于歷史環(huán)境保護(hù)與再生視角探索當(dāng)前城市化的新途徑——對(duì)話窪田亞矢／窪田亞矢

從人、空間傳記和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)視角探究基于景觀的城市遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)方法／李驥，傅厚葦，彼得·范·韋斯梅爾

文化遺產(chǎn)管理的靈活性：如何在動(dòng)態(tài)變化過(guò)程中提升應(yīng)對(duì)不確定性的可持續(xù)和韌性適應(yīng)能力／馬蒂亞斯·里普，塞巴斯蒂安·丹尼爾

探索與過(guò)程

在建造與非建造之間——面向物種共存、物質(zhì)循環(huán)和傳統(tǒng)生態(tài)知識(shí)的跨學(xué)科設(shè)計(jì)方法／徐之成，賀夢(mèng)琪

【中文刊名】《景觀設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)》

【英文刊名】Landscape Architecture Frontiers

【作者】周詳（ZHOU Xiang），李驥（LI Ji），劉祎緋（LIU Yifei）等

【出版社】高等教育出版社有限公司

【頁(yè)碼】138頁(yè)彩色印刷

【刊號(hào)】ISSN 2096-336X

【出版日期】2023年6月

基于歷史性城市景觀與數(shù)字足跡視角的遺產(chǎn)廊道選線方法——以中國(guó)南京市歷史城區(qū)為例

Heritage Corridor Routing Method From Historic Urban Landscape and Digital Footprint Perspectives—The Case of Historical Urban Area in Nanjing, China

作者：周詳，湯雨杭，蘇俊吉 Xiang ZHOU, Yuhang TANG, Junji SU

摘要

遺產(chǎn)廊道作為一種串聯(lián)歷史文化與自然景觀資源的系統(tǒng)性保護(hù)方法，融合了人文環(huán)境與自然環(huán)境，可以為公眾提供休閑娛樂(lè)、游憩健身等活動(dòng)的連續(xù)線性空間。傳統(tǒng)的遺產(chǎn)廊道選線研究大多聚焦于分析物質(zhì)空間條件，忽略了公眾感知表達(dá)和公共參與機(jī)制。基于歷史性城市景觀理念挖掘與傳統(tǒng)遺產(chǎn)內(nèi)容緊密關(guān)聯(lián)的現(xiàn)代景觀資源，通過(guò)解析游憩者的數(shù)字足跡，將人群游憩行為偏好與空間感知納入遺產(chǎn)廊道選線過(guò)程，可實(shí)現(xiàn)城市物理語(yǔ)義選線與社會(huì)語(yǔ)義選線的結(jié)合。基于此，本研究包括三個(gè)部分：1）通過(guò)數(shù)字足跡分析，將城市傳統(tǒng)遺產(chǎn)與景觀資源點(diǎn)納入遺產(chǎn)廊道選線過(guò)程，通過(guò)最小累積阻力模型擬合物理語(yǔ)義選線結(jié)果；2）利用數(shù)字足跡中的人群流動(dòng)軌跡與網(wǎng)絡(luò)文本信息構(gòu)建共詞矩陣，完成社會(huì)語(yǔ)義選線；3）耦合物理語(yǔ)義選線與社會(huì)語(yǔ)義選線結(jié)果，結(jié)合實(shí)際情況優(yōu)化遺產(chǎn)廊道選線結(jié)果。研究實(shí)現(xiàn)了在遺產(chǎn)廊道選線過(guò)程中，將城市景觀資源與公眾游憩行為和空間感知的有效整合，有利于城市遺產(chǎn)的整體保護(hù)與公共空間的系統(tǒng)提升。

關(guān)鍵詞

遺產(chǎn)廊道；選線；歷史性城市景觀；最小累積阻力模型；數(shù)字足跡；社會(huì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)模型；城市景觀資源

Abstract 

As a method of the systematic conservation of historical, cultural, and natural landscape resources, heritage corridor integrates contexts of humanism and nature and provides the public with continuous linear spaces for recreation, leisure, and fitness activities. Most traditional studies on heritage corridor route planning focus on the analysis of physical spatial conditions, while ignoring public perception and public participation mechanisms. Based on the concept of Historic Urban Landscape, this research excavates modern landscape resources that are closely connected with traditional heritages and analyzes users’ digital footprints to incorporate public preferences of recreational behaviors into the process of heritage corridor route planning, realizing the combination of physical and social semantic data analyses. Basically, this study consists of three parts: 1) through analysis of digital footprints, select urban traditional heritage sites and landscape resource spots into the process of heritage corridor route planning, and fit the preliminary routes of urban heritage corridors with minimum cumulative resistance model; 2) construct a co-word matrix consisting of users’ movement flows and online textual data in the digital footprints, to complete the route planning upon social semantic data analysis; and 3) superimpose the results of heritage corridor route planning generated by the above two steps, and optimize according to the reality of urban environment. The study realizes an effective integration of urban landscape resources with public recreational behaviors and spatial perception in the process of heritage corridor route planning, offering reference to the overall protection of urban heritages and the systematic improvement of public space.

Keywords

Heritage Corridor; Route Planning; Historic Urban Landscape; Minimum Cumulative Resistance Model; Digital Footprint; Social Network Model; Urban Landscape Resources

基于多元利益群體支付意愿的國(guó)家公園景觀資源價(jià)值貨幣化核算評(píng)估

Monetized Evaluation of Landscape Resources of National Parks Based on the Willingness to Pay of Multiple Interest Groups

作者：王鵬，何友均，李樂(lè)，李楠，謝和生，楊欣，沈偉航 Peng WANG, Youjun HE, Le LI, Nan LI, Hesheng XIE, Xin YANG, Weihang SHEN

摘要

國(guó)家公園是我國(guó)自然景觀最獨(dú)特的國(guó)土空間之一?？茖W(xué)評(píng)估景觀資源價(jià)值對(duì)于實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)家公園原真性與完整性的保護(hù)具有重要作用。本文以錢江源國(guó)家公園體制試點(diǎn)區(qū)為例，采用條件價(jià)值法，通過(guò)調(diào)研內(nèi)部群體（社區(qū)居民與管理人員）和外部群體（外來(lái)游客）對(duì)假想市場(chǎng)項(xiàng)目的支付意愿，對(duì)該國(guó)家公園景觀資源價(jià)值進(jìn)行貨幣化核算評(píng)估，并在此基礎(chǔ)上采用Logistic回歸模型分析影響景觀資源價(jià)值的關(guān)鍵因素。結(jié)果顯示，外部群體支付率高于內(nèi)部群體，且不同特征的人群具有不同的支付率。改善生態(tài)環(huán)境是不同群體愿意為假想市場(chǎng)項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行支付的主要原因，但拒絕支付的原因存在明顯差異，自身收入低是導(dǎo)致內(nèi)部群體拒絕支付的主要原因，認(rèn)為假想市場(chǎng)項(xiàng)目應(yīng)由財(cái)政支付是外部群體拒絕支付的主要原因。研究區(qū)域景觀資源價(jià)值為1.35億元，其中，外部?jī)r(jià)值明顯高于內(nèi)部?jī)r(jià)值，而態(tài)度因素比人口和環(huán)境因素對(duì)景觀資源價(jià)值的影響更大。國(guó)家公園景觀資源價(jià)值受到多元利益群體的認(rèn)知、訴求和利益驅(qū)動(dòng)的影響，研究建議加快構(gòu)建標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化核算評(píng)估技術(shù)體系，為中國(guó)的國(guó)家公園體系建設(shè)提供支撐。

關(guān)鍵詞

國(guó)家公園；景觀資源價(jià)值；貨幣化核算評(píng)估；支付意愿；多元利益群體

Abstract 

In China, national parks represent the country’s most unique natural landscapes. Scientific evaluation of landscape resources is significant for preserving the authenticity and integrity of national parks. Taking Qianjiangyuan National Park System Pilot Zone as an example, this research investigated the willingness of internal group (residents and administrative staff) and external group (tourists) to pay for a hypothetical market project based on the pilot zone via Contingent Valuation Method to acquire the monetized value of landscape resources in the national park, and applied Logistic Regression to analyze the influencing factors. The results show that the payment rate of external group is higher than that of internal group, and people with different demographics have different payment rates. Both internal and external groups are willing to pay to improve ecological environment, but there are significant differences on reasons for refusal—having a low income is the main reason for the internal group, and the external respondents refuse mainly because of the belief that the payment is owed to government finance. The total monetized value of the research area is 135 million yuan, of which the external value is much higher than internal value. The attitude factors influence landscape resource value more significantly than demographic and environmental factors. The assessment of landscape resource value of national parks is affected by perceptions and demands of multiple interest groups. This research suggests accelerating the construction of a standardized assessment technical system to support the establishment of national park system in China.

Keywords

National Park; Landscape Resources Value; Monetized Evaluation; Willingness to Pay; Multiple Interest Groups

中國(guó)大熊貓國(guó)家公園社會(huì)影響評(píng)估研究——基于界內(nèi)、門戶和邊緣社區(qū)的比較分析

Social Impact Assessment of the Giant Panda National Park in China: A Comparative Analysis of the Inside, Gateway, and Fringe Communities

作者：張雨琦，張引 Yuqi ZHANG, Yin ZHANG

摘要

社會(huì)影響評(píng)估是國(guó)家公園體制建設(shè)的現(xiàn)實(shí)需求，但相關(guān)概念框架、理論認(rèn)識(shí)和系統(tǒng)評(píng)估仍不足。基于中國(guó)國(guó)家公園體制建設(shè)的特征，本文優(yōu)化了社會(huì)影響評(píng)估框架和指標(biāo)體系，選擇中國(guó)大熊貓國(guó)家公園（唐家河園區(qū)）周邊的三類典型社區(qū)——界內(nèi)社區(qū)、門戶社區(qū)和邊緣社區(qū)進(jìn)行比較分析。通過(guò)問(wèn)卷調(diào)查、半結(jié)構(gòu)化訪談、因子分析和單因素方差分析，研究發(fā)現(xiàn)：1）大熊貓國(guó)家公園綜合社會(huì)影響感知偏消極，村民對(duì)各項(xiàng)維度影響的感知程度由高到低依次為：社會(huì)關(guān)系、地方文化、平等權(quán)利、經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)和知識(shí)教育維度；2）三類社區(qū)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)生計(jì)維度以外維度影響的感知存在顯著差異：門戶社區(qū)對(duì)社會(huì)關(guān)系、地方文化、平等權(quán)利維度的感知最為積極，界內(nèi)社區(qū)對(duì)知識(shí)教育維度的感知最為積極，邊緣社區(qū)在四個(gè)維度都最為消極；3）社會(huì)影響分異主要受保護(hù)政策、產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)、區(qū)位交通等因素影響。研究認(rèn)為，在關(guān)注經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的同時(shí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)增加對(duì)平等權(quán)利、知識(shí)教育等非經(jīng)濟(jì)類社會(huì)影響的關(guān)注；需要對(duì)邊緣社區(qū)給予特別關(guān)注和支持，以確保其在國(guó)家公園建設(shè)和發(fā)展過(guò)程中能夠持續(xù)受益。本研究可為相關(guān)自然保護(hù)地社會(huì)影響的優(yōu)化提供理論借鑒和案例依據(jù)。

關(guān)鍵詞

國(guó)家公園；自然保護(hù)地；社會(huì)影響評(píng)估；感知；界內(nèi)社區(qū)；門戶社區(qū)；邊緣社區(qū)；唐家河國(guó)家級(jí)自然保護(hù)區(qū)

Abstract 

Social impact assessment is a practical requirement for the construction of the national park system, but there is still a lack of comprehensive conceptual frameworks, theoretical explanations, and systematic evaluations. Considering the distinctive characteristics of China’s national park system construction, this study improves the existing framework and indicator system for social impact assessment. It conducts a comparative analysis of three typical communities—the inside community, gateway community, and fringe community—surrounding the Giant Panda National Park (Tangjiahe area). Through questionnaire surveys, semi-structured interviews, factor analysis, and One-way ANOVA analysis, we find that the comprehensive perception value of social impacts by the Giant Panda National Park was relatively negative. Respondents’ perception values ranked from high to low were social relations, local culture, equity and rights, economy and livelihoods, and knowledge and education. Moreover, except the dimension of economy and livelihoods, there were significant differences in the perception of impacts by the three types of communities. Specifically, the gateway community has the most positive perception of social relations, local culture, and equity and rights; the inside community has the most positive perception of knowledge and education; while the fringe community perceived the most negative impacts in all four dimensions. Furthermore, the primary causes of social impact perception are conservation policies, economic development, and location and transportation. This study suggests that non-economic social impacts should be given more attention, such as equity and rights, and knowledge and education. Also, to ensure that the fringe communities can benefit from the construction and development of national parks, more attention and support from the governments and management agencies are necessary. This study can provide theoretical insights and case-based evidence for the improvement of social impact discussions on protected areas.

Keywords

National Park; Protected Area; Social Impact Assessment; Perception; Inside Community; Gateway Community; Fringe Community; Tangjiahe National Nature Reserve

歷史性城市景觀范式——平衡城市保護(hù)過(guò)程中價(jià)值與變化的工具

Historic Urban Landscape Paradigm—A Tool for Balancing Values and Changes in the Urban Conservation Process

作者：肯·泰勒 Ken TAYLOR

摘要

今天，全世界一半以上的人口在城市中居住，這在人類歷史上是前所未有的。相應(yīng)地，過(guò)去二十年來(lái)，城市保護(hù)已逐漸成為文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)領(lǐng)域中的一大研究熱點(diǎn)。這樣的轉(zhuǎn)變是具有時(shí)代意義的，因?yàn)榕c快速城市化相伴而來(lái)的是經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展及優(yōu)先參與全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的巨大壓力。當(dāng)前，許多社會(huì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展都以現(xiàn)代化建設(shè)為主導(dǎo)，導(dǎo)致傳統(tǒng)社區(qū)不斷消失。與此同時(shí)，城市保護(hù)領(lǐng)域的重點(diǎn)仍集中在著名建筑和古跡上，并未將城市視為由價(jià)值和信仰體系構(gòu)成的人類社區(qū)——這些價(jià)值和信仰體系反映在城市的整體環(huán)境中，即城市的文化景觀。本文所聚焦的歷史性城市景觀途徑旨在通過(guò)批判性地討論城市社區(qū)，以及它們之于人類記憶和認(rèn)同感的重要意義，轉(zhuǎn)變城市保護(hù)的傳統(tǒng)觀念。這其中還涉及鄉(xiāng)愁在城市保護(hù)研究領(lǐng)域的作用：鄉(xiāng)愁這一現(xiàn)象，在理解過(guò)去對(duì)現(xiàn)在及未來(lái)社會(huì)和政治議程發(fā)展的影響時(shí)為何如此重要？本文特從歷史性城市景觀的范式出發(fā)，為審視城市提供了新的思路。

關(guān)鍵詞

歷史性城市景觀；文化景觀；城市遺產(chǎn)；城市保護(hù)；歷史城市；城市文化景觀次級(jí)景點(diǎn)；創(chuàng)意產(chǎn)業(yè)

Abstract 

Today, for the first time in human history, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities. Coincidentally, within the field of cultural heritage conservation, increasing international interest and attention over the past two decades has been focused on urban areas. This is timely because the pressure for economic development and for the prioritizing of engagement with the global economy have accompanied rapid urbanization. In many societies, economic development has privileged modernization efforts leading to the loss of traditional communities. Accompanying this has been a concentration in the field of urban conservation on famous buildings and monuments rather than seeing cities as communities of people with values and belief systems that are reflected in a city’s overall setting: its cultural landscape. The Historic Urban Landscape approach is intended to address this distinction by critically discussing city communities, and how they are reservoirs of human memory and identity. This raises the question of the role of nostalgia in the field of urban conservation studies: is nostalgia an important phenomenon in understanding how the past is both brought to bear on the present and on the development of social and political agendas for the future? This article explores alternative ways of seeing cities particularly through the Historic Urban Landscape paradigm.

Keywords

Historic Urban Landscape; Cultural Landscape;  Urban Heritage; Urban Conservation; Historic Cities; Secondary Urban Cultural Landscape Attractions; Creative Industries

基于歷史環(huán)境保護(hù)與再生視角探索當(dāng)前城市化的新途徑——對(duì)話窪田亞矢

To Explore an Alternative Urbanization That Is Different From the Present Through Historical Environment Preservation and Regeneration—An Interview With Aya Kubota

作者：窪田亞矢 Aya KUBOTA

摘要

在本次訪談中，窪田亞矢以自己在日本的實(shí)踐為例，分享了對(duì)歷史環(huán)境保護(hù)和再生的思考。在她看來(lái)，地方主體性十分重要。地方化所具有的活力不僅為歷史環(huán)境的保護(hù)和再生提供了支持，也為城市化途徑提供了另一種可能。在這類實(shí)踐中，地方主體和非地方主體之間可能會(huì)存在沖突，但這種沖突是有益的。就“災(zāi)難遺產(chǎn)”的保護(hù)和利用而言，窪田認(rèn)為，城市規(guī)劃將歷史環(huán)境納入考量是一個(gè)重大進(jìn)步。在規(guī)劃過(guò)程中，應(yīng)當(dāng)讓當(dāng)?shù)鼐用駞⑴c進(jìn)來(lái)，共同探討應(yīng)該保護(hù)什么、如何保護(hù)，以及為誰(shuí)而保護(hù)。在城市歷史資源的再生方面，最大的挑戰(zhàn)是需要審視我們的生活現(xiàn)狀并重新評(píng)估我們的價(jià)值。雖然專業(yè)人士的參與難免有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，但他們有必要采取措施來(lái)保護(hù)或修復(fù)歷史環(huán)境，在這一過(guò)程中，能夠從當(dāng)?shù)鼐用竦囊暯莵?lái)思考問(wèn)題也非常重要。

關(guān)鍵詞

歷史環(huán)境；保護(hù)與再生；城市化；地方化；地方主體性；日本；文化景觀

Abstract 

Aya Kubota stands out in studies of community development projects ranging from small historical towns to major metropolitan areas, covering topics on urban planning, townscape preservation, and environmental improvement and conservation, etc. In this interview, she shares thoughts on historical environment preservation and regeneration, taking her practices in Japan for example. From her point of view, local subjectivity is essential. The dynamism of localization supports the preservation and regeneration practices, presenting an alternative way of urbanization. There might be conflicts between the local and non-local subjects in such practices, but the conflicts are healthy. Regarding the preservation and utilization of the “Legacy of Catastrophe,” she holds that city planning taking historical environments into consideration is an important progress. It is vital to engage local residents in the planning process and weigh up what should be preserved, how should they be conveyed, and to whom. For the regeneration of urban historical resources, the most challenging aspect is the need to examine the current situations, where our lives and ways of life have been completely influenced by external forces, and reevaluate our values. Although there are always risks associated with professional involvement, it is necessary to take some measures to preserve or repair the historical environments, in which process the ability to think as own self as the local residents is an important ability.

Keywords

Historical Environment; Preservation and Regeneration; Urbanization; Localization; Local Subjectivity; Japan; Cultural Landscape

從人、空間傳記和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)視角探究基于景觀的城市遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)方法

A Landscape-based Approach to Urban Heritage Management: People, Spatial Biography, and Ecosystem

作者：李驥，傅厚葦，彼得·范·韋斯梅爾 Ji LI, Houwei FU, Pieter VAN WESEMAEL

摘要

本文首先提出，當(dāng)前的“城市遺產(chǎn)”定義既涵蓋“舊的”古代遺跡，也包含“新的”近現(xiàn)代紀(jì)念物。對(duì)城市遺產(chǎn)的保護(hù)也不再單純聚焦于其“舊的”價(jià)值，而轉(zhuǎn)向一個(gè)更具整體性的過(guò)程——既要保留古代“舊”價(jià)值，也要隨著遺產(chǎn)的適應(yīng)性再利用而不斷調(diào)整，以獲得當(dāng)代“新”價(jià)值，進(jìn)而向著更加以人為中心、以景觀為基礎(chǔ)的方向發(fā)展。此外，本文還在城市規(guī)劃和發(fā)展中引入“生態(tài)系統(tǒng)”概念，該概念涉及人類、動(dòng)植物群落、空間傳記及其他無(wú)形和有形環(huán)境，旨在發(fā)展可持續(xù)的人類棲息地。在對(duì)人類棲息地這一生態(tài)系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行管理時(shí)，首先需要保護(hù)地方特性，因?yàn)樗砹藲v史性城市景觀的有形和無(wú)形屬性。同時(shí)，公眾參與是城市遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的重要實(shí)施工具，而專家學(xué)者在實(shí)踐中需利用基于景觀的保護(hù)方法，結(jié)合數(shù)字技術(shù)，為擴(kuò)展服務(wù)、共創(chuàng)價(jià)值及構(gòu)建公民主導(dǎo)的決策途徑（如社交媒體、游戲化的應(yīng)用程序和數(shù)字城市公地）開(kāi)辟新路徑。通過(guò)公眾參與還可以更好地識(shí)別當(dāng)?shù)氐目臻g傳記，將人們的足跡從社區(qū)延伸到城市肌理中微觀尺度下的個(gè)體上。最后，本文建議景觀設(shè)計(jì)師與城市規(guī)劃師和遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)專業(yè)人員通力協(xié)作，將遺產(chǎn)資源融入城市長(zhǎng)期可持續(xù)的發(fā)展規(guī)劃體系中。

關(guān)鍵詞

城市遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)；歷史性城市景觀；基于景觀的方法；公眾參與；城市生態(tài)系統(tǒng)；空間傳記

Abstract 

This article first identifies the current definition of urban heritage that includes both “old” and “young” monuments. Their protection has also shifted from solely preserving “old” values into a more holistic process to retain “old” values and manage the change in their adaptive reuse to gain “new” values, towards a more people-centered and landscape-based approach. Furthermore, a concept of ecosystem for urban planning and development is introduced, involving both the worlds of people, flora and fauna, and the sphere of spatial biography as well as other (in)tangible contexts, aiming to develop sustainable human habitats. The management of the change in human habitats as an ecosystem is built on the protection of place identity, which is the manifestation of historic urban landscape’s tangible and intangible attributes. Public participation is also recognized to be an important tool. To implement such a landscape-based approach, experts need to play an active role in promoting wide public participation while digital technologies open new ways for outreach, co-creation, and citizen-led decision-making platforms such as social media, (gamified) apps, and digital urban commons. Through public participation, local spatial biography can also be better identified, which extends people’s footprints from the community to local individuals at micro-scaled features within urban tissues. Finally, this article proposes recommendations for landscape architects to share the responsibilities of urban planners and heritage professionals, integrating heritage management into long-term sustainable urban development.

Keywords

Urban Heritage Management; Historic Urban Landscape; Landscape-based Approach; Public Participation; Urban Ecosystem; Spatial Biography

文化遺產(chǎn)管理的靈活性：如何在動(dòng)態(tài)變化過(guò)程中提升應(yīng)對(duì)不確定性的可持續(xù)和韌性適應(yīng)能力

Agility in Cultural Heritage Management—Advancing Competence Within Uncertainty as a Sustainable and Resilient Adaptation to Processes of Dynamic Change

作者：馬蒂亞斯·里普，塞巴斯蒂安·丹尼爾 Matthias RIPP, Sebastian DANIEL

摘要

現(xiàn)代社會(huì)的迅猛變化及隨之而來(lái)的挑戰(zhàn)與日俱增，其中最主要的問(wèn)題根源正是氣候變化。然而，我們對(duì)待文化遺產(chǎn)的方式仍然深受保護(hù)敘事的影響。當(dāng)變化已成常態(tài)，文化遺產(chǎn)管理在文化挪用、歸還、主人翁意識(shí)和公眾參與等方面的問(wèn)題都激發(fā)人們對(duì)靜態(tài)的文化遺產(chǎn)概念提出質(zhì)疑。本文旨在基于保護(hù)與變化的相互作用提出新的解決方案。鑒于這些挑戰(zhàn)對(duì)當(dāng)今社會(huì)造成的心理影響，本文認(rèn)為，文化遺產(chǎn)專家需要提升應(yīng)對(duì)不確定性和包容模糊性的能力，以便采取更為明智的舉措。通過(guò)汲取多個(gè)學(xué)科的理念并應(yīng)用到城市環(huán)境研究中，本文倡導(dǎo)系統(tǒng)理解文化遺產(chǎn)，并將之作為可持續(xù)和韌性適應(yīng)當(dāng)前挑戰(zhàn)的先決條件。同時(shí)，本文闡釋了文化遺產(chǎn)相關(guān)行業(yè)人士在日常工作中需要哪些知識(shí)技能才能自如勝任當(dāng)前及未來(lái)的職業(yè)需要。文中所引述的德國(guó)雷根斯堡的案例研究通過(guò)一種綜合的、整體性的方法，將城市視為一個(gè)多層系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行文化遺產(chǎn)管理，為相關(guān)研究與實(shí)踐提供了有益借鑒。最后，本文為文化遺產(chǎn)管理者提供了一系列應(yīng)對(duì)變化和不確定性的指導(dǎo)方針。遺產(chǎn)管理必須以人們的生活品質(zhì)為核心，使我們的城市成為高品質(zhì)的宜居場(chǎng)所。

關(guān)鍵詞

文化遺產(chǎn)；管理；靈活性；轉(zhuǎn)型；不確定性；可持續(xù)性；韌性

Abstract 

The intense changes in our modern society and the associated challenges are constantly increasing, not least due to the meta-crisis of climate change. Yet our approach to cultural heritage is still strongly influenced by the narrative of preservation. The article aims to find solutions within the interplay of preservation and change. Based on the psychological impact on society resulting from the current challenges, it is argued that cultural heritage experts need competencies in dealing with uncertainty and tolerance of ambiguity in order to provide security of action. The article applies insights from multiple disciplines to urban environment studies and advocates for a systemic understanding of cultural heritage as a prerequisite for sustainable and resilient adaptation to current challenges. It also contributes to a body of knowledge on what skills cultural heritage professionals need to be competent and confident in their daily work. The case study provides some valuable examples from Regensburg of Germany by taking an integrated and holistic approach that views the city as a multi-layered system in cultural heritage management.

Keywords

Cultural Heritage; Management; Agility; Transformation; Uncertainty; Sustainability; Resilience

在建造與非建造之間——面向物種共存、物質(zhì)循環(huán)和傳統(tǒng)生態(tài)知識(shí)的跨學(xué)科設(shè)計(jì)方法

Between Building and Unbuilding: An Interdisciplinary Design Approach to Cohabitation, Material Cycles, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge

作者：徐之成，賀夢(mèng)琪 Zhicheng XU, Mengqi Moon HE

摘要

近代人居環(huán)境建設(shè)通常強(qiáng)調(diào)靜態(tài)的建成效果和即時(shí)效用，因此相似的設(shè)計(jì)流程不可避免地加速了建成環(huán)境的同質(zhì)化進(jìn)程。由于資本主義的控制傾向和對(duì)效率的追逐，這些設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程會(huì)優(yōu)先考慮某些特定的文化，而忽略當(dāng)?shù)靥赜械闹R(shí)或生活方式。為了應(yīng)對(duì)不斷加劇的、包括全球氣候挑戰(zhàn)和環(huán)境不平等在內(nèi)的諸多壓力，設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域提出將設(shè)計(jì)從靜態(tài)模式向響應(yīng)模式轉(zhuǎn)變，使之融入自然的轉(zhuǎn)變之中。

“飛來(lái)農(nóng)場(chǎng)”位于美國(guó)內(nèi)華達(dá)州半干旱的干鹽湖地區(qū)，地處偏遠(yuǎn)，但工業(yè)活動(dòng)縱橫交錯(cuò)；氣候條件較為極端，但自然界生命力旺盛，當(dāng)?shù)匚幕瘋鹘y(tǒng)而豐富。在很長(zhǎng)一段歷史里，飛來(lái)農(nóng)場(chǎng)所在的布萊克羅克沙漠區(qū)域一直由原住民管理，直至1843年歐洲殖民者的到來(lái)開(kāi)啟了暴力沖突和土地侵占的歷史。此后不斷升級(jí)的農(nóng)業(yè)和巨型重工業(yè)活動(dòng)從根本上改變了該地區(qū)的生態(tài)。針對(duì)這些矛盾，將在飛來(lái)農(nóng)場(chǎng)建造的項(xiàng)目“寄宿者”（Lodgers）中提出以“非建造”的途徑來(lái)代替以人為中心的建筑和景觀設(shè)計(jì)，通過(guò)尋求跨學(xué)科的設(shè)計(jì)方式解決該地區(qū)的土地侵占和環(huán)境退化問(wèn)題。寄宿者項(xiàng)目提出了三種挑戰(zhàn)當(dāng)代建筑實(shí)踐的關(guān)鍵方法：首先，優(yōu)先考慮包括人類在內(nèi)的所有動(dòng)植物物種的福祉，并創(chuàng)造物種共存空間；其次，利用當(dāng)?shù)鼗蛑苓叺慕ㄖY源，盡量減少浪費(fèi)，保持生態(tài)平衡，重塑物質(zhì)循環(huán)周期。最后，將傳統(tǒng)生態(tài)知識(shí)與當(dāng)代建筑實(shí)踐相結(jié)合，通過(guò)采用低技建造方式來(lái)鼓勵(lì)社區(qū)參與。隨著試點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目進(jìn)入建設(shè)階段，作者批判性地反思了當(dāng)代建筑實(shí)踐和設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程，并探討了“非建造”途徑在應(yīng)對(duì)氣候挑戰(zhàn)時(shí)的重要意義。

關(guān)鍵詞

沙漠；跨學(xué)科研究；非建造；寄宿者；物種共存；物質(zhì)循環(huán)；低技術(shù)；傳統(tǒng)生態(tài)知識(shí)

Abstract 

In recent history, built environment practices have accepted a paradigm which underlines the land’s static quality, prioritizes immediate utility, and consequently adopts design processes that inevitably accelerate assimilation. With the capitalist propensity to obtain control and enhance efficiency, those processes nevertheless privilege certain cultures while rejecting other forms of knowledge or living specific to the land. The design discourse, confronted with the rising pressure of global climate challenges and environmental inequity, suggests a shift of design pattern from static to responsive as a means to an end that is part of nature’s transformation.

Located amid the semi-arid playa of Nevada in the USA, Fly Ranch sits on land remote yet crisscrossed by industrial activity, with extreme climatic conditions yet teeming with life and traditions. Working with these contradictions, “Lodgers,” the project to be constructed in Fly Ranch, is grounded in three key approaches to challenging contemporary architectural practice. Firstly, prioritize the well-being of all plants and animals species, including humans, by creating cohabitation spaces. Secondly, utilize local or nearby building resources to minimize waste, maintain ecological balance, and rebuild the material cycle. Finally, integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge with modern building practices and employ low-tech construction techniques to encourage community participation. As a pilot project goes into construction, the authors offer critical reflection on contemporary architecture practice, the design process, and the meaning of “unbuilding” as a response to climate challenge.

Keywords

Desert; Interdisciplinary Studies; Unbuilding; Lodgers; Cohabitation; Material Cycles; Low-tech; Traditional Ecological Knowledge