日本地域景觀的獨(dú)特性及其可持續(xù)管理

（日）下村彰男 劉銘

1 近年來景觀概念的變化

1.1 政策走向中體現(xiàn)出的景觀概念變化

21世紀(jì)，日本政府修訂、新增了關(guān)于景觀的一系列法律條例。不僅制定了與景觀直接相關(guān)的《景觀法》（《景観法》），而且對(duì)《文化財(cái)保護(hù)法》（《文化財(cái)保護(hù)法》）進(jìn)行了修訂，首次將文化景觀歸類到文化財(cái)產(chǎn)之中。此外，對(duì)旅游相關(guān)基本法也進(jìn)行了修訂，增加了推進(jìn)文化旅游、生態(tài)旅游的相關(guān)法律條文（表1）。

這一系列的變動(dòng)都有一個(gè)共同的關(guān)鍵詞即“地域個(gè)性”，《景觀法》中也明確提出該關(guān)鍵詞。雖然各個(gè)法律所涉及的對(duì)象、內(nèi)容不同，但是都在強(qiáng)調(diào)地域個(gè)性——地域的自然、文化獨(dú)特性的重要性，并將通過政府與民間連攜形成地域個(gè)性作為目標(biāo)。

表1 日本21世紀(jì)初期的風(fēng)景法律政策動(dòng)向Tab. 1 Movement of laws which is related to landscapes in the 2000s

1 活用地域文化資源開展社區(qū)發(fā)展Community development which utilized local resources

《景觀法》出臺(tái)的背景之一，是從20世紀(jì)70年代起，日本各地的自治體制定了諸多關(guān)于景觀的行政條例，并開始尋求上位法層面的支持。日本在城市地區(qū)、農(nóng)村地區(qū)、自然地區(qū)都分別有涉及景觀、環(huán)境的相關(guān)法律，但卻互不相關(guān)，所屬的政府部門亦各不相同，各部門之間缺少充分的協(xié)同合作。此外，城市地域中的景觀問題被縮小在“風(fēng)致地區(qū)”“美觀地區(qū)”等城市中的個(gè)別街道，僅從表面上對(duì)其進(jìn)行美化而缺乏深層次的、綜合性的風(fēng)景整頓措施及相關(guān)法律條例。因此，各個(gè)自治體不得不根據(jù)當(dāng)?shù)氐牡赜蛱卣髋c社會(huì)情況獨(dú)自制定適用的景觀條例。20世紀(jì)90年代，自治體獨(dú)自制定景觀條例已成慣例，在《景觀法》出臺(tái)之時(shí)，已經(jīng)有500余個(gè)、約占總體30%的自治體制定了自己的景觀條例[1]。

從該過程以及2000年左右的法律變動(dòng)中不難理解，“景觀”已不單單是目之所及的實(shí)景（視覺像），更是人們生產(chǎn)生活與土地的自然環(huán)境之間相互作用、日積月累而形成的特色，同時(shí)也是反映其形成過程的媒介[2]。1992年，“人類與自然的共同作品”文化景觀遺產(chǎn)被納入《世界文化遺產(chǎn)名錄》，體現(xiàn)出這種景觀概念的變化符合國際趨勢(shì)。

日本的法律制度調(diào)整中體現(xiàn)出的景觀概念的變化，可以總結(jié)為以下2點(diǎn)：1）景觀不單單是人眼看到的實(shí)景，更是人們生產(chǎn)生活與土地的自然環(huán)境相互作用的媒介。2）景觀的保全、管理、整備等不能單純由公共機(jī)關(guān)主導(dǎo)，需要當(dāng)?shù)氐木用駨亩嘟嵌葏⑴c其中，共同維持并發(fā)展景觀。

1.2 地域景觀與社區(qū)發(fā)展

如果能夠理解景觀是人們生產(chǎn)生活與土地的自然環(huán)境之間相互作用、日積月累的產(chǎn)物，那么便能夠理解景觀是地域個(gè)性的重要體現(xiàn)，是一種“地域資源”。以此為前提，可以認(rèn)為景觀是一種能夠促進(jìn)居民之間溝通交流的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，在城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃中起著重要的作用。

對(duì)于當(dāng)?shù)鼐用穸?，地域?dú)有的個(gè)性景觀與日常生活密不可分，承載著童年的美好回憶，也容易引發(fā)人們的鄉(xiāng)愁。景觀記錄了人們共同經(jīng)歷過的歷史變遷，發(fā)揮著維系當(dāng)?shù)鼐用窠涣骰顒?dòng)的紐帶作用。通過交流，重新思考、審視集體共有的地域景觀，能夠使當(dāng)?shù)鼐用裰匦抡J(rèn)識(shí)身邊習(xí)以為常的風(fēng)景，加深對(duì)所在地域的理解。維持、管理地域獨(dú)有的個(gè)性景觀，能夠提高居民對(duì)地域的歸屬感，發(fā)揮重構(gòu)地域交流的功能。

對(duì)于地域外的來訪者（游客）而言，地域獨(dú)有的個(gè)性景觀是重要的旅游資源。在日本，主流的旅游方式已經(jīng)從馬不停蹄、短時(shí)間游覽多個(gè)地區(qū)的周游型旅游，轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樵谝粋€(gè)地區(qū)停留數(shù)日、體驗(yàn)當(dāng)?shù)厣畹臏粜吐糜?。因此地域?dú)有的生活方式，包括當(dāng)?shù)孛朗场c典活動(dòng)等，作為旅游資源的地位不斷提升，日益受到重視。景觀是地域獨(dú)有的生活方式的視覺表達(dá)，不僅其本身可以作為開展旅游活動(dòng)的舞臺(tái)，講解景觀的形成、與生活方式的相互關(guān)系也是游客理解當(dāng)?shù)氐囊粋€(gè)重要途徑。

綜上所述，地域生產(chǎn)生活形成了獨(dú)具個(gè)性的地域景觀。對(duì)地域景觀進(jìn)行的維護(hù)管理，在以地域外來訪者的交流和支持作為基礎(chǔ)的、新型城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃的整個(gè)進(jìn)程中，占據(jù)著核心地位，起著重要的支柱作用（圖1）。

2 景觀的多樣與均一

2.1 日本的景觀多樣性

與幅員遼闊的中國相比，日本國土面積狹小，但在日本各地卻不乏個(gè)性各異的地域景觀。日本國土東西窄、南北長，自北向南跨越亞寒帶、溫帶、亞熱帶等多種氣候帶，地形變化十分豐富。復(fù)雜多樣的自然環(huán)境，與人們多樣的生產(chǎn)生活方式相結(jié)合，形成了極其豐富的人地關(guān)系，孕育了各地域獨(dú)具個(gè)性的景觀。從日本全國范圍來看，景觀的類型十分豐富多樣。

以日本常見的造林樹種日本柳杉（Cryptomeria japonica）所形成的森林景觀為例，各個(gè)地域的森林景觀之間有顯著的差異（圖2）。日本柳杉在日本各地被廣泛種植，杉樹林景觀隨處可見，但絕不是千篇一律的，而是呈現(xiàn)出了各個(gè)地區(qū)的獨(dú)特個(gè)性[3-4]。

日本大分縣日田（圖2-1），奈良縣吉野（圖2-2）都是歷史悠久的杉樹林場(chǎng)，兩地的杉樹景觀截然不同。日田林場(chǎng)采用行列種植的方式，構(gòu)成森林質(zhì)感的樹冠排列整齊，給人井井有條的印象。而吉野林場(chǎng)的林木并沒有嚴(yán)格按照行列方式種植，景觀的質(zhì)感較為柔和。那么為何同是杉樹林場(chǎng)，森林景觀卻有如此的差異？這是由于兩個(gè)林場(chǎng)的生產(chǎn)目的、下游產(chǎn)業(yè)不同，苗木的種植與管理方式也各不相同，使得兩者的森林景觀有顯著的差異。

2 多種多樣的日本柳杉（Cryptomeria japonica）森林景觀Various landscapes of Japanese cedar forests2-1 大分縣，日田林場(chǎng)Hita, ōita Prefecture2-2 奈良縣，吉野林場(chǎng)Yoshino, Nara Prefecture2-3 京都府，北山林場(chǎng)Kitayama, Kyoto Prefecture2-4 宮崎縣，綾林場(chǎng)Morotsuka, Miyazaki Prefecture

日田林場(chǎng)主要為建筑物提供建材，以高效率地生產(chǎn)良材為目標(biāo)，采用插條種植，種植密度相對(duì)較低，采伐周期短（30～35年）。而吉野林場(chǎng)是著名的生產(chǎn)酒桶、醬油桶的林場(chǎng)，以培育出圓滿無節(jié)、樹干粗大的木材為目標(biāo)，采用實(shí)生苗高密度種植，經(jīng)過長期的間伐管理，60～80年方可成材。就種植初期階段的苗木密度而言，日田林場(chǎng)約3 000棵/hm2，吉野約10 000棵/hm2,達(dá)3倍差距；就樹種構(gòu)成而言，日田林場(chǎng)中80%以上都是杉樹，而吉野林場(chǎng)則順應(yīng)地形、小氣候等條件，采取杉樹與側(cè)柏等常綠樹混植的種植方式。地區(qū)產(chǎn)業(yè)和林業(yè)管理方式的不同，是各具特色的森林景觀得以形成的基礎(chǔ)。

再如專為京都的建筑和庭園提供木材，支撐著“京文化”的北山林場(chǎng)，其杉樹的干細(xì)長、分枝點(diǎn)高，森林景觀獨(dú)具特色（圖2-3）；為九州縣宮崎提供建材的綾林場(chǎng)，杉樹的冠形細(xì)長，組成了特別的風(fēng)景（圖2-4）。可以說，各個(gè)地區(qū)林業(yè)發(fā)展的歷史進(jìn)程不同，必然導(dǎo)致林木的形態(tài)和林場(chǎng)管理方式不同，由此各地的杉樹林景觀就有了地域特色，有了地域差異。

綜上所述，同一種杉樹，不同地區(qū)的森林景觀也可以各具特色，從日本全國范圍來看，杉樹的森林景觀十分多樣。特別是混交林的森林景觀受到所在地區(qū)的風(fēng)土人情、歷史和現(xiàn)代的社會(huì)狀況的影響，各地區(qū)之間存在巨大的差異。同時(shí)，構(gòu)成各地區(qū)的景觀除了山體、森林，還有田野、草地、民居、墻垣等多種要素。每一個(gè)要素都如同上述的杉樹林一樣，帶有當(dāng)?shù)貧v史文化的深刻烙印，能夠形成當(dāng)?shù)亟^無僅有、無法復(fù)制的獨(dú)特景觀。這些景觀要素相結(jié)合，就組成了完整的、無可替代的地域景觀。從日本全國范圍來看，景觀的類型就十分豐富多樣了。

2.2 景觀的均一化

如上文所述，景觀是在人們順應(yīng)自然、改造自然的歷史進(jìn)程中逐漸形成的。人們不斷克服自然環(huán)境中的不利因素，就會(huì)不斷改寫或強(qiáng)化一個(gè)地區(qū)的景觀，今日的景觀也能夠體現(xiàn)出生產(chǎn)生活方式轉(zhuǎn)變的過程[5]。

然而近代以來，人與自然環(huán)境、土地的關(guān)系發(fā)生了巨大的變化。由于科學(xué)技術(shù)的發(fā)展，人們改造自然的能力被極大地拓展。能夠建造超過人類身體尺度和基準(zhǔn)的大型營造，如無視地形等制約條件建造大規(guī)模、高品質(zhì)的建筑和構(gòu)筑物。這樣的項(xiàng)目在日本也是屢見不鮮。同時(shí)，生活必需品，如家具、燃料、肥料等，也越來越多地用人工素材來代替自然材料。在生產(chǎn)生活逐漸脫離土地制約的現(xiàn)在，人們的生產(chǎn)生活方式中已經(jīng)看不到與所在地區(qū)自然環(huán)境（土地）之間的聯(lián)系。從土地的制約中解放，意味著人們可以將土地看作均質(zhì)的空間，把自由地設(shè)計(jì)、改造自然空間作為新的目標(biāo)?？茖W(xué)技術(shù)的迅猛發(fā)展，已經(jīng)基本實(shí)現(xiàn)了這一目標(biāo)，同時(shí)隨著“人、物、金錢、信息”在更廣泛的范圍內(nèi)以更快的速度流動(dòng)，追求功能合理性和經(jīng)濟(jì)合理性的生活空間被接二連三地設(shè)計(jì)建造而成。因此，景觀出現(xiàn)了均質(zhì)化、同一化的趨勢(shì)，日本各地出現(xiàn)了大同小異的風(fēng)景（圖3）。這種現(xiàn)象十分普遍，已經(jīng)引發(fā)了對(duì)景觀均質(zhì)化的批判。雖然有批判的聲音，但在日本各個(gè)地區(qū)，失去原本的自然、文化獨(dú)特性，引發(fā)景觀獨(dú)特性丟失的情況還在愈演愈烈。

3 景觀管理的新方向

3.1 景觀的地域特性

開篇所述，日本在21世紀(jì)前10年新增、修訂了一系列景觀政策，這一系列變動(dòng)的根本原因在于日本社會(huì)對(duì)于景觀的理解和價(jià)值觀發(fā)生了變化。人們對(duì)于一味追求功能合理性、經(jīng)濟(jì)合理性而導(dǎo)致的景觀均質(zhì)化產(chǎn)生了反感，因此萌發(fā)阻止均質(zhì)化、重現(xiàn)地域自然和人文特色，即恢復(fù)地域景觀特色的愿望，這就是景觀價(jià)值觀變化的原因。

那么，景觀的地域特色到底是什么？舉例而言，巖手縣宮古市是2011年東日本大地震的受災(zāi)地區(qū)之一，宮古市濱海地區(qū)的歷史漁村聚落調(diào)查研究結(jié)果明確了該地區(qū)景觀的獨(dú)特性。在海面上沿網(wǎng)格設(shè)置多個(gè)視點(diǎn)（距海岸線3 km，間距200 m，網(wǎng)格狀設(shè)置了視點(diǎn)，圖4），使用GIS計(jì)算各個(gè)視點(diǎn)的可視領(lǐng)域，然后將可視領(lǐng)域的陸地部分疊加，用顏色深淺表示被視頻度，圖上藍(lán)色越深的地方表示被視頻度越高。于是陸地上顏色最深的地方，就是視野最好、能夠看到最多海面的地方。再將聚落、道路等地物信息疊加在可視領(lǐng)域圖上，就不難發(fā)現(xiàn)村落和道路都位于可視領(lǐng)域高的地方。這個(gè)地區(qū)經(jīng)常受到海嘯的侵襲，因此人們將生活休息的村莊建設(shè)在遠(yuǎn)離海岸的高地上；在海邊低地建設(shè)名為“番屋”小漁屋，供漁民放置工具兼做短暫休息。自古以來這里的人們一直過著這種生活—工作（漁業(yè)） 各在一處的分離型生活。但正如分析結(jié)果所示，當(dāng)?shù)厝耸窍胍３趾痛蠛５木o密聯(lián)系。雖然為了躲避海嘯，當(dāng)?shù)厝瞬坏貌痪幼≡谂_(tái)地，在空間上遠(yuǎn)離了大海，但視覺上與大海的距離其實(shí)非常近，因此可以體會(huì)到這里的人們希望能夠在日常生活中時(shí)刻看到大海、時(shí)刻感受大海的壯美和殘酷。

4 可視領(lǐng)域分析圖Visible analysis from the sea to the land

與之形成鮮明對(duì)比的是京都府伊根町的景觀。得益于周邊的地形優(yōu)勢(shì)，伊根町不僅沒有海嘯隱患，潮水漲落對(duì)該聚落的影響也很小。當(dāng)?shù)氐拿窬邮且环N將立柱打到海底、能夠收納漁船的建筑，被稱作“舟屋”。從空間和視覺的距離而言，伊根町的人們選擇了十分貼近大海的生活方式。這2個(gè)地區(qū)的人們順應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)氐暮Ｑ蠛偷匦螚l件，分別形成了合理的生活方式，決定了居所、聚落與海面的空間位置關(guān)系，生活方式的不同體現(xiàn)在地域獨(dú)特的風(fēng)景之中（圖5）。

除了聚落的空間位置，日本各地的海岸防災(zāi)林和房屋周邊的防護(hù)林景觀也反映著當(dāng)?shù)厝藢?duì)自然災(zāi)害的應(yīng)對(duì)方式。沖繩縣備瀨地區(qū)經(jīng)常受到臺(tái)風(fēng)的侵襲，居民采用茂密的菲島福木（Garcinia subelliptica）做防護(hù)林保護(hù)房屋，同時(shí)防護(hù)林與防護(hù)林相連，組成綠墻，發(fā)揮著沿海防風(fēng)林的作用，保護(hù)內(nèi)部的農(nóng)田（圖6）。在山形縣莊內(nèi)地區(qū)，強(qiáng)風(fēng)常伴隨飛沙，因此人們?cè)诤＿叺纳城鹕戏N植了長達(dá)數(shù)百米的黑松（Pinns thunbergi）防沙林，農(nóng)地設(shè)置在兩片防沙林之中。經(jīng)過長期的經(jīng)營和管理，形成了防沙林之中夾雜著農(nóng)地的獨(dú)具個(gè)性的景觀。

適應(yīng)每個(gè)地區(qū)的氣候、地形等自然條件，保護(hù)住宅和農(nóng)田，維持日常生活，各個(gè)地區(qū)形成了各自獨(dú)特的林地形態(tài)和結(jié)構(gòu)，形成了具有地域特色的獨(dú)特風(fēng)景。

簡而言之，景觀的地域特性是指人們根據(jù)各地自然環(huán)境條件（自然合理性）形成的生活方式，這種生活方式經(jīng)過漫長的時(shí)間在地域空間上留下了不可磨滅的烙印，由此形成地域獨(dú)有的個(gè)性風(fēng)景（圖7）。

圖8是關(guān)于維持、發(fā)展地域特色風(fēng)景的方法圖。為了構(gòu)筑這種良性循環(huán)，就要將景觀置于地域資源的位置上，使其發(fā)揮出社區(qū)發(fā)展的中軸、核心作用。

3.2 構(gòu)筑新型風(fēng)景管理制度

日本的政策變化象征著景觀價(jià)值觀的轉(zhuǎn)變，反映出人們生活與地域、土地的關(guān)系開始發(fā)生變化。在這樣的社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型期，景觀規(guī)劃和管理需要新的思維方式和新的方法論[6]。新思維、方法論需要能解決以下現(xiàn)實(shí)問題：政府該如何實(shí)現(xiàn)與以當(dāng)?shù)鼐用駷槭椎拿耖g組織的交流合作？如何保護(hù)和發(fā)展地域特色景觀？與民間組織協(xié)力保護(hù)和發(fā)展地域特色景觀的過程又該如何促進(jìn)社區(qū)發(fā)展？筆者提出，構(gòu)筑這種方法論的關(guān)鍵在于以下2個(gè)相互關(guān)系的要點(diǎn)。

1）主體層面：景觀管理（保全、整備、發(fā)展等）需要政府與以當(dāng)?shù)鼐用駷槭椎拿耖g組織協(xié)作進(jìn)行（“民”），而不能全權(quán)委托給政府專家等公共機(jī)關(guān)（“公”）；2）資金層面：除了依靠公共資金提供景觀管理費(fèi)用以外，還需要構(gòu)建“調(diào)查研究—普及宣傳—保全管理—有效利用”循環(huán)（圖9），構(gòu)建確保自主資金（當(dāng)?shù)卣梢宰杂芍涞呢?cái)政收入）和新參與者的合理形態(tài)和相關(guān)政策方法。

為實(shí)現(xiàn)政府與居民協(xié)作來共同管理景觀，雙方必須充分理解且重視地域景觀的獨(dú)特性，并達(dá)成共識(shí)。為此需要通過“調(diào)查研究”來明確當(dāng)?shù)鼐坝^與其他地區(qū)的區(qū)別，并挖掘風(fēng)景與自然、歷史條件之間的關(guān)系。通過“普及宣傳”將這類研究的成果公之于眾。在此基礎(chǔ)上，人們才能理解地域景觀這一管理對(duì)象，明確保護(hù)地域景觀的立場(chǎng)，順利地開展官民協(xié)作，對(duì)地域景觀進(jìn)行可持續(xù)的“保全管理”。通過“有效利用”來保障資金，繼續(xù)開展下一輪的調(diào)查研究、普及宣傳、保全管理，這一景觀管理的新循環(huán)就是本文筆者提供的新思路。

此外，每一個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)都需要單獨(dú)討論其具體方法，構(gòu)筑相應(yīng)的方法論。在“調(diào)查研究”環(huán)節(jié)，需要深入探討提煉地域景觀特性的研究方法，思考挖掘地域景觀與自然、歷史、社會(huì)環(huán)境之間關(guān)系的方法論。在“普及宣傳”環(huán)節(jié)，需要思考如何激發(fā)居民與行政機(jī)關(guān)協(xié)同合作的意愿，如何通過教育等途徑提高居民對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)鼐坝^的理解程度。在“保全管理”環(huán)節(jié)，在提高居民和來訪者參與程度的同時(shí)，必須要解決保障自發(fā)性資金的艱巨任務(wù)。

5 聚落與海面的位置關(guān)系分析圖Positional relation between houses and the sea

6 聚落與農(nóng)田、防風(fēng)林之間多樣的形態(tài)關(guān)系The form of forests which protect homesteads and farmlands

筆者提出新型“循環(huán)型風(fēng)景管理”的方法論之所以不可或缺，一個(gè)重要原因是日本政府降低了 “生活環(huán)境整備”在行政中的優(yōu)先性。一直以來，日本的景觀和生活環(huán)境的整備管理大多依靠政府資金，以項(xiàng)目的形式進(jìn)行。然而隨著景觀和生活環(huán)境的變化，依賴“公”資金變得越來越困難，同時(shí)由于政府資金使用時(shí)有著諸多限制，難以適應(yīng)各地不同的景觀所需要的多樣化管理，往往顧及不到管理的細(xì)節(jié)之處。

因此近年來，日本各地在設(shè)法補(bǔ)充政府資金不足的同時(shí)，紛紛開始采取措施獲取自主資金。其主要途徑是以稅費(fèi)、贊助金、購物花費(fèi)等形式，爭取游客等外部人員的支援[7]。此外，2014年日本環(huán)境省和文化廳共同制定《促進(jìn)地域自然資產(chǎn)區(qū)域中的自然環(huán)境保全及可持續(xù)利用的相關(guān)法律》，明確闡明國立公園、名勝景區(qū)所在地的政府可以成立相關(guān)協(xié)會(huì)（專門管理某一國立公園或景區(qū)的組織）以收取入境費(fèi)用。除國立公園之外，日本各地都展開了向來訪者征收“贊助金”的嘗試。此外，福岡縣太宰府市向使用收費(fèi)停車場(chǎng)的游客征收“歷史及文化環(huán)境稅”，以稅收的形式保障資金來源，這筆資金被運(yùn)用在環(huán)境管理、設(shè)施整備、宣傳推廣等歷史文化資源、觀光資源管理的相關(guān)環(huán)節(jié)。再如通過提高當(dāng)?shù)厣唐穬r(jià)格獲取資金，或通過設(shè)置環(huán)境保護(hù)基金來進(jìn)行收支管理的方式也十分常見。

之所以出現(xiàn)這種依靠游客和外來者獲取自主資金、進(jìn)行景觀管理的趨勢(shì)，原因之一在于越來越多的人認(rèn)識(shí)到地域特色景觀需要人力、物力來維護(hù)管理。我們分別在東京都奧多摩地區(qū)、沖繩縣西表島地區(qū)、大分縣由布院地區(qū)進(jìn)行調(diào)查，詢問游客“是否愿意為保護(hù)和管理當(dāng)?shù)仫L(fēng)景提供資金支持”，結(jié)果顯示，3地都有約80%的來訪者愿意提供資金支持，由于每個(gè)地區(qū)的魅力度和旅游成本不同，圖10展示了由布院地區(qū)的調(diào)查結(jié)果，游客表示愿意提供的金額上限也不同。但即使是自愿支付金額較低的地方，其金額也足以為當(dāng)?shù)鼐坝^管理提供強(qiáng)大的助力。

綜上所述，通過增進(jìn)來訪者對(duì)地域特色經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值的認(rèn)識(shí)，獲取管理地域特色景觀所需要的資金（自主資金），這一過程需要理論支持。將資金以景觀保護(hù)基金或其他形式進(jìn)行管理，然后聯(lián)合政府、居民和來訪者，進(jìn)一步深入挖掘地域景觀的特色，這一系列的過程都需要相應(yīng)的人力和組織的支援，更加需要理論體系和方法論的構(gòu)筑。

4 風(fēng)景園林師的職責(zé)轉(zhuǎn)變

隨著景觀概念的變化，日本社會(huì)需要新的規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)理論，造園家的職責(zé)和所需的素養(yǎng)自然也與之前不同。由于景觀形成相關(guān)的地域自然與文化特性得到重視，在景觀規(guī)劃和城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃中，繼承地域的歷史成了首要目標(biāo)。進(jìn)行景觀保護(hù)和設(shè)計(jì)之時(shí)，首先需要解讀場(chǎng)所的性格和地域特色，在充分理解場(chǎng)地、地區(qū)景觀形成的歷史背景之后再進(jìn)行討論和實(shí)踐。

原本風(fēng)景園林師需要同時(shí)具備2種基本能力，一是從風(fēng)景中讀取土地性格特征的能力，二是設(shè)計(jì)景觀、豐富生活環(huán)境的能力。近代社會(huì)對(duì)于后者的需求量極大，積累下大量與設(shè)計(jì)、工程等實(shí)操方面的知識(shí)，景觀設(shè)計(jì)成為重中之重。但在今后，對(duì)于讀取地域風(fēng)景特色的風(fēng)景解讀的能力和技術(shù)的需求量將會(huì)大量增加。隨著重視地域個(gè)性的景觀管理新方法的確立，風(fēng)景園林師將從主導(dǎo)空間設(shè)計(jì)的設(shè)計(jì)師，轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)槟缓笕藛T，為當(dāng)?shù)鼐用癫贾媚軌虮３趾屯恋亓己玫年P(guān)系的“生活舞臺(tái)”，支持他們營造居民主導(dǎo)的地域特色景觀。換言之，造園家將不再是依靠公款的政府建設(shè)項(xiàng)目的執(zhí)行者，不再直接進(jìn)行空間規(guī)劃和景觀設(shè)計(jì)，而是以支援者的姿態(tài)參與到居民培養(yǎng)地區(qū)特色景觀的工作中，幫助當(dāng)?shù)鼐用窠⒕坝^的管理組織，并協(xié)助組織進(jìn)行資金募集和管理。

從近代到現(xiàn)代，“人、物、金錢、信息”的流動(dòng)愈加快速和廣泛，單純追求功能和經(jīng)濟(jì)合理性的思想，導(dǎo)致各個(gè)地區(qū)之間生活方式、景觀等出現(xiàn)均一化的趨勢(shì)。在景觀設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域，強(qiáng)調(diào)商業(yè)化和形式感的設(shè)計(jì)切斷了景觀與土地、地區(qū)的聯(lián)系，這雖然使其與設(shè)計(jì)、造型相關(guān)的技術(shù)得到了發(fā)展，卻可能造成喪失自然和文化獨(dú)特性的惡果，導(dǎo)致人們喪失對(duì)土地的眷戀，歸屬感越來越淡。在本應(yīng)重視繼承場(chǎng)所記憶的園林領(lǐng)域，也出現(xiàn)了類似的情況，比如某些設(shè)計(jì)中無視土地的實(shí)際情況、硬要設(shè)計(jì)出“綠與水”的形態(tài)美的做法。在景觀設(shè)計(jì)的工作中，風(fēng)景園林師最重要的職責(zé)是傳達(dá)、繼承土地的記憶，而非單純地創(chuàng)造出新的風(fēng)景。如果不能充分理解土地的記憶和場(chǎng)所的性格就倉促進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)，那么就會(huì)混亂場(chǎng)所的固有個(gè)性。

今后，社會(huì)需要的風(fēng)景園林師將不單單是花費(fèi)大量時(shí)間精力去創(chuàng)造新的景觀的人，更是愿意付出充足的時(shí)間和精力進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)的前一個(gè)階段——讀取地域的特色景觀和其中蘊(yùn)含深刻的人與自然關(guān)系的人。

5 小結(jié)

日本在21世紀(jì)前幾年對(duì)景觀相關(guān)的法律制度進(jìn)行了大量的更改和補(bǔ)充，反映了日本社會(huì)對(duì)于景觀問題日益重視，對(duì)景觀的概念有了新的認(rèn)知。景觀能夠反映出各個(gè)地區(qū)居民日常生活與自然的相互作用，體現(xiàn)當(dāng)?shù)氐臍v史，其發(fā)展和管理與城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃緊密結(jié)合在一起。而風(fēng)景園林師在進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)工作時(shí)，當(dāng)務(wù)之急是要鍛煉從景觀中讀取地區(qū)歷史文化的技術(shù)和能力。

7 地域風(fēng)景個(gè)性的形成過程，尊重地域的自然環(huán)境和社會(huì)歷史，形成合理的人地關(guān)系，從而產(chǎn)生了地域獨(dú)有的生活方式和獨(dú)具個(gè)性的地域風(fēng)景Formation process of unique local landscapes. Rationality in relation with local nature makes unique character.(not economic rationality, functional rationality)

8 地域風(fēng)景的管理循環(huán)圖Circulation to manage the unique local landscape

9 將地域風(fēng)景作為資源、進(jìn)行利用管理的“循環(huán)型管理” 概念圖An image of the cyclical management that incorporated the conservation and utilization of local resources

今后，理想的景觀管理方式應(yīng)該是：明確各地景觀的獨(dú)特性，在此基礎(chǔ)上政府官方與民間形成共同的景觀認(rèn)知，官民協(xié)作。在有效利用景觀資源的同時(shí)，對(duì)其進(jìn)行可持續(xù)的維護(hù)管理。

（本文以作者在2018世界風(fēng)景園林師高峰講壇上的發(fā)言稿為基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行補(bǔ)充。）

圖表來源：

圖1、5、7～10由作者自繪；圖2、3、6由作者攝；圖4基于日本國土地理院地圖，由共同研究者小野良平繪制；表1由作者自繪。

1 Recent Changes in the Concept of“Landscape”

1.1 Recent Changes in the Concept of “Landscape”as Seen in Trends in Government Policy

Japan established a series of landscape-related legislative systems in the 2000s. It enacted theLandscape Act, which deals directly with landscapes, and revised theLaw for the Protection of Cultural Propertiesto establish cultural landscapes as a class of cultural properties.In addition, it revised the basic law on tourism and developed policies promoting eco-tourism (Tab. 1).

Relevant to this series of actions is the key phrase chiiki no kosei (the unique characteristics of an area),which can also be found explicitly in theLandscape Act. Although the object is different by contents that each law deals with, this phrase basically suggests that the natural or cultural uniqueness of a place is important and that the local citizens and government should work together to develop it.

In the background of the establishment of theLandscape Act, many local governments have established the regulations about landscape until 2000,and have needed support of higher “l(fā)aw”. In Japan,legislative systems about landscape and environment was established separately according to urban area,rural area, natural area, and competent authority of each legal system was different, so mutual cooperation was not enough. In addition, the landscape was limited as an issue of the special district such as an aesthetic area or scenic districts in the urban area. So legislative systems about landscape were not be able to deal with landscape comprehensively. Therefore each local government developed landscape policies such as landscape ordinance according to each local character and social situation, and it became the big flow in the 1990s. When theLandscape Actwas established, more than 500 local governments which is 30% of the whole had the original regulations about landscape[1].

What these trends in legislative systems in the 2000s indicate is the idea that rather than being simply forms (visual images) that people see, landscapes are what developed as the historical accumulation of relationships between human activity and the natural environment, as well as the media that tell the story of that development[2]. This trend can also be considered an international one; in 1992, cultural landscapes were defined as the “combined works of nature and of man” by the World Heritage Convention.

Trends in Japan’s legislative systems in the 2000s indicate the following changes in landscape-related concepts: 1) Landscapes are not simply forms (visual images) that people see, and they are the historical accumulation of relationships between human activity and the natural environment in a given area, as well as the media that communicate this accumulation;2) Therefore, landscapes should not be preserved,managed, and maintained in a top-down manner by public organizations, but rather be developed with various kinds of participation from members of the local community.

10 由布院溫泉景區(qū)游客資源支付金額（WTP）調(diào)查成果（是否愿意為風(fēng)景管理基金提供資金支持）An interview survey on the “willingness to pay” of visitors

1.2 Formation of Landscapes and Machizukuri(Community Development)

If we interpret a landscape as the historical accumulation of relationships between the natural environment of an area and the people who live there,then we can understand it as a unique element that is exclusive to that area and thus a kind of local resource.Further, interpreting landscapes as local resources gives them an important role in a type of community development that is based on interaction with people from outside of the area.

From the perspective of what community development means for local residents, the unique and characteristic landscape of an area is tied to the daily life of the people who live there and their childhood memories; it can evoke fond memories of their hometown. It can also be considered to play an important role as a bond that ties the local community together, as it is something that the people in that area have historically shared. Re-examining and reconceptualizing this shared unique and characteristic landscape can help others learn about the area better and see it in a new light. Preserving and managing unique and characteristic landscapes are thought to strengthen people’s sense of belonging to the local community and have an important function in rebuilding the local community as well.

Unique and characteristic landscapes are also an important touristic resource for visitors from outside the area. Tourism has shifted from moving between regions (excursion-style) to staying within a single region. This trend makes the lifestyles unique of each regions (including cuisine and festivals) an increasingly important resource. Landscapes are nothing other than visual representations of these unique local lifestyles. They function as the stage for unique tourist activities. More importantly, educating visitors about the relationship between the landscape and the local lifestyle depends on the understanding of the latter.

The mentality of conserving and managing unique landscapes formed by human activity can be considered as an important pillar, or even the core, of promoting a new kind of community development based on interaction with people from outside the community (Fig. 1).

2 Diversity and Homogenization of Landscapes

2.1 Diversity of Landscapes in Japan

Japan may be a small country compared with the vast expanse of China, but its various regions nevertheless contain their own unique landscapes.The narrow and long country stretches from north to south, spanning climate classifications from subarctic to subtropical. The topography is just as rich in variation,with a remarkably diverse collection of relationships between these natural environments and the activity of the people who live in them. This condition has led to the formation of unique landscapes in each region and thus a diversity of landscapes across Japan as a whole. While there are no great differences in the natural environment itself, as in China, there is diversity in human activity and the way people have adapted to their environment. These adaptations vary in subtle ways from one region to the next. This variation, in turn, makes Japan’s landscapes diverse.

For example, Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) is an important reforestation tree species in Japan, there are variations in cedar forest landscapes depending on the region (Fig. 2). Cedar trees have been planted across Japan, so although cedar forest landscapes can be found anywhere in the country, and they are not all alike; they exhibit unique aspects from place to place[3-4].

Fig. 2-1 shows cedar forest landscapes in Hita,ōita Prefecture and Yoshino, Nara Prefecture (Fig. 2-2),which have been woodlands since long ago. In the Hita landscape, the tree crowns, which are elements that make up the landscape’s texture (surface appearance), all have a uniform shape and even the arrangement, creating a systematic and orderly impression overall. Meanwhile, in the Yoshino landscape, the tree crowns are less uniformly shaped and evenly arranged, which results in a softer impression. What is the reason for such variations? They are the result of differences in forest management goals and approaches between the two regions (with regard to initial planting and subsequent management).

The goal of forest management in Hita has mainly been to produce structural materials for buildings efficiently. As such, the trees are grown from good cedar cuttings, planted relatively sparsely for short-term cutting. In contrast, the goal of forest management in Yoshino, which has become famous for the production of timber for sake and soy sauce barrels, has been to produce large-diameter timber with straight grain and no knots. Thus, the trees are grown at high density from seedlings, and commercial thinning is repeated over a long cutting period. Planting density in the initial stages is 3,000 trees/hm2in Hita and 10,000 trees/hm2in Yoshino — a threefold difference. In addition, over 80% of trees in Hita are cedar, whereas in Yoshino, cedar and hinoki (Japanese cypress) are mixed together and planted according to optimal conditions for each. Such historically formed differences in forest management between the two areas contribute to the features of each forest landscape.

Some landscapes feature trees with conspicuous trunks, such as Kitayama cedar, a tree that has played a part in upholding Kyōtō culture through its use in the city’s architecture and gardens. There are other landscapes in which the tree canopy is arranged in long and narrow rows, such as the one that supports the production of materials in Morotsuka, Miyazaki Prefecture (Fig. 2-3, 2-4). Differences in the historical development of cedar forestry from region to region led to variations in the form of the cedar trees and in forest management. These differences have ultimately led to regional differences in the resulting forest landscapes.

Thus, even in the case of only one particular species of tree, namely, Japanese cedar, there are a variety of regional landscapes. This case is all the more true for landscapes of forests where cedar is planted together with many other species. Such landscapes vary greatly depending on the local topography,history, or contemporary social situation. Further,landscapes do not merely consist of trees, forests,and mountains; they also consist of components like rice fields, meadows, buildings, and building exteriors.These elements, too, have stories similar to that of cedar and are deeply embedded into the landscape as uniquely local features. It is clear from all of these factors that there is an extremely diverse range of landscapes, with characteristic landscapes that are unique to each region, in Japan.

2.2 Homogenization of Landscapes

As stated above, landscapes are originally formed from the historical accumulation of human activity undertaken as people in an area adapt to their natural environment. By using the available technology over the course of centuries to overcome unfavorable constraints in the local environment, inhabitants have shaped and re-accumulated these landscapes to become the landscapes that exist today[5].

However, the way that people have related to the land and environment in modern times differs greatly from that of past eras. Modern science and technology has expanded our potential and allowed human activity to surpass the human scale. For example, it has enabled us to build large-scale, high-quality buildings and structures without heeding the conditions of the land;or to overcome the constraints of the land and thus use it more freely and effectively. We have also gradually shifted from using natural tools, fuels, and fertilizers in our daily lives to using artificial ones. Human activity has now diverged widely from the peculiar characteristics of the land and natural environment.

Since the Industrial Revolution, we have aimed to manufacture goods of a certain quality regardless of the state or constraints of the land or of a particular region; that is, to free ourselves from the constraints of the land and geography, and to view land as a homogenous and freely shapeable space.This goal was largely achieved by modern science and technology, which developed rapidly through the Industrial Revolution. It is arguable that this element,coupled with the expansion and acceleration of flows of “people, goods, money, and information,”has steadily created an artificial living space based on functional and economic rationality.

Thus started a trend toward the homogenization of landscapes in different places (Fig. 3). At present,the same landscapes are being developed everywhere in Japan. With the loss of the natural and cultural uniqueness of places, the unique and characteristic local landscapes are disappearing.

3 Promoting a New Kind of Landscape Management

3.1 Uniquely Local Features of Landscapes

The beginning of this paper presented a discussion of the significant changes in values and perspectives on landscapes that underlay policy trends in the 2000s. These changes put the brakes on the homogenization of landscapes, which had been brought about by a continuing shift toward an easy functional and economic rationality, and can be understood as a movement to restore the natural and cultural identity of different areas, as well as the uniquely local features of landscapes.

The above brings us to the following question:What are the uniquely local features of landscapes? For example, Fig. 4 shows survey results from an old fishing village on the coast of Miyako, Iwate Prefecture, which was struck by the Great East Japan Earthquake.

The survey examined the visibility frequency of the land from points laid out on the surface of the sea in a wide grid, with darker portions representing a higher visibility frequency, or to put it in the perspective of someone on land, locations from which the sea appears more vast. Given the gently sloping conditions,it is clear that the sea appeared vast when seen from roads and high-elevation settlements that had existed for centuries. As the area is prone to tsunamis, the villagers separated their life and work (fishing) by building their dwellings on high ground to avoid tsunamis and putting work sheds called ban’yaon low ground near the shore. However, the survey results clearly show that they maintained their close visual connection with the sea. Thus, although villagers lived away from the sea on high ground to avoid tsunamis,they were still able to look out over it. This arguably means that they developed a close visual connection to the sea in their everyday lives, as they could perceive its conditions, beauty, and ferocity from day to day.

Meanwhile, the town of Ine in Kyōtō Prefecture has gentle waves, a small tide difference, and an even lesser risk of tsunamis owing to the relationship between its location and its topography. Ine is known for its funaya, or houses built over the water whose lower level is used for storing boats, as shown in Fig. 3.The residents of Ineclearly live in close spatial relation to the sea. Thus, the spatial relationship between dwellings or settlements and the sea arises out of a rational lifestyle adapted to the natural conditions of the sea in that area, and that lifestyle is expressed in the area’s unique characteristic landscape (Fig. 5).

Ways of adapting to local natural threats and disasters are expressed in various coastal disasterprevention forest and homestead forest landscapes as well (Fig. 6). For example, in Bise, Okinawa Prefecture,which is a typhoon-prone area, there are homestead woods of fukugi (Garcinia subelliptica) trees such as the dense forest around a village, which together serve to prevent coastal disasters and protect agricultural land in inland areas. In the Shonai region of Yamagata Prefecture, which sometimes sees high winds and massive sand drifts, there is a coastal disaster-prevention forest consisting of black pine (Pinus thunbergii) trees reaching hundreds of meters above the coastal sand dunes. In addition, the way that forests have developed around agricultural land in multiple layers has been ceaselessly maintained and managed throughout history,developing a distinctive landscape.

Thus, it is clear that uniquely local ways of cultivating and shaping forests to achieve a harmonious relationship with the environment while protecting the local lifestyle, including dwellings and agricultural land,emerge in accordance with local natural conditions, such as the landform and climate, and create the characteristic landscape of a given area. In other words, a uniquely local way of living (lifestyle) emerges from people adapting rationally to the various conditions imposed by the natural environment of an area (natural rationality),and the uniquely local feature of a landscape is arguably developed when this lifestyle is etched into the local space over the course of history (Fig. 7).

Fig. 8 illustrates the way of thinking behind continually refining uniquely local landscapes. If this cycle can be constructed, then the landscape can be treated as a local resource, as stated previously, and can play an important role as the core of interaction-oriented community development.

3.2 Building a New Landscape Management System

As symbolized by the administrative movements discussed in the beginning, there have been significant changes in how landscapes are interpreted and in the ideal relationship between human activity and the land.Japanese society is in the turning point for a new era,and the ideal planning and management of landscapes calls for new ways of thinking and methodologies[6]. It is urgently necessary to build new ways of thinking and methodologies, related to planning and management that continually preserve and cultivate unique local landscapes, and to utilize them in the interactionoriented community development, with the cooperation of residents and local governments. The main points are the following two mutually connected points.

1) Collaborate on landscape management (e.g.,preservation, management, and cultivation) with local residents and local governments, rather than leaving it to specialists, the government, and other public institutions; 2) Rather than relying on public capital for landscape management funds, it is necessary to construct landscape management as a cycle of “survey and research — public awareness — conservation and management — effective utilization” (Fig. 9) and construct ideal image and policies regarding new actors(organizations) for implementation and in securing voluntary funds (independent revenue sources).

It is necessary to share unique characteristics of the local landscape and the importance of keeping it in good condition to manage the landscape on collaboration between local governments and residents.To do this, “survey and research” is necessary about unique characteristics of local landscape and differences with the landscape of other areas and history of relations between the local nature and people’ s activity. And the “public awareness” of results of such researches to inside and outside of the region is important too. And the sharing of the unique landscape image as the management target leads to“conservation and management” of local landscape sustainably by the collaboration between public and private sectors. But expenses are necessary to push forward such survey and research, public awareness,conservation and management. And a series of diagrams to find the financial resources through“effective utilization” of the landscape are ways of thinking of new cyclical landscape management.

And examinations and constructions of methodology are required on each stage. At the stage of “survey and research”, we need to examine the methodology to extract unique characteristics of landscape, which is mentioned earlier, and to clarify the background of how unique characteristics has been established by defining the relation between regional history, natural features and social situation. Meanwhile,at the stage of “public awareness”, we need to examine decision-making method through the collaboration between public and private sectors and public awareness method on landscape through education. Also, the stage of “conservation and management”, we need to construct methodology about adaptive management by promoting participation of residents or visitors. Lastly,at the stage of “effective utilization”, it is necessary to tackle the difficulties in ensuring the autonomous financial resources such as described below.

The necessity of new landscape management methodologies is also related to the decline of excellence in public administration regarding the maintenance of living environments. Thus far, Japan has often relied on administrative public funds in project form to maintain and manage landscapes and living environments. However, amid developments and changes in landscapes and the environment,it has gradually become difficult to rely on public funds in many cases. Thus, it is difficult to preserve,manage, and shape the unique local features of landscapes in a detailed manner, which differ from place to place, by using public funds which are limited in how they can be used.

For this reason, many regions have recently seen an emergence of movements to supplement the lack of funds by securing voluntary funds (independent revenue sources ) which are freely usable capital. They take various forms, such as taxes, assistance funds, and increases to merchandise prices. In many cases, these arrangements are supported by tourists and other people from outside the area[7]. In addition, the Ministry of the Environment and the Agency for Cultural Affairs enacted theAct on the Promotion of Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Natural Environment in Local Natural Asset Areasin 2014, which allowed conferences formed by relevant local governments to collect admission fees at National Parks and Places of Scenic Beauty. In this format, “assistance funds” are collected from visitors when they enter the area, an approach that has been attempted even in areas other than National Parks and Places of Scenic Beauty. To give another example, Dazaifu in Fukuoka Prefecture has implemented a “Historical and Cultural Environment Tax” to secure funds. This is a “tax” collected from users of paid parking garages and is being used to manage the environment, to maintain facilities, to raise public awareness, and to fund many other initiatives related to historical, cultural, and touristic resources.There are also cases involving increases to merchandise prices in a system that often establishes a foundation to manage income and expenditure.

One factor in the emergence of this trend of relying on tourists and other people from outside the area for voluntary funds to be used in landscape management in Japan is the growing awareness that conservation and management of unique local landscapes and environments requires some expense.Fig. 10 shows the results of an interview survey of visitors to the towns of Okutama, Tōkyō Metropolis;Iriomote, Okinawa Prefecture; and Yūfuin, ōita Prefecture, regarding whether or not they agreed with financially supporting the local landscape and environment, and if they did, the amount they would be willing to pay. Roughly 80% of visitors agreed, and while the amount varied depending on location and the attractiveness of the area, the combined sum was one that would contribute greatly to landscape management in each region.

It is thus necessary to systematically build methodologies for increasing the ratio of voluntary funds in the management costs of unique local landscapes by encouraging visitors to recognize the economic value of local uniqueness; and methodologies for the cultivation and organization of actors who will work to refine the unique local features of landscapes through managing income and expenditure of funds and through other ways of cooperating with local residents and visitors.

4 Changes in the Role of Landscape Architects

If the concept of landscape has changed and prompted demand for new methodologies, as discussed thus far, it is only natural that the role expected of landscape architects and the qualities sought in them would also change. Now that there is more emphasis on the natural/cultural identity of an area as it relates to creating landscapes, the first principle in landscape and community development is to preserve and pass on the memory of the area. This principle consequently entails the following process: first, read and understand the personality of the place and its unique local characteristics; second, use those findings to design landscape, preservation and creation.

Landscape architects need both the ability to read the personality and features of the landscape and the ability to plan and design a landscape to enrich the living environment. Starting in the modern period,there was great demand for the latter; emphasis was placed on landscape design — the creation of landscapes — with findings being accumulated mainly related to image manipulation. However, landscape literacy — the ability (or technique) to read landscapes and uniquely local features — is arguably what has come to be demanded of landscape architects at present. Meanwhile, if a new system for a type of landscape management that emphasizes uniquely local features is to become important, it will be crucial for landscape architects not to take the leading role in designing spaces but rather adopt an approach of creating platforms where people can build favorable relationships with the land and supporting residents’efforts to cultivate rich and unique landscapes.

In other words, rather than using public capital invested in projects to maintain landscapes and to design spaces and landscapes directly, it will be important for landscape architects to contribute from the perspective of building and mobilizing systems whereby people can continually cultivate unique local landscapes — that is,organizations and resource-securing mechanisms.

In the modern and contemporary periods,areas (e.g. lifestyles and landscapes) have tended to become homogenous amid the expansion and acceleration of flows of “people, goods, money,and information” and the pursuit of easy functional and economic rationality. The same was true of landscape development, where commercialism and emphasis on form severed the relationship between landscape and the special features of the land and area. These increased usability and refined techniques for image manipulation and formation,but have also arguably led to a weakening of the sense of community (belonging), by eliminating the foundation for natural/cultural uniqueness and for local communities. Certainly, the field of landscape architecture, which is supposed to pass down the memory of places primarily, took the same approach of maintaining “green and water” in an aesthetically pleasing way without regard for the potential of the land. The important part of landscape architects’ role in landscape development is not simply to create a landscape but arguably to pass down the memory of the land. Creating a landscape without sufficiently reading the memory of the land and the personality of the place will bring confusion in the character of the place.

5 Conclusion

In the future, rather than devoting their efforts to creating new landscapes (design), landscape architects will be required to first invest sufficient time and effort into literacy — reading the relationship between human activity and nature that is etched into a uniquely local landscape.

In Japan, legislative systems about landscape have been rapidly established in the 2000s. This movement shows the significant changes in values and perspectives on landscapes in Japanese society.Landscape is a reflection of history of the relation between local nature and people’s lifestyle, so the construction and management of the landscape have a close relation with “community development”.In future, it is required to build methodologies on the sustainable conservation and management of landscape which define unique characteristics of local landscape, and use effectively by the collaboration between public and private sectors.Landscape architects need to develop their skills and abilities to read characteristics of region through the landscape for landscape design.

(This paper is revised on the basis of the speech delivered by the author at the International Landscape Architecture Symposium in 2018.)

Sources of Figures and Table:

Fig. 1, 2-3, 5, 6-10 ? the author; Fig.4 is based on a map from Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI), drawn by Ono Ryohei (Collaborator of the research); Tab. 1 ? the author.