文化景觀維護視野下德國歷史性文化景觀的兩種方法論：清單盤點與空間區(qū)劃

著：（德）溫弗里德·申克 孔洞一 譯：阮慧婷 校：李夢一欣

1 研究背景

在中歐國家，文化景觀未來發(fā)展趨勢和動向包括：1）存在一個地區(qū)間持續(xù)增長的差異化現(xiàn)象，即：農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟的“污染區(qū)”和國家控制的“保護區(qū)”（特別是自然和國家公園）之間的地區(qū)差異不斷擴大；2）在景觀豐富的低山脈和阿爾卑斯山地區(qū)，也面臨著農(nóng)業(yè)用地被閑置的現(xiàn)象；3）聚落區(qū)域面積不斷擴大，土地封印（soil sealing）面積不斷增長，同時伴隨著生物棲息地破碎和淤塞，在高密度的人口聚集區(qū)這樣的現(xiàn)象尤其嚴重；4）存在人口數(shù)量的下降和基礎設施退化問題。這樣的現(xiàn)象，特別是在農(nóng)村和老工業(yè)區(qū)周邊地區(qū)尤為嚴重，這可能導致由于缺乏使用而造成城鎮(zhèn)設施物理性衰退。

伴隨著這樣的激烈變化，文化景觀的傳統(tǒng)形象與各個地區(qū)的地方性變化形成了新的統(tǒng)一融合。

作為對現(xiàn)狀和問題的反映，從20世紀90年代起，在德語背景下的歷史地理學中的“文化景觀維護”專業(yè)被創(chuàng)立發(fā)展起來[1-2]。此概念致力于對文化遺產(chǎn)空間的保護和再發(fā)展研究，引導區(qū)域和國土范圍的地方性特色可持續(xù)發(fā)展。其中，主要運用歷史地理學的歷史—遺傳基因分析法和古跡與遺產(chǎn)保護專業(yè)方法，以及空間規(guī)劃和區(qū)域發(fā)展的方法，實現(xiàn)對文化景觀的空間性保護與發(fā)展研究。

2 理論基礎

文化景觀維護（cultural landscape conservation，德語Kulturlandschaftspflege），是一種開放和動態(tài)的研究概念與方法。它是指人類有意識地改造與干預外在景觀，并使之達到保存自身特性以及未來可持續(xù)發(fā)展的潛力的行為意識和措施方法。文化景觀維護的對象是過去的歷史性文化景觀單元以及其中包含的文化景觀要素與結(jié)構(gòu)。除非文化景觀維護的對象在其未來可持續(xù)發(fā)展意義上的價值遭到了破壞，否則此概念也會涉及將其研究對象作為區(qū)域發(fā)展中重要特色要素的內(nèi)涵。

文化景觀因此也是人類共同的遺產(chǎn)，但它們在地區(qū)分布密度與數(shù)量上并不均衡，這樣就導致文化景觀概念在不同的社會背景下有許多不同定義。不管各定義的內(nèi)涵如何，研究“文化景觀維護”概念，其首要任務不是探討其保護的方法，而是如何確定有研究和保護價值的文化景觀對象。在此意義上，普適性的文化景觀研究的基本范疇是區(qū)域特色和歷史原真性（文化歷史價值）。它們旨在補充德國社會公認的自然保護和遺產(chǎn)保護所限定的范圍之外的那些具有歷史地理價值的對象。廣義的文化景觀維護概念，可以被描述為一個“永恒的圓環(huán)”的理論模型，并可指導文化景觀規(guī)劃按照3個步驟有條不紊地進行（圖1）：

第1步：方法與數(shù)據(jù)收集。確定研究對象，通過文化景觀清查建立具體的收集圖表，按照一定的比例尺，對文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)按照“點、線、面”的空間結(jié)構(gòu)分類收集[3]。并按照需要對研究對象給出定性和定量分析。在此基礎上對研究對象進行歷史發(fā)展過程和形成機理闡述。

第2步：文化景觀維護及目標。由于“歷史/成長”的文化景觀的復雜性，其評估基于自然保護標準的價值復合體。例如，根據(jù)《德國聯(lián)邦自然保護法》①規(guī)定的“美麗、特殊性、多樣性”和稀有性的定義，以及《德國聯(lián)邦文化遺產(chǎn)保護法》②中的“歷史內(nèi)涵和歷史佐證價值、歷史價值、歷史可讀性”的定義，并結(jié)合德國聯(lián)邦環(huán)境與空間規(guī)劃相關法律③細則，對文化景觀對象進行評估。其中包括5個方面的文化景觀維護的主旨發(fā)展目標：科學價值、視覺審美價值、社會價值、經(jīng)濟價值和生態(tài)價值。

第3步：規(guī)劃措施。文化景觀維護的保護與規(guī)劃措施的導向性思維：由于成本高昂且社會接受度低，只有在少數(shù)小面積區(qū)域才能負擔起對歷史悠久的景觀遺留的維護。在此意義上，文化景觀維護可以作為一種規(guī)劃手段。只要不破壞其可讀性與未來發(fā)展?jié)摿?，就應該將不斷更新的認知作為此概念的基本原則運用于文化景觀的不斷發(fā)展變化過程中。通過制定具體的規(guī)劃措施、對規(guī)劃過程進行管理和運行，并對文化景觀維護相關的外部和內(nèi)部因素加以控制，就可以不斷地發(fā)展文化景觀的特征和強化文化景觀意識。這樣的過程可以循環(huán)往復地進行，因此形成了文化景觀維護的基本概念模型—“永恒的圓環(huán)”。

因此，理想狀態(tài)下，對于文化景觀的價值、使命和規(guī)劃措施的討論應該是在一定的調(diào)查研究后充分地、開放地、動態(tài)地進行。尤其要考慮參與文化景觀的利益者（比如農(nóng)民、建造者）參與利益討論。從根本上講，文化景觀維護永恒循環(huán)的討論機制是達成話語共識的累積性過程，旨在有意識地處理景觀在當前轉(zhuǎn)換過程中對自然和文化遺產(chǎn)的影響，以達到可持續(xù)發(fā)展目的。受保護的文化景觀要素與結(jié)構(gòu)，會在公共討論的過程中體現(xiàn)其區(qū)域發(fā)展的貢獻。在此過程中，它們因具備未來發(fā)展?jié)摿Φ目臻g要素與結(jié)構(gòu)特征，而不會對后代的可持續(xù)發(fā)展造成不合理的影響。因此，“文化景觀維護”概念中“維護”（德語Pflege）也包含了可持續(xù)發(fā)展的規(guī)劃原則。同時，文化景觀維護概念中的“文化”的概念應該開放包容，乃至包涵主流文化之外所塑造影響的景觀造型和象征意義[4]。

總之，文化景觀維護是可應用于規(guī)劃實踐、法律條例制定和普遍意義的資源保護的管理。這里的普遍意義的資源保護指：生物多樣性保護、景觀美學特征維持、地方認同感加強、宜居環(huán)境營造以及經(jīng)濟多元化和價值創(chuàng)新。

另外，需要指出的是：文化景觀維護的研究對象主要是指“歷史性文化景觀”。在2003年5月19—20日于格爾利茨舉行的文化部長會議（KMK）“歷史古跡保護”小組委員會第二十四屆會議上，商定了“歷史性文化景觀”的定義[5]：“歷史性文化景觀是當前文化景觀的一部分，由歷史、考古、藝術(shù)史或文化史的要素和結(jié)構(gòu)組成。”所以說，歷史性文化景觀是一個理論構(gòu)建性概念，其作用主要是用于區(qū)分當代文化景觀，并且用于確定過去時代的景觀歷史遺產(chǎn)作為研究對象，再對其進行收集、闡釋和評價。

3 文化景觀維護概念背景下的2個基本研究任務：清單盤點與空間區(qū)劃

對于歷史性文化景觀的研究，德國相關學界有比較明確的界定，而其他歐洲國家的文件中也有隱含性涉及?？傮w來講，歷史性文化景觀研究可以分為2種分析范本：1）對象清單化：在一定的區(qū)域范圍內(nèi)，對歷史性文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)進行收集、評估和分類，確定其“定義性特征”，并登記在冊、盤點清查；2）空間區(qū)域化：將歷史性文化景觀特征性區(qū)域進行標注，并作為區(qū)域和國土范圍內(nèi)的特色文化區(qū)域加以界定。

1 “永恒的圓環(huán)”：文化景觀維護作為一種永恒的論題“Infinite discussion loop”:Cultural landscape conservation as an eternal discourse

2 前西多會海斯特爾巴赫修道院的唱詩班建筑遺址:Gunzmann的“歷史地理群體”對象例子Chorruine of former Cistercian Abbey Heisterbach:An example of historical-geographical group from Gunzelmann

3 自海斯特爾巴赫修道院成立以來一直在使用的歷史性田地A historical field that has been in constant use since the founding of the Cistercian Abbey Heisterbach

2個視角均在多年的實踐中被反復運用和論證。清單化和區(qū)域化是通過內(nèi)在邏輯聯(lián)系起來：空間區(qū)域化可以作為由對象清單化的“定義性特征”所標識的相對同質(zhì)性的空間衍生和界定。作為歷史性文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)的“定義性特征”可以通過其具體的空間形態(tài)加以收集和分析。而歷史性文化景觀的概念，就是需要借助于清單化的方法，對于對象空間特征進行界定并形成區(qū)域化的劃分。只有這樣的概念確定，才可能在后面的規(guī)劃過程中，讓文化景觀對象在使用、保護、維護和未來發(fā)展的沖突領域中的矛盾博弈被激發(fā)起來。

3.1 范本1：歷史性文化景觀對象清單化

歷史性文化景觀的收集與分析是基于文化遺產(chǎn)的空間形態(tài)。但一般情況下的文化遺產(chǎn)空間形態(tài)的尺度和價值存在很大的模糊性。下面通過示例的方式來說明在實踐中被證明的2個歷史性文化景觀清單分析方法。

清單化示例1：Gunzelmann的清單法[6]：復雜的“歷史性文化景觀”的分析與分解。

因為（在以往的研究中）假定歷史性文化景觀對象只能通過其各個組成部分，而不能作為一個整體被收集，所以，歷史性文化景觀要素的清單最初是通過對各個組成要素的采集進行的。為了使清單化方法可執(zhí)行，對其研究的內(nèi)容和時間都做了一些限制。例如，所有史前和早期歷史的要素都被排除在外，因為它們是考古學方向的大地保護專業(yè)研究內(nèi)容。同時，很多的城鄉(xiāng)住區(qū)的建筑形態(tài)也不被視為歷史遺產(chǎn)建筑保護的對象（圖2）。因此，Gunzelmann的方法的一個基本目標是對特別的歷史地理群體對象的研究，而這些對象是不屬于大地保護專業(yè)以及遺產(chǎn)建筑專業(yè)研究的對象。

根據(jù)Gunzelmann的理論，這些特別的作為歷史地理群體對象的文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)的匯總要點：1）獲取文化景觀的背景信息：自然區(qū)域描述、文化景觀歷史過程、歷史村莊結(jié)構(gòu)、歷史走廊結(jié)構(gòu)、歷史土地利用狀況（圖3）、歷史交通網(wǎng)絡狀況；2）歷史性文化景觀要素的收集分類：紀念性建筑、聚落區(qū)域、農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)域、商業(yè)區(qū)域、運輸區(qū)域、休閑區(qū)域、宗教區(qū)域、國家—軍事區(qū)域、關聯(lián)性文化景觀（非物質(zhì)文化景觀）；3）通過將各個要素相互聯(lián)系，對自然因素與歷史文化影響力之間的因果關系進行解釋，從而對歷史性文化景觀進行全面了解（圖4）。

在此過程中，使用5種方法。1）地圖和檔案：老地圖的取證、歷屆規(guī)劃冊集以及各種檔案的收集。2）文學作品：地方和當?shù)匚膶W、評估特定主題的歷史、地理和自然歷史文獻。3）機構(gòu)調(diào)查：從文物保護局（文物名單）、自然保護局（保護名錄）、測量辦公室、地質(zhì)局辦公室、農(nóng)業(yè)局辦公室和水保護辦公室等收集相關數(shù)據(jù)。4）公民調(diào)查：對當?shù)厝说恼{(diào)查，如教師、牧師、當?shù)貧v史學家；詢問與文化景觀相關的人，如農(nóng)民或林務員。5）現(xiàn)場調(diào)研：繪制、拍攝、描述歷史性文化景觀要素；將口語化的評價歸檔為標準化的文化景觀要素收集目錄。

清單化示例2：Burggraaff和Kleefeld的“文化景觀分析”方法[7]。

Burggraaff和Kleefeld受聯(lián)邦自然保護局（BfN）的委托，在“歷史性文化景觀和文化景觀要素”的研究和開發(fā)項目下，根據(jù)《德國聯(lián)邦自然保護法》來編制 “歷史性文化景觀”的提案。在此研究中，他們創(chuàng)立了“文化景觀對象分析”。該方法解決了文化景觀研究的一些核心問題，如評價的價值標準和清單化在保護原則指導中的實踐問題。

第1步，旨在描述自然環(huán)境條件，以便確定相應研究區(qū)域的特征。

第2步，在文化景觀變化圖（圖5）的基礎上展示文化景觀發(fā)展過程，以捕捉微小和劇烈的文化景觀動態(tài)變化。

第3步，在登記表和“歷史性文化景觀要素地圖”中記錄歷史性文化景觀的所有要素。在進行實地工作補充前，應從主管當局（自然保護和文化保護部門）收集已進行測繪記錄的要素和結(jié)構(gòu)，并在標準化圖冊中登記。以縮小的德國基礎地圖（1∶5 000）為基礎，地圖要素收集工作在1∶10 000的比例上進行。在此模板上，元素按其外觀列為點、線或面。

4 在前西多會海斯特爾巴赫修道院環(huán)境中重建的池塘Reconstructed pond in the environment of the former Cistercian Abbey Heisterbach

第4步，對文化景觀及其要素評估。評估是基于在相應順序中確定的參數(shù)進行的。其中， 歷史性文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)最重要的評價參數(shù)包括7個方面。1）歷史價值（佐證價值）：基于要素的年齡及其在起源時的內(nèi)在含義。2）保護價值：取決于其外部形態(tài)的保存狀態(tài)（原始的、改變的、擴展的、改造的甚至疏遠的和腐敗的狀態(tài)）的程度及功能程度（功能性的變化或損失）。3）稀有價值：在確定要素或結(jié)構(gòu)的稀有性時，必須考慮定量的數(shù)量和定性的意義。4）區(qū)域特性（可標識性）價值：要素是否具有某區(qū)域的典型特征或者具備可識別性的價值。5）空間關系和關聯(lián)性（鄉(xiāng)村和城市相關）價值：考慮是否一個要素或結(jié)構(gòu)可以構(gòu)成一個更大的整體或者更大的區(qū)域的一部分，還是僅代表其本身。6）使用價值：決定歷史性文化景觀要素及結(jié)構(gòu)和（它們的）復合體，在生態(tài)、科學、旅游、娛樂方面的意義，另一方面也決定了其未來新功能和用途的意義。7）歷史地理價值：不是指個別文化景觀要素，而是指面域范圍的文化區(qū)域和組成部分的整體，其參與到社會發(fā)展中并且對區(qū)域和國土空間發(fā)展起影響作用。

加權(quán)的標準由研究機構(gòu)在法定的框架內(nèi)決定。 通常，這些標準已經(jīng)被反復地轉(zhuǎn)換成簡單的數(shù)字評估級別（或者是分為數(shù)字點數(shù)，或者將它們分類為“非常好”“好”或“壞”）。雖然，這種簡單的數(shù)字化加權(quán)方法是為了便于理解和簡單化選擇，然而卻模糊了要素之間精確的關聯(lián)性，沒有給出相應的界定。因此，Burggraaff和Kleefeld在這里更傾向于采用恰當?shù)拿枋鲂远ㄐ栽u估方法。

同時，他們還提出：如果試圖從建立文化景觀清單的各種方法中得出一般性結(jié)論，則必須確定以下標準：

1）廣泛而完整地全面覆蓋研究的文化景觀區(qū)域，對其要素和結(jié)構(gòu)進行精準定位，需要相對較大的比例尺（≤1∶25 000）。 同時，出于分析和實踐應用的考慮，也需要將每個文化景觀對象劃分為點、線和面。另外，由于文化景觀是一個連續(xù)統(tǒng)一體，因此有必要在一個整體的文化景觀背景中對某個單體文化景觀要素或結(jié)構(gòu)進行評價分析，并根據(jù)規(guī)劃需要將它們整合到不同維度的大型文化景觀單元中。

2）所有相關空間數(shù)據(jù)的聯(lián)網(wǎng)：由于大量與文化景觀有關的數(shù)據(jù)的產(chǎn)生。例如：從自然保護和遺產(chǎn)保護名錄中獲得的數(shù)據(jù)。而從文化景觀維護的角度來看，只有那些有研究價值的并且尚未被收錄的要素需要被收錄到網(wǎng)絡系統(tǒng)。這些需要被收錄的對象都是可以被描述為歷史性文化景觀的要素或結(jié)構(gòu)。在客觀需要的情況下，將這些數(shù)據(jù)與其他空間數(shù)據(jù)鏈接。

3）清單應基于地理信息系統(tǒng)（GIS），以便從現(xiàn)有數(shù)據(jù)庫和GIS中導入和導出數(shù)據(jù)，并不斷更新。

總體來說，由于這樣的清單化，便有望盤點清楚以前分散的和不太完整的歷史性文化景觀信息，以縮短規(guī)劃決策過程，并可以更好地論證和協(xié)調(diào)規(guī)劃結(jié)論。但是，公共機構(gòu)（政府部門）的聲明和決策不會被（這樣的研究結(jié)果）取代。

3.2 范本2：歷史性文化景觀區(qū)域化

近年來在文化景觀評估領域，出現(xiàn)了從專家角度對歷史性文化景觀進行標記、注釋、分類和簡要特征化的方法研究。區(qū)域化是基于專家評估的基礎上實現(xiàn)的?；旧?，區(qū)域化可分為2種類型。1）類型化：基于對同質(zhì)化的區(qū)域特征和導則的構(gòu)建，將一個區(qū)域細分為各種歷史性文化景觀區(qū)域。例如：功能意義上的農(nóng)業(yè)或者城市景觀區(qū)域，歷史基因意義上的古老聚落區(qū)域，或地貌形態(tài)意義上的綠色廊道區(qū)域。2）個性化：通過個性化的確定劃分出與眾不同的區(qū)域。空間個體被構(gòu)建出來，并且通常包含相應的本土個性化名稱。例如，漢堡的奧特蘭（Alte Land，意為舊土地）地區(qū)。

這2種方法都需要強調(diào)：沒有針對特定目的的區(qū)域化研究，只能算是一種學術(shù)噱頭！因此，研究者需要根據(jù)研究尺度，強調(diào)各個區(qū)域的意義，并確定歷史性文化景觀區(qū)劃的基本標準。 這里又有幾個問題需要特別強調(diào)：

1）區(qū)劃目標明確嗎？哪些具體的順序，以及依據(jù)哪些法律指向了歷史性文化景觀的區(qū)劃基本定義？

2）選定的文化景觀結(jié)構(gòu)，是否滿足指定的歷史性文化景觀的尺度大小和預期目的？“文化景觀”僅僅是被標記了嗎？或者選擇性地（通過邊界線）被注明？表現(xiàn)方式是否適合于每一個（文化景觀結(jié)構(gòu)和要素）？

3）是否要做類型學分析？或是否需要嘗試命名“文化景觀個體”？

4）是要從“上方和外部”（如從鳥瞰角度）還是要“從內(nèi)部”來解釋歷史性文化景觀？例如， 商業(yè)功能的歷史性文化景觀形成相對均勻空間的標準是什么？有哪些參與者和社會功能構(gòu)成了這樣的空間結(jié)構(gòu)？

5）研究的程序過程是否整體系統(tǒng)化、透明化？是否合乎邏輯？

6）制圖表達是否符合清晰度，圖形一致性等標準？

7）如果劃定的空間對象必須在文本描述中加以論述，那么所使用的材料是否可信和被公開？最后，描述和評估是否獨立和相互分離？

在以上這些一般性注意事項下，下面再介紹2個結(jié)合實證的區(qū)域化范本分析案例。

區(qū)域化示例1：前普魯士領土的文化景觀分析。

案例研究所運用的方法是，依據(jù)前普魯士萊茵省的地形圖1∶25 000的比較研究[8]，按照時間順序來推導文化景觀發(fā)展歷程。這些地形圖是從19世紀10—40年代以及20世紀50—90年代的時間片層。利用這些歷史地形圖，文化景觀的發(fā)展從時間由近及遠的順序推演。通過歷史推演分析可以發(fā)現(xiàn)：在這樣的過程中，會有哪些已經(jīng)消失或死亡或者在所選的時間段內(nèi)出現(xiàn)過但又消失的文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)；而在那些自19世紀10—40年代以來沒有顯著變化的區(qū)域，卻能夠高概率地找到歷史性文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)?；谶@樣的結(jié)構(gòu)變化分析，歷史性文化景觀就可以被解讀，并可以被結(jié)構(gòu)性地控制。如果也有19世紀10年代之前的可靠地圖資料的話，這樣的方法也可以用于更早之前歷史推演。

文化景觀要素“消失”的影響，可以通過所謂的景觀變化狀態(tài)圖來體現(xiàn)。所謂的景觀狀態(tài)變化圖也是基于1∶25 000的特殊歷史性用地性質(zhì)圖（草地、針葉林、牧場等）或甚至單體要素圖（溝渠、道路等）來表達的。它可以是如荒地或森林地區(qū)的歷史性拓展區(qū)域，這些區(qū)域在自然保護措施的背景下可能是理想的?；谝陨系姆治龇椒?，文化景觀變化圖不僅可以表現(xiàn)歷史性文化景觀的變化過程，而且還可以引導尋找歷史性文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)的高概率區(qū)域，以確定其形態(tài)結(jié)構(gòu)和歷史狀態(tài)特征。

區(qū)域化示例2：對北萊茵—威斯特法倫州的國家發(fā)展計劃中的文化景觀區(qū)域化的專題研究。

2007年，北威—利普—萊茵蘭景觀聯(lián)盟（Landscape Associations Westphalia-Lippe and Rhineland），受到北威州經(jīng)濟能源創(chuàng)新發(fā)展局的委托，負責對國土發(fā)展規(guī)劃（LEP）作出一個文化景觀方面的專題研究。該報告的撰稿人遵循上文提到的景觀文化遺產(chǎn)保護學會2003年的“歷史性文化景觀”定義，并以此為基礎對北萊茵—威斯特法倫州的國家發(fā)展計劃進行了基于文化景觀區(qū)域化的研究工作。

專題研究包含3個基本內(nèi)容：1）文化景觀空間的區(qū)域性結(jié)構(gòu)；2）全國性和區(qū)域性的重要文化景觀區(qū)域；3）空間規(guī)劃導則和目標[9]。

報告撰稿人的討論方法是基于文化歷史領域的視角。報告中文化景觀的結(jié)構(gòu)劃分的目的是在地區(qū)一級的空間單位的范圍界定的。這樣的界定可以應用于國土和區(qū)域規(guī)劃以及大面積的專業(yè)空間規(guī)劃中。在這樣的范圍界定中，每個空間區(qū)域都應該基于“空間的特殊性”被識別、描述、評估和標注。這種“空間的特殊性”是通過自然空間條件和文化景觀發(fā)展歷史而形成的。同時，區(qū)域內(nèi)的人口與聚落發(fā)展，宗教文化歷史、社會經(jīng)濟以及政治制度變革等因素也都影響空間特殊性的形成與發(fā)展，并且體現(xiàn)在聚落結(jié)構(gòu)、地方性建筑文化價值、歷史性建造景觀、文保單位以及具有遺產(chǎn)價值的景觀空間結(jié)構(gòu)（圖6）。

除了制圖的表達方式之外，還為每個空間單元制定特征描述，其中主要包括歷史塑造的空間形態(tài)和考古保護區(qū)域。這種文化景觀空間劃分方法確保了歷史性文化景觀在空間規(guī)劃中具備面域特征的意義，這也為國土空間規(guī)劃及其后續(xù)的空間規(guī)劃和專項規(guī)劃在技術(shù)層面提供了重要前提和基礎。最終，在1∶200 000的比例尺下，該區(qū)域被分為32個文化景觀空間區(qū)[9]（圖7）。

在進一步的工作步驟中，從歷史性文化景觀的視角確定了具有特殊歷史意義的文化景觀區(qū)域。除了該地區(qū)的空間相關性和分布密度之外，還對歷史佐證價值、要素保存狀態(tài)和感知可能性予以特別的關注。因為文化景觀區(qū)域通常也是發(fā)展或者具有特殊性質(zhì)的區(qū)域的典型代表，所以特別需要注意的是什么使得它們與眾不同并賦予自身特性[10]。該步驟的目的是：將161個文化景觀區(qū)域細分為區(qū)域發(fā)展規(guī)劃中的優(yōu)先發(fā)展區(qū)或者保護區(qū)，其中29個區(qū)域被確定為具有國家層面重要意義的文化景觀區(qū)域。運用這樣的方法，充分考慮文化景觀的內(nèi)涵意義，可以在國土和區(qū)域規(guī)劃中排除各個文化區(qū)域間不相容的用途，而確定具有地方特色和重要意義的區(qū)域。

4 總結(jié)

通過文化景觀維護概念可以把文化景觀的歷史發(fā)展過程看作是各方參與要素互相影響的過程和結(jié)果。在此意義上，文化景觀維護概念也是一種具有社會協(xié)調(diào)意義的理論建構(gòu)，而其適用性也必須在相應的政治文化背景下來加以論證。

基于清單化和區(qū)域化的分析方法，可以討論文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)的收集、評價與保護，以及空間發(fā)展導則和規(guī)劃措施方面的問題。基于以上方法，可以對復雜的“歷史性文化景觀”的分析與分解（Gunzelmann的清單法），也可以對文化景觀不同維度下的價值和空間導則進行分析（Burggraaff和Kleefeld的“文化景觀分析”方法），進而可以對區(qū)域或者國土空間進行基于文化景觀分析的空間區(qū)劃，從而可以提出對文化景觀對象的未來發(fā)展措施和目標。具體來講文化景觀對象的保護與發(fā)展可分3種[11]：

1）保護性措施：文化景觀要素或結(jié)構(gòu)已經(jīng)部分或整體上不適用于今天的社會經(jīng)濟條件。由于功能性障礙而對其造成了損害，因而有必要恢復其歷史性經(jīng)濟用途的保護，從而進行絕對的文化景觀保護。

2）維護性措施：對文化景觀的要素或結(jié)構(gòu)的空間形態(tài)進行保護，可以結(jié)合今天的社會經(jīng)濟需要改變和融入適當?shù)氖褂煤凸δ軆?nèi)涵，其重點在于保持其傳統(tǒng)的外在風貌。

3）發(fā)展性目標：對于一個區(qū)域性的歷史文化景觀復合體來講，存在核心價值的概念。此概念也會影響區(qū)域的空間導則。在這樣的區(qū)域文化景觀的核心價值概念引導下，文化景觀要素或結(jié)構(gòu)的變化與發(fā)展則是可以理性分析和控制的。

究竟應該采取哪種方法對文化景觀進行研究，取決于收集和分析工作的具體狀況。

注釋：

① 出自《德國聯(lián)邦自然保護法》第二章第一節(jié)第十四條。

② 出自《德國聯(lián)邦文化遺產(chǎn)保護法》2017年1月23日修訂案。

③ 出自《德國聯(lián)邦環(huán)境監(jiān)測法》第二章第三節(jié)。

圖片來源：

圖1引自參考文獻[2]，圖2～4由作者提供，圖5來自Burggraaff和Kleefeld，圖6來自Burggraaff，圖7由孔洞一改繪自參考文獻[7]。

（編輯/劉玉霞）

1 Research Background

In Central Europe,the following trends in the future development of cultural landscapes can be summarized as follows:1) An increasing differentiation in heavily polluted,dirt areas “from agriculture and state controlled,protected areas”,especially nature and national parks; 2) An accelerated abandonment of agricultural land in the low mountain regions with rich landscape structures and the Alps;3) A further expansion of settlement areas with the consequences of further soil sealing,fragmentation and isolation of biotopes,especially in the densely populated areas; 4) At the same time,the decline in population and degradation of infrastructure,especially in rural areas and around old industrial regions,which can lead to physical decay of urban facilities due to the lack of uses.

Along with the above-mentioned radical changes,traditional images of cultural landscapes integrated with local changes in various regions form a new unification.

As a reaction to this,the field of cultural landscape conservation was developed in Germanspeaking historical geography[1-2]in the 1990s.The field contributes to researches on the conservation and re-development of cultural heritage space,and it also leads the sustainable development of local characteristics within areas and territories.Among which,there are essential approaches in terms of historical-genetic analysis in geography,professional heritage conservation,and spatial planning and regional development,which realizes the cultural landscape conservation and further development researches.

2 Theoretical Basis

The concept of cultural landscape conservation is regarded as an open and dynamic approach to consciously transform and interfere with the external landscape,aiming at the conservation of landscape characteristics and potentials of landscape sustainable development.The objects of cultural landscape conservation are units of historical cultural landscape in the past as well as its cultural landscape elements and structures.In this concept,the research object also contains the meaning of essential featured elements in the regional development,unless its values in the sense of future development are destroyed.

The cultural landscape is the common heritage of mankind,which is not balanced in the density and quantity of regional distribution.This situation leads to many different definitions of cultural landscape concepts in various social contexts.Regardless of various meanings of definitions,the study of the concept cultural landscape conservation is about how to identify cultural landscape objects with both research and conservation values,instead of exploring its conservation methods.In this sense,the basic categories of universal cultural landscape research are regional characteristics and historical authenticity (cultural historical value).They aim to complement the objects with historical geographic values outside the defined range of both nature and heritage conservation recognized by the German society.This concept of cultural landscape conservation in a general sense can be seen in the “infinite discussion loop”,which guides the cultural landscape planning to be conducted according to the following three steps (Fig.1):

1) Collection,description,explanation of cultural landscape in forms of point,line and regional structures and elements through inventories[3]in respective scales and with both qualitative and quantitative methods.On this basis,the historical development process and the development mechanism of the research object could be explained.

2) Cultural landscape conservation and aims.Due to the complexity of “historical/grown” cultural landscape,the evaluation is based on value complex of nature conservation(eg “beauty,distinctiveness,diversity” and uniqueness according to the Federal Nature Conservation Act①),the heritage conservation(historical significance,age value,readability of history according to the heritage conservation law②),and the specific regional requirements of spatial and regional planning③.The principles and development goals of cultural landscape conservation could accordingly include the following points:scientific value,visual aesthetic value,social value,economic value and ecological value.

5 海斯特爾巴赫山谷的文化景觀變化Cultural landscape change of the Heisterbach Valley

6 北萊茵—威斯特法倫州的文化景觀區(qū)劃Regionalization of cultural landscapes in North Rhine-Westphalia

3) Planning instrument.The derivation of caring measures (of cultural landscape conservation)is oriented towards the understanding that the conservation of historically inherited landscape structures of very old age is only possible in small areas due to high costs and low social acceptance.The cultural landscape conservation as a planning instrument therefore accepts the recognition of constant change as the basic principle of the further development of cultural landscapes,as long as their readability and potential for future developments will not be destroyed in the process.It is possible to continuously develop the characteristics of cultural landscapes and strengthen the cultural landscape awareness,by means of the management and operation of planning process through developing specific planning measures,and the control of internal and external factors related to cultural landscape conversation.Such a process can be carried out steadily and cyclically,and thus forms a conceptual model for the cultural landscape conservation as the “infinite discussion loop”.

The discussions of values,principles and measures should therefore ideally take place in an open,and dynamic manner,particularly,considering the stakeholders,such as farmers and builders,who participate in the cultural landscape discussions.In essence,the cultural landscape conservation is thus a cumulative discourse process of consensus-building to consciously deal with the current transformation processes in our landscapes,and their effects on natural and cultural heritage in order to achieve sustainable development goals.The protected cultural landscape elements and structures will reflect their contribution to regional development in the process of public discussion.In the process,they have spatial factors and structural characteristics which have potentials for further development,and do not have unreasonable effects on the sustainable development of future generations.The term conservation,which is used for the concept “cultural landscape”,thus includes the planning principle of sustainable development.The underlying concept of culture should be open,which means the landscape features and symbolizations beyond the presumed majority cultures also need to be taken into account[4].

In summary,the cultural landscape conservation is practice-oriented,legally required and directly applicable.The general meaning of resource protection here refers to:biodiversity conservation,maintenance of landscape aesthetics,strengthening of local identity,creation of livable environment,and economic diversification and value innovation.

It must be pointed out that the cultural landscape conservation is primarily concerned with the historical cultural landscape.In the 24th session of the Subcommittee “Preservation of Historic Monuments” (UAD) of the Conference of the Ministers of Culture (KMK) on 19-20 May 2003 in G?rlitz,a definition of “historical cultural landscape” was agreed[5]:“The historical cultural landscape is a part of the current cultural landscape,which is characterized by historical,archaeological,art-historical or cultural-historical elements and structures.” The historical cultural landscape is thus a theoretical construct,in particular of an analytical focus on the recording,explanation and evaluation of historical heritage in landscapes.

3 Inventory and Regionalization as Basic Tasks in the Context of Cultural Landscape Conservation

With regard to the historical cultural landscape,there is a clear definition in the relevant academic circles in Germany,while implications also exist in the documents of other European countries.In general,researches on historical cultural landscape include two analytical tasks:1) Inventory:Comprehensive recording,analysis and evaluation of historical cultural landscape elements and structures as “defining features”;2) Regionalization:The characteristic areas of historical cultural landscapes are marked and defined as featured cultural areas within the regions and national boundaries.

For each of these two aspects,two examples proven for years in practice will be given in the following.Inventory and regionalization are combined by the fact that regionalization can be a purposive spin-off through identifying relatively homogenous spaces with a specific combination of “defining features”.The “defining features” are analytically tangible as historical landscape elements and structures.It is only through this recourse to the object level that phrases such as “historical cultural landscape” can be implemented in the planning,because the objects ignite conflicts of interest concerning the tension of use,protection,maintenance and further development.

3.1 Task 1:Examples of Planning-related Inventories of Historical Cultural Landscapes

The collection and analysis of historical cultural landscape is based on the spatial form of cultural heritage which generally has its ambiguity in terms of scale and value.Two concepts of inventory proven in practice are presented below as examples.

Inventory Example 1:The Inventory Approach According to Gunzelmann[6]:Analysis and Decomposition of the Complex “Historical Cultural Landscape”.

The inventory of historical cultural landscape elements initially takes place via a physiognomic assessment of the individual elements,since it is assumed that the historical cultural landscape could not be captured as a whole,but only through its individual components.In order to make the inventory method executable,there are some restrictions on the research content and time.All elements from prehistoric and early historical periods are excluded from consideration,since they are objects of archaeological ground conservation.Furthermore,the spatial structure of urban and rural settlements as a content of historical preservation is not considered (Fig.2).Thus,an essential goal of Gunzelmann’s approach is to highlight a specific historical-geographical group of objects and is not responsible for the ground conservation and the protection of architectural heritage.

According to Gunzelmann,the recording of the following structures is established:1) Collection of the foundations of the cultural landscape:Natural environment - Cultural landscape history- Historical village structure - Historical corridor structure - Historical land use (Fig.3) - Historical traffic network.2) Collection and description of the elements of the historical cultural landscape:Monuments - Settlement area - Agriculture area -Commercial area - Transport area - Leisure area-Religion,State and Military area - Associative Cultural Landscape.3) Overall view of the historical cultural landscape through networking of the individual elements with each other and explanations of interactive effects between the natural factors and the historical influence (Fig.4).

The following methods are used.1) Maps and archives:collection of old maps,previous plans,and files; 2) Literary work:evaluation of local and regional literature; Evaluation of subject-related historical,geographical and natural history literature; 3) Authority inquiry:Elicitation of relevant planning data from the monument authority (monument list),the nature conservation authority (“red list”),the land surveying office,the geological state office,the agricultural office and the water management office; 4) Citizen Survey:survey of local people such as teachers,pastors,local historians;Questioning people associated with the cultural landscape,such as farmers or foresters; 5) Site inspection:mapping,photographing,describing historical cultural landscape elements; segregating verbal assessment according to a standardized catalog.

Inventory Example 2:“Cultural Landscape Substance Analysis” according to Burggraaff and Kleefeld[7].

Under the research and development of“Historical Cultural Landscape and Cultural Landscape Elements”,Burggraaff and Kleefeld[7]were commissioned by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) to develop proposals for the implementation of the “historical cultural landscape” in accordance with the Federal Nature Conservation Act.From this catalog of methods,the “cultural landscape substance analysis” should be selected and explained here,as it reveals fundamental problems such as the application of value standards and the implementation of inventories in the guidance of conservation principles.

The first step aims at the description of the natural environment in order to characterize the study area.

The next step is to display the cultural landscape development on the basis of a cultural landscape changing map (Fig.5) to capture the tiny and dramatic dynamics of cultural landscapes.

The third step is to create an inventory of all elements of historical cultural landscape in the registration sheet and in the “Map of Historical Cultural Landscape Elements”.Before this is supplemented by their own field work,those already mapped elements and structures from the responsible authorities (conservation and conservation authorities) are queried and recorded in the template.The mapping itself is carried out on a scale of 1∶10,000 on the basis of the downsized German base map (1∶5,000).On this template,the elements are listed according to their appearance as a point,line or area.

7 北萊茵—威斯特法倫州的32個文化景觀區(qū)32 cultural landscape areas in North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany

For the fourth step,the assessment of cultural landscape and its elements needs to be made.The evaluation is made according to the parameters determined in the respective order.The most important evaluation parameters of historical cultural landscape elements and structures are as follows:1) The historical value(evidence value) is based on the age of the element and its significance during the time of its creation.2) The conservation value is determined by the level of its formal external conservation status(original,altered,extended,remodeled and even alienated and falsified status) and the level of its functionality (functional change or loss).3) The scarcity value:When determining the scarcity of an element or structure,both the quantitative number and the qualitative significance must be taken into account.4) The typical value of the region (identity) is about the question of whether the element is typical for a region and has a value that creates identity.5) The value of the spatial relationships and connections (landscape and urban related) needs to consider whether an element forms part of a larger ensemble or area or only stands by itself.6) The value of use determines the significance of historical cultural landscape elements,structures and complexes for ecology,science,tourism,recreation on the one hand,and for new functions and uses,on the other hand.7) The historical-geographical value does not refer to individual elements,instead it means extensive cultural landscape areas and components,which participate in society and effect regional and rural development.

In the investigation,which criteria should be applied and with which weighting,is determined by the statutory framework.Repeatedly,such criteria have been transformed into simple numeric grades(either awarding points or classifying them as “very good,” “good,” or “bad”).This is a practical way to make it more comprehensible.But an exactness is simulated by this,which is not given.Burggraaff and Kleefeld therefore were inclined to adopt appropriate descriptive and qualitative assessment methods.

If one tries to draw general conclusions from the approaches of establishing cultural landscape inventories,the following standards must be defined:

1) Extensive and complete coverage of cultural landscape features and structures with a precise localization of them,which requires a corresponding large scale (≤ 1∶ 25,000).At the same time,for analytical and practical reasons,it is first necessary to divide the cultural landscape into its individual components of punctate,linear and planar forms.However,as the cultural landscape is a continuum,it is then necessary to evaluate the individual findings in their cultural landscape context and integrate them into larger cultural landscape units of different dimensions depending on the planning needs.

2) Networking of all relevant spatial data:a large number of cultural landscape related data,which are obtained through the lists of both nature and heritage conservation,will be produced.From the perspective of cultural landscape conservation,only those that have not yet been systematically recorded need to be added later.These are especially elements and structures that can be described as historical cultural landscape relics.These data are linked with other spatial data.3) The inventory should be based on a Geographical Information System (GIS) to enable the import and export of data from existing databases and GIS,as well as their constant updating.

Overall,because of this inventory method,previously scattered and incomplete historical cultural landscape information could be summarized in order to shorten planning decisionmaking processes and to better substantiate and coordinate propositions.However,the statements of the public authorities are not thereby replaced.

3.2 Task 2:Examples of Regionalization of Historical Cultural Landscapes

In recent years,in the field of cultural landscape assessment there have been methods for marking,annotating,classifying and briefly characterizing historical cultural landscapes from the perspective of experts.Basically,two types of regionalization can be distinguished:1) Typifications:An area is subdivided into historical cultural landscapes by constructing relatively homogeneous spaces based on certain characteristics and criteria,e.g.Agricultural or urban landscapes in a functional sense,old settlements in a historical-genetic sense,hedgerow landscape in a physiognomic sense.2) Individualizations:Areas that stand out from others through their individuality could be identified.Thus,spatial individuals are constructed and often provided with correspondingly individual names,e.g.the “Alte Land (Old Country)” near Hamburg.

It should be applied for both approaches:the Regionalization without orientation to a specific purpose are academic gimmicks.Therefore,depending on the scale,it is important to emphasize the respective levels of meaning and to disclose the underlying criteria for marking historical cultural landscapes.In particular,these questions need to be asked:

1) Is the goal setting clear? What is the specific order? And which laws will point to the basic definition of the zoning of historical cultural landscapes?

2) Does the selected cultural landscape structure ensure the intended purpose with regard to the scale and size of the designated historical cultural landscapes? Are “cultural landscapes”merely marked or carefully identified (e.g.by borderlines) and is the representation method appropriate?

3) Should a typological analysis be conducted,or “cultural landscape individuals should be named”?

4) Should the historical cultural landscapes be constructed from “above and outside” (as if from a bird’s-eye perspective) or “from the inside”,e.g.about acting and actors? What are the criteria for forming relatively homogeneous spaces?

5) Is the procedure overall systematic,transparent and logical?

6) Do the cartographic representations meet criteria such as clarity and graphical consistency?

7) If the delineated units are accurately characterized in the - absolutely necessary - textual description,is the used material disclosed and,finally,are descriptions and evaluations clearly separated from each other?

From the background of these general considerations,two methods which were proven from planning practices for the designation of historical cultural landscapes are presented below.

Regionalization Example 1:Cultural landscape changing maps for the territory of the former Prussia.

The aim of this method is the chronological representation of the development of the cultural landscape based on comparisons of the Topographic Map 1∶25,000 in the former Prussian Rhine Province[8].They are from periods of 1810/1840 to 1950/1990.On this basis,the development of the cultural landscape is chronologically presented to the most recent situation.In this process,some landscape elements and structures are lost,some have arisen and disappeared again between the selected time periods.However,it is even more obvious that the areas without changes since 1810/1840,thus have the highest probability of finding historical elements and structures.Based on the above analyses,historical cultural landscapes are controlled and comprehensibly constructed.If there was also reliable map data before 1810,this method could also be used for earlier historical deductions.

The effect of the “disappearance” of elements can be caught by the making of socalled landscape state changing maps,which - also on the basis of the TK 25 - represent special old uses (grassland,coniferous forest,heather etc.) or even individual elements (trenches,paths,etc.).It can record e.g.the historic extent of heathland or forest areas,which may be desirable in the context of nature conservation measures.Thus,cultural landscape changing map not only appears as a means of showing historical cultural landscapes,but also describes areas with a high probability of finding historical elements and structures.

Regionalization example 2:Special research on the State Development Plan of North Rhine-Westphalia.

In 2007,the regional associations of Westphalia-Lippe and Rhineland were commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs,Mittelstand and Energy North Rhine-Westphalia,which is responsible for regional planning,to present a cultural landscape document to the State Development Plan.Their editors followed the definition of the term “historical cultural landscape” according to cultural committee since 2003,which has been mentioned above.

The Special research contains three essential parts:firstly,an comprehensive structure in cultural landscape areas,secondly nationwide and regionally significant cultural landscape areas,and thirdly,spatial planning concepts and objectives[9].

The approach,which is used by the report editors,is based on a cultural-historical perspective.The aim of the cultural landscape structure was a comprehensive result in space units on a regional level,which makes them applicable for state and regional planning as well as large-scale specialized planning.The respective space should be identified,described,evaluated and marked.Substantive criteria were based on the particular character of a space,which is characterized by natural conditions and the cultural landscape development,and also shows the development of settlement history,territory,religion and economy as well as the influences in land use patterns,settlement structures,evidence of regional construction culture and historic house landscapes,the features of cultural monuments and monumental structures as well as the landscape image (Fig.6).

In addition to the cartographic representation,a description of characteristics was formulated for each space unit,which mainly includes historical spatial forms and archaeological protection areas.This method of spatial division of cultural landscapes ensures the significance of historical cultural landscapes in the spatial planning,which also provides important prerequisites and foundations from a technical aspect for the national spatial planning and subsequent spatial planning and special planning.Ultimately,32 cultural landscape spaces could be summarized and marked on a scale of 1∶200,000 (Fig.7)[9].

In a further step,the cultural landscape area with special historical significance is identified from the perspective of historical cultural landscape.In addition to the spatial correlation and distribution density of the region,special attention is paid to historical evidence values,conservation state of factors,and perceived possibilities.Since the cultural landscape areas are often particularly typical of a development or of a particular characteristic,special attention was paid to what makes them distinguishable and gives them their own character[10].The aim is to present the 161 cultural landscape areas,29 of which are of national significance,as priority or reserved areas in the state development plan; In this way incompatible uses should be excluded and necessary cultural landscape concerns should be given special consideration.

4 Conclusion

In summary,historical development process of cultural landscapes could be regarded as the process and result of mutual influence of various factors of participation in the sense of cultural landscape conservation.In this sense,the concept of cultural landscape conservation is a theoretical construction with social coordination significance,and its applicability must be demonstrated in the corresponding political and cultural background.

Finally,on the basis of the inventories and regionalization,the collection,evaluation,protection of cultural landscape elements and structures,as well as space development guidelines and planning measures could be discussed.Based on the abovementioned methods,the complex “historical cultural landscapes” could be explained (Gunzelmann’s inventory approach),and the values and spatial guidelines of cultural landscape in various dimensions could also be analyzed (Burggraaff and Kleefeld’s“cultural landscape analytical approach).In addition,spatial zoning based on cultural landscape analysis could be carried out on the regional or national land space,so that future development measures and goals for cultural landscape objects could be proposed.The protection and development of cultural landscape objects could be concluded specifically as follows[11]:1) Conservation measures:Cultural landscape elements or structures are not partially or integrally applicable to today’s socio-economic conditions.Due to damages caused by functional barriers,it is necessary to restore the protection of historical economic uses for absolute cultural landscape conservation.2) the maintenance means to protect the spatial forms of elements or structures of cultural landscapes,combined with today’s socio-economic needs to change and integrate appropriate uses and functional connotations,with a focus on maintaining the traditional “external appearance”.3) Development goals:For a regional historical and cultural landscape complex,there is a concept of “core value” affecting the spatial guidelines of the region,under which the changes and development of cultural landscape or structures could be analyzed and controlled rationally.

And which method should be used to study the cultural landscape depends on the specific conditions of collection and analysis work.

Notes:

① Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (25.3.2002):§ 2,Abs.1 Nr.14.Bonn:Der Bundestag,2009.

② Gesetzzum Schutzder Kulturdenkmale(Denkmalschutzgesetz -DSchG) zuletzt ge?ndert durch Artikel 37 der Verordnung vom 23.Februar 2017 (GBl.S.99,104).

③ Gesetz über die Umweltvertr?glichkeitsprüfung(18.6.2002):§2 Nr.3.

Sources of Figures：

Fig.1 ?Reference [2],Fig.2-4?authors of this papre,Fig.5 ?Burggraaff and Kleefeld,Fig.6 ? Burggraaff,Fig.7?Reference [7],modified by Kong Dongyi.