地址:北京市海淀區中關村北大街100號(北樓)北京大學建筑與景觀設計學院一層 Email:info@landscape.cn
Copyright ? 2013-2022 景觀中國(www.36byz.com)版權所有 京ICP備05068035號 京公海網安備 110108000058號
Landscape-based Heritage Research and Practice
(周詳,李驥,劉祎緋,《景觀設計學》2023年第3期“主編寄語”)
“遺產”是受到啟蒙思想影響而誕生的現代概念。作為一種文化實踐,遺產的本質涉及一系列關于價值的理解與建構,及其不斷被納入規范化的過程[1]。20世紀后半葉,全球各民族國家被認證的遺產數量激增。聯合國教科文組織(UNESCO)于1972年頒布的《保護世界文化和自然遺產公約》(以下簡稱《公約》)便是在權威遺產話語體系發展和制度化過程中的一座里程碑:它不僅確立了對具有突出普遍價值的文化與自然遺產進行認證和保護的國際制度,還將遺產的存在確定為一個重要國際議題,并以制度化的形式進一步發展始于19世紀的保護理論。與此同時,遺產保護的對象與景觀的關聯性也逐步加強。《公約》所闡釋的遺產保護范疇包括了“人與自然共同的作品”,隨后在此基礎上產生了“文化景觀”這一特定遺產類型。
20世紀初,美國地理學家卡爾·索爾首次明確定義了文化景觀。隨后,德國地理學家奧托·施呂特在研究區域聚落形態及其科學分類時,呼吁人們充分認識文化在景觀形成過程中的作用,并建議明確區分文化景觀與自然景觀[2]。這促發人們基于景觀與環境的關聯性來確定不同的景觀區域,并將“文化”與“景觀”相結合,進一步拓展了文化景觀的概念[3]。20世紀末,瑞典地理學家唐·米切爾指出“景觀的產生機制”才是理解景觀的關鍵。在他看來,景觀是一種關于社會或文化關系自然化、再生產和轉化的社會–政治過程,因此應當根據在地性的行為、活動和表現來定義景觀[4]。受其影響,美國地理學家肯尼斯·奧維提出景觀是人們的文化實踐方式及價值變遷的歷史,基于景觀的遺產研究與實踐應當重視景觀與地方性、社區和法規習俗的關聯性[5]。因此,“文化景觀”概念的提出與發展不僅增強了遺產與景觀的關聯性,也極大擴展了人們對于遺產價值的認知[6]。
受上述研究轉向的影響,許多擁有文化景觀屬性的遺產日益受到關注,“文化景觀遺產”一詞也逐漸出現在相關研究與實踐中。在遺產的性質層面,文化景觀逐漸擴展為一種促進景觀管理和遺產保護的途徑;在遺產的范疇上,文化景觀則擴大到區域空間尺度,并突破精英化的價值認定,開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》中強調的通過關聯性視角看待景觀的理念,以及2008年發布的《什么是突出普遍價值》報告中指出的可能越來越多提名列入《世界遺產名錄》的遺產不再是傳統意義上的文物古跡的理念等相符。2020年,《中華人民共和國文物保護法(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地位,這標志著關聯性視角下的文化景觀研究已經進入到一個全新的時代。
2021年,UNESCO的《關于歷史性城市景觀的建議書》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和歷史格局被侵蝕,城市記憶與城市特質正在變得模糊。隨著遺產保護與現代發展的矛盾沖突在國際社會不斷升級,歷史性城市景觀(Historic Urban Landscape,HUL)概念的提出旨在將遺產保護的重心進行轉移——從保護紀念性建筑轉移到構筑城市生活的城市價值,從而將文化遺產納入城市空間發展的核心內容[7]。作為遺產研究領域近年來的新思潮,HUL超越了傳統“歷史中心”的概念,涵蓋了更為豐富的城市背景及其地理環境;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與發展的矛盾中指導歷史景觀相關工作的整體性方法,是遺產保護領域受到景觀理念影響的典型研究與實踐代表[8]。
國際上,世界遺產中心與亞太地區世界遺產培訓與研究中心(WHITRAP)率先推動了HUL在文化遺產保護中的實踐應用。代表性試點項目包括東非斯瓦希里海岸世界遺產城市保護(如莫桑比克島、桑吉巴爾石頭城和拉穆古城),歐洲城市保護發展(如荷蘭阿姆斯特丹、意大利那不勒斯),以及WHITRAP全球性試點項目(如巴基斯坦拉瓦爾品第、厄瓜多爾昆卡、澳大利亞巴拉瑞特、中國上海和蘇州)。近年來,HUL的研究和實踐也更多地被納入中國北京、平遙和麗江等歷史文化名城的保護規劃工作中[9]~[11]。這類實踐嘗試從景觀載體的角度解讀景觀的概念及其方法內涵,囊括了要素、價值、相關群體和執行程序等方面;也進一步明確了文化遺產保護不僅要關注遺產的價值保護與傳承體系,還要提升居民的生活品質和遺產管理能力,并將遺產資源納入城市發展的整體規劃框架[12]。
2022年是《公約》誕生50周年。從最初的一紙共識到今天由一系列術語、規范與制度構成的復雜體系,世界遺產已經成為人類文明賡續和世界可持續發展的風向標之一。縱觀世界遺產的發展進程,從對“歷史風貌”的完美復原,轉向對“城市景觀”的動態管控;當代遺產保護在注重歷史縱向“歷時性”過程的同時,還應關注每一個時間斷面上景觀要素的“共時性”和空間特性。景觀的概念自誕生之日起便具有綜合性與關聯性的特征。景觀的綜合性視野推動著文化遺產保護方法不斷發展,催生出更具關聯性、整體性和動態性的文化遺產保護實踐。在西方文化語境中,景觀和審美實踐總是與特定的意識形態相關聯,從而使景觀產生文化、美學與社會學上的意義。在這種語境下,景觀不僅承載著傳統的社會審美價值,經濟、文化、生態等要素在景觀維度上展現出關聯性[13]。而在全球城市化的語境中,景觀強調在遺產保護與管理過程中對于經濟、社會、文化和自然空間層積性的整體把握,是多學科知識體系交叉運用的整體觀的集中體現。因此,基于景觀的遺產研究與實踐有助于人們更好地理解以地方性為基礎的人與環境的互動及其動態過程與管理,以及公眾參與的這類互動的可能性和挑戰[14]。
從“文化遺產”到“文化景觀”,從“歷史城市”到“歷史性城市景觀”,基于景觀的遺產研究與實踐作為一種理念與方法,正在建構起一個豐富的學術體系。對于自然與文化關系的思辨,產生了文化景觀的概念;對于空間和交流的理解,催生出文化線路與遺產廊道的類型;對于傳統與現代之間矛盾的調和,衍生出HUL的觀點;對于城鄉二元發展困境與出路的關懷,則促成鄉村景觀遺產與可持續發展議題的廣泛討論。近幾十年來,景觀已經成為風景園林學、城鄉規劃學、建筑學、文化地理學、考古學、生態學、心理學、社會學等學科的研究對象。這一發展趨勢進一步增強了景觀研究的綜合性與多元性,相關領域的研究和實踐也明顯呈現出學科交叉、多方參與和多元共治的特點。
近年來,數字技術在遺產研究與實踐中扮演著愈發重要的角色。以物聯網、大數據和人工智能為代表的新基建、新數據、新方法的迅猛發展正深刻地影響、改變著城市及人們看待城市的方式,并為基于景觀的遺產研究與實踐帶來了變革可能。2017年,第19屆國際古跡遺址理事會全體會議將“數字賦權時代的文化遺產保護和闡釋”作為會議核心議題之一,這表明數字化保護已成為當代遺產景觀研究和實踐的新興領域與重要趨勢。卡爾·杜爾施等人[15]的研究發現,人們對于視覺環境中的地理信息特征非常敏感;通過建構一種以地理文化視覺參照為基礎的“計算性地理文化建模”方法,發現數字技術可以幫助我們更好地回應遺產保護的基本問題——人們如何理解和使用歷史空間,歷史空間又以何種方式影響人群的行為。信息技術支持下的遺產景觀研究是數字化時代遺產保護中最具成長潛力的學術領域之一,而依托數字技術對遺產景觀的空間要素與景觀特征進行量化解析將有助于拓展傳統遺產研究的廣度與深度。
當前,全球城市化進程中的城市保護與發展之間的矛盾膠著不下。保護歷史性空間結構、維持傳統社區網絡與促進社會經濟發展等依舊是HUL需要重點關注和持續疏解的核心城市問題。盡管數字技術的研究潛力巨大,但仍存在一些在技術層面的基本問題,包括如何確定遺產景觀的價值、真實性與完整性。而在這些問題面前,數字技術只能作為輔助研究的工具。如何利用新技術加深對遺產景觀的理解、提升遺產管理效率、實現遺產信息向后代的傳播等是需要我們持續探索的共同議題。
“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 “landscape”[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.
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]
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.
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.