清单盘点与空间区划
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.
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
下萨克森州
下萨克森州
莱茵兰—普法尔茨州 莱茵河
黑森州 荷兰
比利时
7 北莱茵—威斯特法伦州的32个文化景观区
32 cultural landscape areas in North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany
7 1. Tecklenburger Land 泰克雷堡地区
2. Minden-Lübbecker land 明登—里贝克地区 3. Ravensberger land 哈维斯堡地区 4. Westmündteland 西明斯特地区 5. Kernmünsterland 明斯特中部地区 6. Ostmünsterland 东明斯特地区
7. Paderborn-Delbrücker Land 帕特邦—戴尔布克地区 8. Lipper land 利坡地区
9. Weserbergland-Höxter 魏塞山区—赫克斯特 10. Unterer Niederrhein 下莱茵河低地 11. Niederrheinische Höhen下莱茵河高地 12. Niersniederung 尼尔斯低地 13. Maasterrassen 马斯特草甸 14. Ruhrgebiet 鲁尔区 15. Hellwegbörden 海尔威平原
16. Paderborner Hochfläche-Mittleres Diemeltal 帕特邦高地—帝门河谷 17. Schwalm-Nette 施瓦姆—内塔地区
18. Krefeld-Grevenbroicher Ackerterrassen 科艾菲尔德—柯莱温地区台地 19. Rheinschiene 莱茵断层区
20. Niederbergisch-Märkisches land 潜山特征区 21. Sauerland 绍尔地区
22. Bergisches Land 山区 23. Medebacher Bucht 米特河湾
24. Jülicher Börde-Selfkant于里希平原—塞夫康特 25. Rheinische Börde莱茵兰平原
26. Ville 威乐平原 27. Aachener Land 亚琛地区 28. Eifel埃菲尔山区
29. Mitterrheinische Pforte 莱茵河中下游交界口 30. Nutscheid-Sieg鲁策锡德—锡根地区 31. Siegerland锡根地区
32. Wittgenstein 维特根斯坦地区 莱茵河
km
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 infor mation could be summarized in order to shorten planning decision-making 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 so-called 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 above-mentioned 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 G e s e t z z u m S c h u t z d e r K u l t u r d e n k m a l e (Denkmalschutzgesetz -DSchG) zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 37 der Verordnung vom 23. Februar 2017 (GBl. S. 99, 104).
② G e s e t z z u m S c h u t z d e r K u l t u r d e n k m a l e (Denkmalschutzgesetz -DSchG) zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 37 der Verordnung vom 23. Februar 2017 (GBl. S. 99, 104).