（德）保羅·拉維茨科 孔洞一

1 世界文化遺產(chǎn)框架下的概念辨析

聯(lián)合國(guó)教科文組織在1972年公布的《世界文化和自然遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》（Convention Concerning the Protection of the Word Natural and Cultural Heritage，簡(jiǎn)稱《世遺公約》）①中將文化遺產(chǎn)（cultural heritage）分為3類：古跡（monuments）、建筑群（group of buildings）、遺址（sites）[1]?！秾?shí)施〈世界遺產(chǎn)公約〉操作指南》 （簡(jiǎn)稱《操作指南》）中還強(qiáng)調(diào)了“文化景觀、歷史村鎮(zhèn)或其他遺產(chǎn)中體現(xiàn)其顯著特征的種種關(guān)系和動(dòng)態(tài)功能也應(yīng)予保存”[2]18?！恫僮髦改稀分袑ⅰ拔幕坝^”（cultural landscape）又具體分了 3個(gè)子類。i：人類刻意設(shè)計(jì)創(chuàng)造的景觀（如園林和公園）。ii：有機(jī)演進(jìn)的景觀，其中a殘遺（或化石）景觀；b持續(xù)性景觀。iii：關(guān)聯(lián)性景觀（非實(shí)體景觀）[2]67。同時(shí)，《歐洲風(fēng)景公約》（European Landscape Convention）②也延續(xù)了《世遺公約》對(duì)于“文化景觀”的定義，強(qiáng)調(diào)文化景觀是“人類改造自然的過(guò)程的產(chǎn)物這一特點(diǎn)”[3]。另外，國(guó)際古跡遺址理事會(huì)（International Council on Monuments and Cities, ICOMOS）③對(duì)其的定義主要突出具有普遍文化歷史價(jià)值的“遺產(chǎn)景觀”（monument landscape），也強(qiáng)調(diào)了文化景觀是“在居住、經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)領(lǐng)域創(chuàng)造的文化成果對(duì)于人類居住環(huán)境空間的改造過(guò)程”[4]。同時(shí)，《歷史性城鎮(zhèn)景觀》（Historic Urban Landscape）強(qiáng)調(diào)景觀是“技術(shù)、場(chǎng)地、建筑和城鎮(zhèn)區(qū)域”（technical, territorial, architectural and urban integrity）的綜合體和“多學(xué)科協(xié)作”“公共參與”的評(píng)估與管理方法[5]。而《操作指南》中并未對(duì)于“工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)”（industrial heritage）和“工業(yè)景觀”（industrial landscape）給出明確定義。我們對(duì)1980—2015年入選世界遺產(chǎn)名錄的關(guān)于“工業(yè)景觀”的相關(guān)項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行了總結(jié)（表1）。

從表1可知，世界遺產(chǎn)中心對(duì)于“工業(yè)景觀”的評(píng)定主要依據(jù)《操作指南》第77條列出的10項(xiàng)普遍性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[2]6-17。其中ii：為在一段時(shí)期內(nèi)人類價(jià)值觀的交流；iii：為文明或傳統(tǒng)文化提供見(jiàn)證；iv：是歷史上建筑、技術(shù)或景觀的杰出范例；v：是人與環(huán)境相互作用的杰出范例；vi：與具有突出普遍意義的文化與精神有聯(lián)系。可見(jiàn)，這些評(píng)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也與一般的文化遺產(chǎn)一樣，是“文化遺產(chǎn)”“文化景觀”“遺產(chǎn)景觀”“歷史性城鎮(zhèn)景觀”等概念雜糅的結(jié)果，并不具有對(duì)工業(yè)景觀的針對(duì)性。

由此可見(jiàn)，聯(lián)合國(guó)教科文組織框架下，對(duì)“工業(yè)景觀”相關(guān)概念的界定具有很大的模糊性。這樣的模糊性會(huì)對(duì)實(shí)際的遺產(chǎn)評(píng)定和對(duì)工業(yè)文化景觀相關(guān)的規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)造成諸多困惑。因此，有必要對(duì)其進(jìn)行研究。對(duì)“工業(yè)景觀”的闡釋，需要綜合上述各個(gè)概念的內(nèi)涵，并結(jié)合工業(yè)景觀自身典型特點(diǎn)加以研究。筆者以德國(guó)魯爾區(qū)為例，試圖尋找一種針對(duì)工業(yè)景觀的歷史延展、內(nèi)涵多樣以及區(qū)域關(guān)聯(lián)方面的闡釋視角。

2 魯爾區(qū)作為工業(yè)景觀研究對(duì)象

基于聯(lián)合國(guó)教科文組織框架下的諸多遺產(chǎn)概念定義，德國(guó)魯爾區(qū)是“工業(yè)景觀”研究的絕佳案例。這主要體現(xiàn)在其工業(yè)文化景觀的“歷史性、區(qū)域性、綜合性”特征上。地質(zhì)勘探表明，從泥盆紀(jì)（Devonian Period）到第三紀(jì)（Tertiary Period）的億萬(wàn)年歲月里，歐洲大陸的山脈、陸地和海洋分化完成，“現(xiàn)代生物”生存環(huán)境逐漸形成。魯爾區(qū)也在該時(shí)期有著非常廣袤的森林資源和動(dòng)物生存痕跡，最終形成了現(xiàn)在萊茵河—魯爾河—利普河之間的東西長(zhǎng)120 km、南北寬70 km的廣闊地質(zhì)含煤層。在1—18世紀(jì)，魯爾區(qū)從原始聚落發(fā)展為以農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)為主的小型城鎮(zhèn)和鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)。1758年，魯爾區(qū)的Oberhausen地區(qū)就出現(xiàn)了第一個(gè)生鐵工房。19世紀(jì)70年代，魯爾區(qū)修建了將近300座礦井，成為當(dāng)時(shí)歐洲大陸上最大的硬煤開(kāi)采和焦炭生產(chǎn)區(qū)（圖1）。1900年左右，魯爾區(qū)又成為歐洲最大的鋼鐵生產(chǎn)基地。直到20世紀(jì)50年代，魯爾區(qū)發(fā)展成為完備的工業(yè)化產(chǎn)業(yè)城鎮(zhèn)集群，具有大規(guī)模的城市居住區(qū)和發(fā)達(dá)的工業(yè)水陸交通系統(tǒng)（圖2），成為當(dāng)時(shí)“歐洲煤鋼共同體”（European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC）④中最大的綜合性工業(yè)區(qū)[6]?！岸?zhàn)”后，魯爾區(qū)經(jīng)歷了“去工業(yè)化”轉(zhuǎn)型，傳統(tǒng)的重工業(yè)在國(guó)家政策引導(dǎo)下逐步轉(zhuǎn)化為以技術(shù)創(chuàng)新和文化創(chuàng)新為導(dǎo)向的新產(chǎn)業(yè)。在此過(guò)程中，工業(yè)時(shí)代的遺跡被廣泛改造和再利用，例如：大型煤礦坑和沉陷區(qū)被改造為景觀山（如Bottrop煤渣山）；大型的煤鋼生產(chǎn)工廠和設(shè)備也被改造為休閑娛樂(lè)設(shè)施（如杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園）；工業(yè)廢水和土壤經(jīng)過(guò)改造成為自然生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的一部分（如Emscher河道改造）；大部分工業(yè)時(shí)代的交通和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施依然維持著城鎮(zhèn)的運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)（如Oberhausen火車站）；魯爾區(qū)也有世界上面積最大、保持了20世紀(jì)初期“花園城市”風(fēng)格的工業(yè)住宅區(qū)。從歷史發(fā)展的脈絡(luò)來(lái)看，魯爾區(qū)的這些工業(yè)時(shí)代遺留的景觀，不僅是19—20世紀(jì)中期歐洲大規(guī)模煤炭開(kāi)采和鋼鐵生產(chǎn)的典范，而且也反映了這個(gè)區(qū)域在生產(chǎn)技術(shù)、生活方式、區(qū)域空間規(guī)劃等方面的綜合性發(fā)展。例如，德國(guó)魯爾區(qū)的“埃森煤礦工業(yè)園”（Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen）也在2001年依據(jù)《操作指南》第77條的ii、iii項(xiàng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[2]6-17，作為“煤炭的開(kāi)采和處理以及焦炭生產(chǎn)所必需的建筑物和設(shè)備的完整綜合體”列入了世遺名錄中。而事實(shí)上，魯爾區(qū)的工業(yè)景觀與以上所列的12項(xiàng)“工業(yè)景觀”項(xiàng)目一樣，已經(jīng)超越了“古跡、建筑群、遺址（場(chǎng)所）”的“文化遺產(chǎn)”概念，而作為“工業(yè)景觀”綜合 體系而存在。另外，魯爾區(qū)的很多居住區(qū)和工業(yè)時(shí)代及前工業(yè)時(shí)代的小鎮(zhèn)都符合《操作指南》中對(duì)“歷史城鎮(zhèn)”的評(píng)價(jià)細(xì)則中“尚有人居住的歷史城鎮(zhèn)”和“20世紀(jì)新城”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[7]。同時(shí)，許多礦井、廠房、交通設(shè)施、住宅區(qū)以及廢料堆等不僅包涵了人類工業(yè)時(shí)代的“殘遺景觀”，并且已經(jīng)在上百年的演化過(guò)程中與魯爾區(qū)的城市、鄉(xiāng)村和工業(yè)區(qū)融合成具備“有機(jī)演進(jìn)”和“關(guān)聯(lián)性”的文化景觀區(qū)域整體[8]。由此可見(jiàn)，魯爾區(qū)的文化景觀具備了“歷史性、區(qū)域性、綜合性”的混合特 征，需要有新的研究視角和方法對(duì)其進(jìn)行闡釋和分析。

表1 世界遺產(chǎn)名錄中的工業(yè)景觀項(xiàng)目（1980—2015年）Tab. 1 Industrial landscape projects in the world heritage list (1980—2015)

1 19世紀(jì)初期的魯爾區(qū)煤炭工廠Ruhr coal factory in the early 19th century

2 第二次世界大戰(zhàn)之前的魯爾區(qū)Oberhausen工業(yè)區(qū)Oberhausen industrial area in the Ruhr area before World War II

表2 混合型文化景觀的視角和內(nèi)涵Tab. 2 Connotations and perspectives of hybrid cultural landscape

3 視角與方法

3.1 “混合型工業(yè)文化景觀”概念

“文化景觀”概念在德國(guó)有著悠久的歷史。從19世紀(jì)工業(yè)化時(shí)代就有自然地理學(xué)方面的關(guān)于人與自然關(guān)系的思考；在20世紀(jì)早期的自然保護(hù)與故鄉(xiāng)保護(hù)思潮下發(fā)展出“區(qū)域性傳統(tǒng)”；奧托 施呂特（Otto Schlüter）⑤的觀點(diǎn)強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)“人類改造自然的歷史片段”的關(guān)注；“二戰(zhàn)”后，德國(guó)又出現(xiàn)了相對(duì)“自然 景觀”而言，更強(qiáng)調(diào)人為干預(yù)過(guò)程的“文化景觀”[9]。20世紀(jì)90年代，德國(guó)歷史地理學(xué)派的“文化景觀維護(hù)”（cultural landscape conservation，德語(yǔ)：Kulturlandschaftspflege）概念融合了以往概念中“生態(tài)、社會(huì)、美學(xué)”等多方面的內(nèi)涵，從闡述角度強(qiáng)調(diào)文化景觀是“人類生存過(guò)程中，隨著一定的社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化和審美需求變化而不斷變化的環(huán)境空間”[10]。這一思想強(qiáng)調(diào)了景觀自身的歷史發(fā)展過(guò)程和基于人為適應(yīng)而構(gòu)建的多層次內(nèi)涵特性。

2015年，“工業(yè)文化景觀”這一名詞首次在魯爾區(qū)多特蒙德舉辦的ICOMOS國(guó)際“魯爾工業(yè)文化景觀”研討會(huì)上被提出。作為對(duì)該項(xiàng)目研討會(huì)的主旨性總結(jié)，由波恩大學(xué)Winfried Schenk教授提出了一個(gè)旨在闡述魯爾區(qū)復(fù)雜的工業(yè)景觀內(nèi)涵的概念——“混合型文化景觀”（hybrid cultural landscape）[11]。其對(duì)文化景觀的闡釋分為“本體性”（ontologische）和“構(gòu)建性”（konstruktivistische）2個(gè)觀察視角和4層含義 （表2）。

如表2所示，“本體性”視角包括了3層含義。第一層含義強(qiáng)調(diào)在景觀生態(tài)學(xué)或自然地理學(xué)范疇下，景觀作為地球物理空間和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的一部分。第二層含義強(qiáng)調(diào)景觀“人與環(huán)境關(guān)系”的內(nèi)涵。其又包括4個(gè)含義：1）強(qiáng)調(diào)人與環(huán)境關(guān)系的物理層面的景觀，即1992年《世遺公約》第1條中對(duì)文化景觀的定義——人與環(huán)境的結(jié)合體（combined works of nature and man）；2）強(qiáng)調(diào)心理層面的景觀，即從客觀物理空間獲得的美學(xué)或心理感受；3）強(qiáng)調(diào)社會(huì)層面的景觀，即文化景觀可以理解為社會(huì)實(shí)踐的物理表達(dá)和歷史過(guò)程的產(chǎn)物；4）強(qiáng)調(diào)文化景觀的地標(biāo)符號(hào)象征意義。第3層含義是景觀作為社會(huì)文化精神的隱喻表達(dá)。“構(gòu)建性”視角強(qiáng)調(diào)景觀作為溝通交流的結(jié)果。具體來(lái)講，是在對(duì)文化景觀“本體性”的科學(xué)闡釋、評(píng)價(jià)的認(rèn)知基礎(chǔ)上，通過(guò)社會(huì)參與和公共討論對(duì)其未來(lái)發(fā)展內(nèi)涵所進(jìn)行的詮釋[12]。

3 魯爾區(qū)工業(yè)文化景觀要素分布Data collection of industrial cultural landscape elements in Ruhr area

對(duì)于魯爾區(qū)“歷史性、區(qū)域性、綜合性”的工業(yè)景觀而言，“混合型文化景觀”概念可以為其提供一個(gè)全新的闡釋視角。具體來(lái)講，魯爾區(qū)具有完整的區(qū)域范圍的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。雖然在工業(yè)時(shí)代自然系統(tǒng)遭到破壞，但是其生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的含義依然保持其關(guān)系完整性。同時(shí)，其人與環(huán)境互相作用的結(jié)果，在物理空間上體現(xiàn)為前工業(yè)時(shí)代和工業(yè)時(shí)代的文化景觀要素與結(jié)構(gòu)；在心理上體現(xiàn)為對(duì)工業(yè)文化的歸屬和自豪感；在社會(huì)文化上體現(xiàn)為適應(yīng)于工業(yè)文明的社團(tuán)與組織；并在區(qū)域的空間節(jié)點(diǎn)上形成地標(biāo)性景觀作為工業(yè)文明的象征。其文化隱喻更體現(xiàn)了工人階級(jí)意志和市民精神。通過(guò)多層面的“本體性”內(nèi)涵的詮釋，為“構(gòu)建性”文化景觀的建立提供參照依據(jù)。在“構(gòu)建性”內(nèi)涵詮釋過(guò)程中，需要借助于公共討論。其中，“本體性”的重構(gòu)與優(yōu)化，往往需要與時(shí)代發(fā)展相結(jié)合。另外，利用“混合型工業(yè)文化景觀”的視角，也可以解釋魯爾區(qū)融合城市、鄉(xiāng)村和自然環(huán)境多個(gè)系統(tǒng)而形成工業(yè)化的“區(qū)間城鎮(zhèn)”（Zwischenstadt）⑥在區(qū)域結(jié)構(gòu)層面的內(nèi)涵。因此，在此背景下，我們可以把這樣的綜合性概念稱為“混合型工業(yè)文化景觀”。

3.2 要素收集與分類

由于混合型工業(yè)文化景觀具有多層面的復(fù)雜內(nèi)涵，因此需要有科學(xué)客觀的方法來(lái)收集和分析其對(duì)象要素，以“本體性”視角闡述文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)在“地質(zhì)生態(tài)、人與環(huán)境關(guān)系、文化隱喻”多層面上的具體體現(xiàn)。借助于文化景觀維護(hù)的2種基本方法——“清單盤(pán)點(diǎn)”和“空間區(qū)劃”可以科學(xué)客觀地對(duì)研究對(duì)象進(jìn)行分析闡述。其中“清單盤(pán)點(diǎn)”是一種對(duì)研究對(duì)象進(jìn)行整體性歸納的方法，收集、歸納、分析文化景觀資源的類型、區(qū)域劃分和歷史演變過(guò)程；“空間區(qū)劃”則是在一定的區(qū)域范圍內(nèi)，對(duì)歷史性文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)行收集、評(píng)估和分類，確定其“定義性特征”并登記在冊(cè)、盤(pán)點(diǎn)清查[13]。在這樣的清查和區(qū)劃過(guò)程中，每個(gè)空間區(qū)域都應(yīng)該基于“空間的特殊性”被識(shí)別、描述、評(píng)估和標(biāo)注。魯爾區(qū)文化景觀要素與結(jié)構(gòu)分布圖（圖3）將整個(gè)魯爾區(qū)中“萊茵河—魯爾河—利普河”所圍合而成的區(qū)域作為對(duì)象來(lái)研究，有著廣泛的時(shí)間和空間跨度：時(shí)間維度上，把19世紀(jì)以來(lái)的工業(yè)文化遺跡進(jìn)行片段延續(xù)性劃分；空間維度上，把住宅、商業(yè)、工業(yè)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和開(kāi)放空間等多個(gè)層面的要素加以分析歸納。這樣的數(shù)據(jù)收集和分析工作往往是龐大而繁雜的?；诘乩硇畔⑾到y(tǒng)的“文化景觀數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)”——KulaDig⑦也為今天的研究者提供了非常方便的技術(shù)輔助。“工業(yè)文化景觀要素”收集導(dǎo)則也在2007年的《北威州國(guó)土發(fā)展規(guī)劃》（NRW Land Development Plan,LEP）中有所體現(xiàn)[14]。下面列舉其部分分類和導(dǎo)則。

4 魯爾區(qū)工業(yè)文化景觀區(qū)域結(jié)構(gòu)圖Regional structure of industrial cultural landscape in Ruhr area

1）工業(yè)聚落文化景觀：沒(méi)有受到工業(yè)化影響的前工業(yè)時(shí)代（1900年前）的老村鎮(zhèn)；工業(yè)時(shí)代（1900—1950年）的私人住宅（往往包含了特殊的工業(yè)特征）；兩次世界大戰(zhàn)之間（1919—1935年）所修建的組團(tuán)式社會(huì)住宅和廉租房；由公共建筑群所組成的工業(yè)城市中心區(qū)（如1929年建成的奧伯豪森中心）；20世紀(jì)中期以前的資產(chǎn)階級(jí)精英規(guī)劃的別墅莊園和文化藝術(shù)區(qū)（如克努伯莊園）。

2）工業(yè)交通文化景觀：作為工業(yè)化城市發(fā)展起點(diǎn)的“老火車站”，城鄉(xiāng)融合型區(qū)域中的工業(yè)設(shè)施旁邊的車站；工業(yè)鐵路運(yùn)輸網(wǎng)絡(luò)中的線路、設(shè)施及車站；人工河道系統(tǒng)和給排水系統(tǒng)；工業(yè)時(shí)代的水利運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)。

3）工業(yè)設(shè)施與場(chǎng)地文化景觀：為采礦業(yè)和鋼鐵業(yè)所建造的管理和運(yùn)營(yíng)場(chǎng)所；為采礦和鋼鐵業(yè)建立的廠房和基建設(shè)施；工業(yè)企業(yè)的歷史性辦公建筑和行會(huì)駐地建筑；廢料地和采礦廢棄地及其集合形態(tài)，如采礦堆、尖錐堆、梯臺(tái)山等；采礦引起的沉陷區(qū)（自1900年以來(lái)，最高沉降達(dá)25 m）。

4）工業(yè)時(shí)代的開(kāi)放空間：在住宅區(qū)和工業(yè)區(qū)之間分布的歷史性道路和不連續(xù)的開(kāi)放空間斑塊；1950年以前建立的城市公園和綠地；自20世紀(jì)20年代以來(lái)建立的開(kāi)放空間。

總之，采用文化景觀的收集和評(píng)價(jià)方法可以對(duì)工業(yè)文化景觀進(jìn)行空間和結(jié)構(gòu)系統(tǒng)上的劃分。經(jīng)過(guò)收集和評(píng)價(jià)的文化景觀要素和結(jié)構(gòu)體現(xiàn)了其“本體性”價(jià)值。如景觀生態(tài)價(jià)值、地質(zhì)科學(xué)價(jià)值、地方性文化價(jià)值、建筑遺產(chǎn)價(jià)值、傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值、工業(yè)文化關(guān)聯(lián)價(jià)值、階級(jí)文化象征價(jià)值等。這樣的工業(yè)文化景觀結(jié)構(gòu)系統(tǒng)表明：在過(guò)去工業(yè)時(shí)期，城市系統(tǒng)將一些功能從工業(yè)設(shè)施中分離了出來(lái)，從而形成功能用途改變了的“構(gòu)建性”工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)，這些工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)也呈現(xiàn)出與當(dāng)代的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)融合發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)。

4 重構(gòu)與發(fā)展

4.1 區(qū)域結(jié)構(gòu)

在區(qū)域?qū)用?，文化景觀的“本體性”價(jià)值受到區(qū)域內(nèi)的人口與聚落發(fā)展、文化歷史、社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)以及政治制度變革等因素影響，呈現(xiàn)不同的空間結(jié)構(gòu)特點(diǎn)。這些分散的空間結(jié)構(gòu)需要在一定的發(fā)展目標(biāo)下加以整合，為可持續(xù)發(fā)展提供依據(jù)。在2017年，德國(guó)魯爾工業(yè)文化景觀工作項(xiàng)目組向聯(lián)合國(guó)世界文化遺產(chǎn)總部（UNESCO-Welterbe）遞交了《魯爾區(qū)工業(yè)文化景觀》（Industrielle Kulturlandschaft Ruhrgebiet）報(bào)告。這份報(bào)告是基于文化景觀數(shù)據(jù)收集和分析，集合了廣泛的民眾參與，對(duì)魯爾區(qū)的工業(yè)景觀進(jìn)行了結(jié)構(gòu)整合，并提出了構(gòu)建性的“魯爾區(qū)工業(yè)文化景觀區(qū)域結(jié)構(gòu)”（圖4）：1）以“萊茵河—魯爾河—利普河”及“萊茵—訶納運(yùn)河”為主的河道景觀； 2）工業(yè)時(shí)代鐵路交通景觀；3）歷史性綠帶；4）工業(yè)設(shè)施與場(chǎng)地景觀；5）生態(tài)修復(fù)區(qū)。正如“構(gòu)建性”含義所強(qiáng)調(diào)的，這是一種具有內(nèi)在文化記憶和基因邏輯的、體現(xiàn)魯爾區(qū)文化特色和未來(lái)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的混合空間系統(tǒng)結(jié)構(gòu)。包括“基于工業(yè)景觀改造的區(qū)域生態(tài)空間結(jié)構(gòu)、以工業(yè)文化景觀的邏輯為出發(fā)點(diǎn)破除傳統(tǒng)城鄉(xiāng)二分法的區(qū)域物理空間結(jié)構(gòu)、保留工業(yè)文化遺產(chǎn)的歷史記憶和內(nèi)涵的社會(huì)文化構(gòu)建，以及工業(yè)空間改造利用與當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展適應(yīng)的時(shí)代精神”[15]。在工業(yè)化轉(zhuǎn)型的背景下，這樣的結(jié)構(gòu)系統(tǒng)也揭示了從“過(guò)去重工業(yè)的生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)結(jié)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)楫?dāng)代的多種經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)業(yè)和空間結(jié)構(gòu)交織”的新系統(tǒng)發(fā)展與變化的潛力?？梢?jiàn)，“混合型工業(yè)文化景觀”概念已經(jīng)超出了單純的工業(yè)景觀保護(hù)范疇，具有整合區(qū)域空間結(jié)構(gòu)的意義。

4.2 場(chǎng)地重構(gòu)

“構(gòu)建性”在空間上的具體體現(xiàn)就是場(chǎng)地重構(gòu)。在這個(gè)過(guò)程中，需要重新發(fā)現(xiàn)原本工業(yè)廢棄場(chǎng)地的“本體性”含義，并結(jié)合生態(tài)學(xué)、空間設(shè)計(jì)、文化心理等多方面的專業(yè)知識(shí)對(duì)本體性價(jià)值進(jìn)行優(yōu)化和強(qiáng)化。由煤鋼工業(yè)廢料構(gòu)成的煤渣山（Halde）景觀就是一種典型的場(chǎng)地重構(gòu)（圖5）。在前工業(yè)時(shí)代，這些礦產(chǎn)資源作為地質(zhì)構(gòu)造的一部分而一直存在；工業(yè)時(shí)代，人們賦予了礦產(chǎn)新的工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值；隨著工業(yè)時(shí)代的結(jié)束，經(jīng)過(guò)開(kāi)采后的廢棄礦渣和舊機(jī)械失去了工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值，但通過(guò)對(duì)其“本體性”含義的分析，可以從中得到豐富的景觀內(nèi)涵。在重構(gòu)過(guò)程中，恢復(fù)自然生態(tài)屬性往往需要漫長(zhǎng)的過(guò)程。例如Tetraeder煤渣山景觀就是20世紀(jì)90年代IBA Emscher Park項(xiàng)目的一部分，10年間對(duì)120 m高的煤礦廢渣進(jìn)行土壤改良和植物群落演替的生態(tài)改造，在其頂端設(shè)計(jì)建造了耗費(fèi)210 t鋼材的32 m高的大型三角錐地表景觀構(gòu)筑，體現(xiàn)了“征服自然”的工業(yè)文化精 神[16]。另外，哈尼爾（Haniel）倉(cāng)庫(kù)通過(guò)將煤礦排渣場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)成為市民可免費(fèi)參與的現(xiàn)代化露天劇場(chǎng)，也體現(xiàn)了通過(guò)公共討論反映市民精神的“構(gòu)建性”過(guò)程，這樣的詮釋視角也適用于眾多關(guān)于工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)的單體和群體建筑空間的改造和設(shè)計(jì)。例如，在關(guān)稅聯(lián)盟的主體建筑“魯爾博物館”內(nèi)，人們體驗(yàn)到的不僅是 由礦井和廠房改造的空間，更能感受到魯爾區(qū)整個(gè)文化景觀的多層次歷史內(nèi)涵。依據(jù)地質(zhì)、生態(tài)、歷史、社會(huì)學(xué)等學(xué)科的研究，設(shè)計(jì)者在這個(gè)博物館內(nèi)展示魯爾區(qū)自泥盆紀(jì)以來(lái)的地質(zhì)與生境，也對(duì)人類社會(huì)從蠻荒到封建時(shí)代，以及近代的文化景觀歷史做了回顧，突出展示了19世紀(jì)以來(lái)的工業(yè)文化歷程，并特別展示了20世紀(jì)80年代以來(lái)人們對(duì)文化景觀的改造過(guò)程和結(jié)果。這也說(shuō)明了文化景觀的“社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化和審美需求”[10]等方面的內(nèi)涵是隨著歷史發(fā)展過(guò)程而變化的。這樣的“變化過(guò)程”和“多層次內(nèi)涵”已不能單獨(dú)用“文化遺產(chǎn)”或者“工業(yè)景觀”的概念來(lái)界定，而需要以混合型文化景觀加以詮釋。

4.3 文化意識(shí)重構(gòu)

5 魯爾區(qū)的煤渣山景觀Halde landscape in Ruhr area

與《世遺公約》所提出的“關(guān)聯(lián)性文化景觀”內(nèi)涵相一致，“構(gòu)建性”內(nèi)涵也包括人們對(duì)工業(yè)景觀文化價(jià)值的繼承與開(kāi)拓。文化景觀可以通過(guò)有形的空間和無(wú)形的文化活動(dòng)，對(duì)參與其中的人起到文化意識(shí)引導(dǎo)和整合的作用。多年來(lái)，魯爾區(qū)的工業(yè)景觀保護(hù)與發(fā)展受到了政府和民間組織的支持，在“本體性”內(nèi)涵的收集和整理階段就有大量社會(huì)團(tuán)體和民眾參與，從而形成地方認(rèn)同感和文化歸屬感。例如“魯爾工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)之路”項(xiàng)目把本體性的“廢棄物”重新詮釋為“休閑設(shè)施”，如將廢棄的鐵路重構(gòu)為串聯(lián)起開(kāi)放空間和工業(yè)遺跡的旅行線路（如自行車道）。著名的“煤氣罐博物館”中，采用了大型360°全息成像技術(shù)呈現(xiàn)了信息時(shí)代的“自然保護(hù)”主題，隱喻了舊工業(yè)時(shí)代“自然資源開(kāi)發(fā)”的文化意識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)楫?dāng)今時(shí)代的“自然保護(hù)”意識(shí)。同時(shí)，眾多社會(huì)團(tuán)體不僅通過(guò)日常休閑活動(dòng)、博物館和文教設(shè)施，還通過(guò)大型的國(guó)際性展覽會(huì)對(duì)公眾進(jìn)行知識(shí)普及和美學(xué)教育，引導(dǎo)未來(lái)的文化意識(shí)創(chuàng)新。例如魯爾區(qū)域聯(lián)盟（Regionalverband Ruhr, RVR）、魯爾景觀協(xié)會(huì)（Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, LWL）為魯爾區(qū)申辦2027年的國(guó)際園林博覽會(huì)（International Gartenausstellung, IGA）提出了“整合性可持續(xù)性”的理念，包涵“生物多樣性、交通可達(dá)性、能源節(jié)約性、休閑舒適性”的多目標(biāo)，體現(xiàn)了對(duì)新時(shí)代工業(yè)文化意識(shí)的重構(gòu)[17]。在這些“構(gòu)建性”的公共討論過(guò)程中，魯爾區(qū)的文化景觀意識(shí)也從單一的工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)價(jià)值認(rèn)知，向多層含義的工業(yè)文化景觀意識(shí)發(fā)展。

5 總結(jié)和展望

綜上所述，《世遺公約》中對(duì)于“工業(yè)景觀”的概念和評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)呈現(xiàn)模糊性。魯爾區(qū)的工業(yè)景觀因其“歷史性、區(qū)域性、綜合性”等特點(diǎn)，已經(jīng)很難用《世遺公約》中的單獨(dú)概念來(lái)界定。從文化景觀思想發(fā)展而來(lái)的“混合型工業(yè)文化景觀”視角，可以將“文化遺產(chǎn)”“文化景觀”等概念內(nèi)涵加以整合，以“本體性”和“構(gòu)建性”的觀察視角，在“地質(zhì)生態(tài)、人與環(huán)境關(guān)系、文化隱喻以及社會(huì) 交流”4個(gè)層面體現(xiàn)工業(yè)文化景觀的特殊內(nèi)涵。并且也使得工業(yè)景觀突破了單純遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的概念，能夠在產(chǎn)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型的背景下，構(gòu)建保留文化記憶和基因邏輯，體現(xiàn)工業(yè)文化特色和未來(lái)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的區(qū)域空間系統(tǒng)結(jié)構(gòu)，詮釋“生態(tài)、社會(huì)和文化”多層面的場(chǎng)地重構(gòu)，并且為后工業(yè)時(shí)代的可持續(xù)文化意識(shí)的構(gòu)建起到促進(jìn)作用。

中國(guó)存在大量與魯爾區(qū)規(guī)模和背景相似的工業(yè)文化景觀區(qū)域。例如，東北的鞍山鋼鐵工業(yè)基地、山西晉北煤炭工業(yè)基地等都是規(guī)模巨大、內(nèi)涵復(fù)雜且面臨著工業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型的發(fā)展困境的綜合工業(yè)區(qū)。工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)相關(guān)政策也提出對(duì)“遺產(chǎn)格局、結(jié)構(gòu)、樣式和風(fēng)貌特征”進(jìn)行認(rèn)定和保護(hù)，以及“建設(shè)工業(yè)文化產(chǎn)業(yè)園區(qū)、特色小鎮(zhèn)（街區(qū)）、創(chuàng)新創(chuàng)業(yè)基地”[18]的綜合要求。在對(duì)這些工業(yè)文化區(qū)域進(jìn)行研究時(shí)，需要認(rèn)清世界遺產(chǎn)框架下的“工業(yè)景觀”相關(guān)定義的局限，探索多維度的綜合概念。而當(dāng)前中國(guó)學(xué)界對(duì)于“工業(yè)景觀”的研究大多是從設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)角度出發(fā)、對(duì)單體或集合的遺產(chǎn)要素進(jìn)行的研究，將工業(yè)文化遺產(chǎn)作為“歷史對(duì)象”[19]，其焦點(diǎn)往往關(guān)注于場(chǎng)地內(nèi)部自然要素和工業(yè)文化記憶[20]以及“文化碎片的復(fù)寫(xiě)”[21]。同 時(shí)，從中國(guó)工信部公布的3批國(guó)家工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)名單也可以看出，對(duì)工業(yè)景觀的保護(hù)與發(fā)展尚停留在對(duì)“核心物項(xiàng)”[22]這樣的單一工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)的保護(hù)層面。這樣的視角都尚未跳出“遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)”視角的局限，不能作為綜合性工業(yè)文化區(qū)域的研究工具。在這樣的政策與理論背景下，“混合型工業(yè)文化景觀”的闡釋視角和科學(xué)分析方法可以為中國(guó)未來(lái)的工業(yè)景觀研究提供開(kāi)拓性的思路。最后必須強(qiáng)調(diào)，混合型工業(yè)文化景觀的概念是在德國(guó)背景下產(chǎn)生的，其在中國(guó)的應(yīng)用還需要從政策背景和社會(huì)條件方面因地制宜地進(jìn)行探索。

注釋：

①《世界文化和自然遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》，是聯(lián)合國(guó)教科文組織大會(huì)于1972年11月16日在巴黎舉行的第17屆會(huì)議上簽署的針對(duì)世界范圍內(nèi)的文化和自然遺產(chǎn)的保護(hù)性框架協(xié)議。遺產(chǎn)分為：自然遺產(chǎn)、文化遺產(chǎn)和復(fù)合遺產(chǎn)3類，由ICOMOS等非政府組織協(xié)助參與世界遺產(chǎn)的甄選、管理與保護(hù)工作。

②《歐洲風(fēng)景公約》，是依據(jù)歐盟委員會(huì)第176號(hào)決議，在2000年10月20日于佛羅倫薩召開(kāi)的一次關(guān)于歐盟范圍內(nèi)的景觀與國(guó)土保護(hù)與發(fā)展的框架協(xié)議?！稓W洲風(fēng)景公約》強(qiáng)調(diào)“文化景觀”作為歐洲共同的歷史文化載體，并聲明文化景觀保護(hù)是各個(gè)成員國(guó)的社會(huì)責(zé)任和義務(wù)，在此綱領(lǐng)下，各個(gè)成員國(guó)需要在城市、鄉(xiāng)村和更廣泛區(qū)域內(nèi)進(jìn)行關(guān)于自然與文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的廣泛合作。目前已經(jīng)有41個(gè)成員國(guó)簽署了這項(xiàng)協(xié)議。

③ 國(guó)際古跡遺址理事會(huì)，1965年在波蘭華沙成立，是UNESCO的專業(yè)咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)。它由世界各國(guó)文化遺產(chǎn)專業(yè)人士組成，是古跡遺址保護(hù)和修復(fù)領(lǐng)域唯一的國(guó)際非政府組織，在審定世界各國(guó)提名的世界文化遺產(chǎn)申報(bào)名單方面起著重要作用。

④ 歐洲煤鋼共同體，1951年4月18日通過(guò)《巴黎條約》成立，締約國(guó)有法國(guó)、西德、意大利、比利時(shí)、荷蘭及盧森 堡，是歐洲漫長(zhǎng)歷史上出現(xiàn)的第一個(gè)擁有超國(guó)家權(quán)限的機(jī)構(gòu)，也是“歐洲共同體”和“歐盟”的前身。

⑤ 奧托 施呂特（1872 1959），德國(guó)地理學(xué)家，德國(guó)地理學(xué)會(huì)會(huì)員。先后任教于柏林大學(xué)、波恩大學(xué)、萊比錫大學(xué)，開(kāi)創(chuàng)了利用自然地理學(xué)方法研究文化景觀的先河。

⑥ 區(qū)間城鎮(zhèn)，是德國(guó)當(dāng)代著名規(guī)劃學(xué)者Thomas Sieverts提出的一個(gè)規(guī)劃理論。他把那些不具備城市或鄉(xiāng)村明顯界限的、趨于城鄉(xiāng)融合的區(qū)域稱之為“區(qū)間城鎮(zhèn)”。這個(gè)理論對(duì)當(dāng)代德國(guó)城鎮(zhèn)規(guī)劃有著重要的指導(dǎo)意義。

⑦ KulaDig是德國(guó)一個(gè)文化景觀收集系統(tǒng)，基于地理信息系統(tǒng)，運(yùn)用歷史地理學(xué)分析方法，對(duì)點(diǎn)線面的文化景觀要素進(jìn)行收集和評(píng)價(jià)，并可以在地理信息系統(tǒng)中進(jìn)行空間分析。目前KulaDig主要覆蓋德國(guó)西部的幾個(gè)州，廣泛應(yīng)用于國(guó)土規(guī)劃、城鎮(zhèn)規(guī)劃、景觀規(guī)劃和文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)等領(lǐng)域。

圖表來(lái)源：

圖1來(lái)自德國(guó)畫(huà)家Alfred Rethel于1834年創(chuàng)作的寫(xiě)生畫(huà)； 圖2由Regional Verund Ruhr提 供；圖3由Hans-Werner Wehling提供，孔洞一翻譯；圖4～5由Stiftung für Industriedenkmalpflege und Geschichtskultur提 供，孔 洞一翻譯；表1由孔洞一根據(jù)whc.unesco.org繪制；表2由Winfried Schenk繪制，孔洞一翻譯。

（編輯/王亞鶯）

Interpretation of the Cultural Landscape of the Industrial Heritage in the Ruhr Area of Germany: Hybrid Industrial Cultural Landscape

(DEU) Paul Lawitzke, KONG Dongyi

1 Analysis of Concepts Under the Framework of World Cultural Heritage

The “Convention Concerning the Protection of the Word Natural and Cultural Heritage” published by UNESCO in 1972 divides cultural heritage into three categories: monuments, group of buildings, and sites[1]. “The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention” (OG①) also emphasized that “the various relationships and dynamic functions that manifest their distinctive characteristics in cultural landscapes, historical villages or other living heritages should also be preserved[2]18. TheOGdivides “cultural landscape” into three subcategories specifically: i) Landscapes (such as gardens and parks) created by human deliberate design. ii) Organically evolved landscape: a remnant (or fossil) landscape; b continuous landscape. iii) Associative landscape (non-physical landscape)[2]67. At the same time, the “European Landscape Convention②” also continued to use the definition of “cultural landscape” in the “World Heritage Convention”, emphasizing that cultural landscape is “action and interaction of human and nature”[3]. In addition, the definition of the International Council on Monuments and Cities (ICOMOS③) mainly highlights the “monument landscape” with universal cultural and historical values, and also emphasizes that the cultural landscape is “inhabitation, economy and transformation process of the cultural achievements created by the social field to the space of human living environment”[4]. Moreover, the “Historic Urban Landscape (HUL)” also emphasizes that landscape is a combination of “technical, territorial, architectural and urban integrity” Evaluation and management method of “disciplinary collaboration” “public participation”[5]. However, there is no clear definition of “industrial heritage” or “industrial landscape” in theOGby UNESCO. We summarize the relevant items of the “Industrial Landscape” selected from the World Heritage List from 1980 to 2015 as follows ( Tab. 1).

It can be seen from Tab. 1 that the World Heritage Center's assessment of “industrial landscapes” is mainly based on the 10 universal criteria listed in Article 77 of theOG[2]6-17. The above table relates to some theme: ii) The exchange of human values over a period of time; iii) Providing witness to civilization or cultural traditions; iv) Outstanding examples of architecture, technology or landscape in history; v) The interaction between humans and the environment; vi) Connections with a culture and spirit of outstanding universal significance. These evaluation criteria are the same as the general cultural heritage. They are the results of the mixed concepts of “cultural heritage” “cultural landscape” “historic urban landscape”, etc.. It does not have the targeted (especially regional) industrial landscape.

Under the framework of UNESCO, the definition of the related concepts of “industrial landscape” is vague. This kind of ambiguity will cause a lot of confusion for the actual heritage assessment as well as the reconstruction of industrial heritage. Therefore, it is also necessary to study it. The interpretation of “industrial landscape” needs to integrate the connotations of the above mentioned concepts and study the typical characteristics of the industrial landscape. Starting from this theoretical phenomenon, this article takes the Ruhr area of Germany as a case study to try to find an explanatory perspective for the industrial landscape.

2 Ruhr Area as an Object of Industrial Landscape Research

Based on the definitions of heritage concepts under the UNESCO framework, the Ruhr area of Germany is an excellent case study of “industrial landscape”. This is mainly reflected in the “historical, regional and comprehensive” characteristics of its industrial cultural landscape in Ruhr area. Geological exploration shows that during the hundreds of millions of years from Devonian Period to Tertiary Period, the continental basis of the Ruhr area developed. The Ruhr area used to have very extensive forests and rich traces of animals and plants. It also formed a vast geological coal-bearing layer between the Rhine, Ruhr, and Lippe Rivers which is 120 km long from east to west and 70 km wide from north to south. In the 1-18th century, the Ruhr area developed from a primitive settlement to a small town and rural area dominated by the agricultural economy. In 1758, the first cast iron workshop appeared in the Oberhausen area of the Ruhr area. In the 1870s, nearly 300 mines were built in this region (Fig. 1). It became the largest hard coal mining and coke production areas on the European continent at that time. Around 1900, the Ruhr area became the largest steel production base in Europe as well. Until the 1950s, the Ruhr area has developed into a complete industrialized region (Fig. 2), accompanied by large-scale urban residential areas and a developed industrial transportation system, which is under the “European Coal and Steel Community④”, the largest comprehensive industrial zone[6].

After World War II, the Ruhr area experienced a “de-industrialization” transformation, and traditional heavy industry was gradually transformed into a new industry, guided by technological innovation and cultural innovation under national policies. In this process, the remains of the original industrial era were extensively transformed and reused: for example, large-scale coal mine pits and subsidence areas were transformed into landscaped hills (such as Tetraeder in Bottrop); large industry buildings and equipment were also transformed to leisure park (such as Duisburg North Park); industrial wastewater and soil have been transformed into a part of the natural ecosystem (such as the Emscher river channel reform); a large number of industrial-era transportation and infrastructure networks still maintain the operation of towns (such as Oberhausen Railway station); the Ruhr area also has the largest industrial residential area in the world, retaining the style of “garden city” in the early 20th century[7]. At the same time, many mines, factories, transportation facilities, residential areas and even waste piles of the industrial era are actually not only included of the “remnant landscape” of the human industrial era, but also have been a whole complex, which have merged in the process of evolution for hundreds of years with the rural and urban industrial areas into a whole of “organic evolution” and “relevance” of cultural landscape areas[8]. It can be seen that the cultural landscape of Ruhr area has a mixed feature of “historical, regional, and comprehensive”, which requires the new research perspective and method to explain and analyze it.

3 Perspectives and Methods

3.1 The Concept of “Hybrid Industrial Cultural Landscape”

The concept of “cultural landscape” has a long history in Germany. Since the industrialization era of the 19th century, there have been reflections on the relationship between man and nature in natural geography; the “regional tradition” was developed under the trend of natural protection and hometown protection in the early 20th century; Otto Schlüter's⑤point of view emphasized the “historical fragments of human transformation of nature”; after World War II, Germany has emerged the “cultural landscape” that emphasized human intervention processes relative to “natural landscapes”[9]. In the 1990s, the concept of “cultural landscape conservation” (“Kulturlandschaftspflege” in German) of the German historical geography school merged the connotations of the previous concept development, emphasizing the cultural landscape from the perspective of exposition, which are space and change in the transformation of certain social, economic, cultural and aesthetic purpose in the process of survival and living”[10].This idea emphasized the historical development of the landscape itself and the multi-connotations and-characteristics based on human adaptation.

The Conceptual noun “industrial landscape” was first mentioned at the ICOMOS “International conference of Ruhr Industrial Landscape”, which was held in Dortmund in February 2015. As a Keynote speech of the summary of project, Professor Winfried Schenk of the University of Bonn proposed a concept aimed at explaining the connotation of the complex industrial landscape in the Ruhr area: “hybrid cultural landscape”[11], which contained two perspectives in terms of “ontology” and “re-constructivity” and the meanings at four levels (Tab. 2).

As shown in Tab. 2, the “Essentialist-ontological” perspective includes different meanings. The first meaning is to emphasize the landscape as part of the geophysical space and ecosystem in the context of landscape ecology or natural geography. The second meaning emphasizes the connotation of landscape as “the relationship between man and environment”. This level is more divided into 4 Sub-meanings: 1) Landscape that emphasizes the physical level of the relationship between man and the environment. That is, the definition of cultural landscape in Article 1 of the 1992 World Heritage Convention — combined works of nature and man; 2) Landscape that emphasizes the psychological level of the landscape, that is the aesthetic or psychological feelings obtained from the objective physical space; 3) Landscape that emphasizes the social-level, it can be understood as the physical expression of social practice and the product of historical processes; 4) Landscape that emphasizes the symbolic meaning of the landmark. The third level of meaning is to use “l(fā)andscape” as a metaphorical expression of social and cultural spirits. The “reflexive-constructivist” perspective is embodied at the fourth level: landscape as a result of communication. Specifically, it is an interpretation of its future development connotation through social participation and public discussion on the basis of the scientific interpretation and evaluation of the “ontology” of the cultural landscape[12].

For the “historical, regional and comprehensive” industrial landscape in the Ruhr area, such a “hybrid cultural landscape” concept can provide a holographic perspective for interpretation. Specifically, the Ruhr area has a complete regional ecosystem, which is composed of rivers, alluvial plains and some hills. It originated from hundreds of millions of years of geophysical processes, and it has completed characteristics during the pre-industrial era. Despite the destruction of the industrial age, today we still need to infer and analyze the meaning of this ecosystem. The landscape connotation as a result of the relationship between man and the environment is reflected in the physical space as a relic of the pre-industrial era and the industrial era; in the psychological and social meaning, it is reflected in the ownership and pride of industrial culture and associations and organizations; and the formation of landmark landscapes on the spatial nodes of the area as a symbol of industrial civilization. Its cultural metaphors further reflect the working class will and civic spirit. Through such multi-level interpretation of the “ontological” connotation, it provides a reference basis for the establishment of a “constructive” cultural landscape. In the process of “re-constructivity”, the public discussion that needs to be combined with the social development of the times, which has played a key role in the reconstruction and optimization of the “ontology” connotation. In addition, with the perspective of “hybrid industrial cultural landscape”, it can also explain the connotation of the regional structure of the Ruhr area, which combines multiple systems of urban, rural and natural environments to form an industrialized “interval town” (Zwischenstadt⑥). Therefore, in the context of the Ruhr area, we can call such a comprehensive concept “hybrid industrial cultural landscape”.

3.2 Elements Collection and Evaluation

The “hybrid industrial cultural landscape” requires a scientific and objective method to collect and analyze its core elements, due to its complex connotations at multiple levels. The “ontology” object is not only reflected in the spatial elements and structure, but also it has many connotations of “geological ecology, relationship between human and environment, cultural metaphor”. Through two basic methods “Inventories and regionalization”, the research objects can be analyzed and explained scientifically and objectively. Among them, “inventory “ is a holistic method to summarize and analyze the types, regional divisions and historical evolution of cultural landscape resources; “spatial division” refers to the historical cultural landscape elements and structure within a certain area to collect, evaluate and classify, determine its “definition characteristics” and register, inventory[13]. In the process of inventories and regionalization, each spatial elements and structures should be identified, described, evaluated, and annotated based on “spatial particularity”. The distribution “map of cultural landscape elements and structures in the Ruhr Area” (Fig. 3) takes the area enclosed by the rivers: Rhein, Ruhr, Lippe of the entire Ruhr Area as an object to study. It has a wide range of time and space: In the time dimension, the industrial-cultural relics from the 19th century are continuously divided into fragments; in the spatial dimension, the elements of multiple levels such as housing, commerce, industry, infrastructure and open space are analyzed and summarized. Such data collection and analytical work are often huge and complicated. With the help of the “cultural landscape database” based on geographic information system-KulaDig⑦, it also provides very convenient technical assistance for today's researchers. The collection guidelines for “Industrial Cultural Landscape Elements” were also reflected in theNRW Land Development Plan(LEP) in 2007[14]. Listed below are some of its classifications and guidelines.

1) Industrial settlement cultural landscape: old villages and towns in the pre-industrial era (before 1900) that were not affected by industrialization; private houses in the industrial era (before 1950) (often containing special industrial features); between the two world wars (1919—1935) built group social housing and low-rent housing; industrial city center composed of public buildings (such as the Oberhausen Center built in 1929); bourgeois elite before the mid-20th century Planned villa estate and cultural arts area (such as Villa Huge).

2) Industrial transportation cultural landscape: the “old railway station” as the starting point for the development of industrialized cities, the station next to the industrial facilities in the urban-rural integration zone; the lines, facilities and stations in the industrial railway transportation network; artificial river system and water supply and drainage system; Water system in the industrial age.

3) Industrial facilities and site cultural landscape: management and operation sites built for the mining industry and the steel industry; factory buildings and infrastructure facilities established for the mining and steel industry; historic office buildings and guild resident buildings of industrial enterprises; waste sites and mining Abandoned sites and their collection forms, such as mining piles, sharp cone piles, terraces, etc .; mining-induced subsidence areas (since 1900, the highest subsidence has reached 25 m).

4) Open space in the industrial era: historic roads and discontinuous open space patches distributed between residential areas and industrial areas; urban parks and green spaces established before 1950; open spaces established since the 1920s .

In short, the collection and evaluation methods of cultural landscapes can be used to give a spatial and structural division of industrial cultural landscapes. The elements and structure of the cultural landscape which are collected and evaluated reflect its “ontological” value. For example, landscape ecological value, geological scientific value, local cultural value, architectural heritage value, traditional agricultural economic value, industrial cultural connection, class cultural symbol, etc. Such an industrial cultural landscape structure system shows that during the period of deindustrialization, the urban system has separated some functions from industrial facilities, and formed a “re-constructive” industrial cultural heritage that changes the functional use, and presents contemporary social and economic functions.

4 Reconstruction and Development

4.1 Regional Reconstruction

At the regional level, the “ontological” value of the cultural landscape is influenced by factors such as population and settlement development, cultural history, social economy, and political system. That are always changing in the region, showing different spatial structure characteristics. These scattered spatial structures need to be integrated under certain development goals to provide a basis for sustainable development. In 2017, the German Ruhr Industrial Cultural Landscape Working Group submitted a report with the topic of “Industrielle Kulturlandschaft Ruhrgebiet” (in German) to the United Nations World Cultural Heritage (UNESCO-Welterbe). This report is based on the collection and analysis of cultural landscape data, gathering a wide range of public participation, structurally integrating the industrial landscape of the Ruhr area, and proposing a constructive “regional structure of the industrial cultural landscape of the Ruhr area” (Fig. 4): 1) River landscapes dominated by “Rhine-Ruhr-Lippe” and “Rhein-Herne-Kanal”; 2) Railway traffic landscape in the industrial era; 3) Historic green belt; 4) Industrial facilities and sites; 5) Ecological restoration area. As emphasized by the meaning of “re-constructivity”, this is a mixed spatial system structure with inherent cultural memory and genetic logic, reflecting the cultural characteristics of the Ruhr area and future sustainable development. Their features are: The regional ecological spatial structure based on the industrial landscape transformation; The regional physical spatial structure based on the logic of the industrial cultural landscape as a starting point to break the traditional urban-rural dichotomy; The social cultural construction is preserving the historical memory and connotation of the industrial cultural heritage; The preserve of the industry heritage adapted to contemporary economic development[15].” In the context of industrial transformation, such a structural system also reveals the potential for the development and change of a new system from the transformation of the production system structure of the past heavy industry to the interweaving of multiple economic industries and spatial structures in the contemporary era. It can be seen that the concept of “hybrid industrial cultural landscape” has exceeded the scope of pure industrial landscape protection and has the meaning of integrating regional spatial structure.

4.2 Reconstruction of Site and Building

The concrete expression of “re-constructivity” in space is the reconstruction of the site. In this process, it is necessary to rediscover the meaning of the ontological elements of the original industrial abandoned subject, and combine with the contemporary ecology, space design, cultural psychology and other professional knowledge to optimize and strengthen the ontological value. The coal debris hill (Halde) landscape is a typical site reconstruction(Fig. 5). In the pre-industrial era, these mineral resources have always existed as part of the geological structure; in the industrial era, people have given minerals new industrial economic value; with the end of the industrial era, the abandoned slag and old machinery after mining have lost the industrial economy value, but through analysis of the meaning of “ontology”, we can get rich landscape connotation. In the process of reconstruction, the restoration of natural ecological attributes often requires a long process. For example, the slagheap “Beckstr. with the Tetraeder” in Bottrop is part of the IBA Emscher Park project in the 1990s. In the past 10 years, the 120 m high coal mine residue was soil-improved and the ecological transformation of the succession of plant communities was designed. At the top of hill, 210 t of steel was / have been designed and built. The 32-meter-high large triangular cone surface landscape construction also reflects the industrial cultural spirit of “conquering nature”[16]. Another example of conservation is the Halde-Haniel which is designed as a modern open-air theater that citizens can participate in free of charge, and the result of public spirit was reflected through public discussions. Similarly, this interpretation perspective is also applicable to the transformation and design of numerous industrial heritage's single and group building spaces. For example, in the “Ruhr Museum”, the main building of UNESCO World Heritage Zollverein in Essen, people not only experience the spatial style transformed from mines and factories, but also experience the multilevel connotation of the history of the entire cultural landscape in the Ruhr area. Based on the study of geology, ecology, history, society and other disciplines, the designer displays the geology and habitat of the Ruhr area since the Devonian in this museum, as well as the history of human society from the wild to the feudal era and modern cultural landscape. In retrospect, it highlights the history of industrial culture since the 19th century, and especially shows the process and results of people's transformation of the cultural landscape since the 1980s. This also shows that the connotations of the “social, economic, cultural and aesthetic needs” of the cultural landscape[10]and other aspects change with the historical development process. Such “change process” and “multi-level connotation” can no longer be defined solely by the concepts of “cultural heritage” or “industrial landscape”, but need to be interpreted as a hybride cultural landscape.

4.3 Reconstruction of cultural awareness

Consistent with the connotation of “relevant cultural landscape” put forward by the “World Heritage Convention”, the “constructive” connotation also includes people's inheritance and development of the cultural value of the industrial landscape. The cultural landscape can play a role of guiding and integrating cultural awareness to the people involved through tangible spaces and intangible cultural activities. For many years, the protection and development of the industrial landscape in the Ruhr area have been supported by the government and non-governmental organizations. During the collection and sorting of the ontological connotation, there have been a large number of social groups and people participating, thus forming a sense of local identity and cultural belonging. For example, the “Ruhr Industrial Heritage Road” (Route der Industriekulur) project reinterprets the ontological “waste” as “l(fā)eisure facilities”, such as the reconstruction of abandoned railways into travel routes (such as bicycle lanes) that connect open spaces and industrial heritage. In addition, the famous “gasometer”, the more than 100m high exhibition hall is presenting exhibitions, which use holographic imaging technology[17]. So the theme of “nature protection” in the information age, which also metaphorically transforms the cultural consciousness of “natural resource development” in the old industrial era into the “nature protection” consciousness of the present era.

5 Summary and Outlook

The concept and evaluation criteria of “industrial landscape” in the “World Heritage Convention” are vague. Because of its “historical, regional and comprehensive” characteristics, the industrial landscape in the Ruhr area has been difficult to be defined by a separate concept in the “World Heritage Convention.” The “hybrid industrial cultural landscape” perspective developed from the cultural landscape idea can integrate the conceptual connotations of “cultural heritage” and “cultural landscape”, with the “ontological” and “constructive” observation perspectives at the four levels of ecology, human and environmental relations, cultural metaphors and social communication, reflecting the special connotations of the industrial cultural landscape. It also makes the industrial landscape break through the concept of pure heritage protection. Under the background of industrial transformation, it can build a “regional spatial system structure that retains cultural memory and genetic logic, reflects industrial cultural characteristics and future sustainable development”, and interprets “ecological, social and cultural” multi-dimensional site reconstruction, and also promote the construction of sustainable cultural awareness in the post-industrial era.

There are a large number of industrial cultural landscape areas with similar scales and backgrounds to the Ruhr area in China. For example, the Anshan Iron and Steel Industry Base in Northeast China and the Jinbei Coal Industry Base in Shanxi Province are all large in scale, complex in content, and face development difficulties in industrial transformation. Industrial heritage-related policies also propose the identification and protection of “heritage pattern, structure, style and features”, as well as the comprehensive requirements of “building industrial cultural industrial parks, characteristic towns (blocks), and innovation and entrepreneurship industrial bases”[18]. To study these industrial cultural regions, it is necessary to recognize the limitations of the “industrial landscape” definition under the framework of the World Heritage and explore multi-dimensional comprehensive concepts. At present, most researches on “industrial landscape” in Chinese academic circles are based on the study of single or collective heritage elements from the perspective of design. The industrial cultural heritage is only regarded as “historical object”[19], and its focus is often on the interior of the sites and buildings with industrial memory[20]and “Replication of cultural fragments”[21]. At the same time, as can be seen from the three batches of national industrial heritage lists published by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China, the protection and development of industrial landscapes still remain at the level of awareness of “core items”[22]. Such perspectives have not yet escaped the limitations of the “heritage protection” perspective, and should be developed to a research view for comprehensive industrial cultural areas. Under such a policy and theoretical background, the interpretation perspective and scientific analytical method of “hybrid industrial cultural landscape” can provide pioneering ideas for China's future industrial landscape research. Finally, it must be emphasized that the concept of a hybrid industrial cultural landscape was created in the German context, and its application in China also needs to be explored according to local conditions in terms of policy background and social conditions.

Notes:

① The Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage is a framework for the protection of cultural and natural heritage worldwide, signed at the 17th session of the UNESCO General Conference in Paris on November 16, 1972 protocol. Heritage is divided into three categories: natural heritage, cultural heritage and composite heritage. NGOs such as ICOMOS assist in the selection, management and protection of world heritage.

② The “European Landscape Convention” is a framework agreement on the protection and development of landscapes and territories within the EU on October 20, 2000 in Florence, based on the European Commission Resolution 176. The Convention emphasizes the "cultural landscape" as a common historical and cultural carrier in Europe, and declares that the protection of cultural landscapes is the social responsibility of each member country. Under this program, each member country needs to carry out natural and cultural heritage in cities, villages and a wide area Broad cooperation in protection. At present, 41 member countries have signed this agreement.③ The International Council of Monuments and Sites, established in Warsaw, Poland in 1965, is a professional advisory body of the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO). It is composed of professionals of cultural heritage from all over the world and is the only international nongovernmental organization in the field of protection and restoration of monuments. It plays an important role in examining and approving the list of world cultural heritage nominations nominated by countries around the world.

④ The European Coal and Steel Community was established on April 18, 1951 through the Paris Treaty. The parties are France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. It is the first European country to have supranational authority in the long history Institutions are also the predecessors of the "European Community" and "EU".

⑤ Otto Schrüter (1872 1959), German geographer, German geography and member. He has successively taught at the University of Berlin, the University of Bonn, and the University of Leipzig, and pioneered the use of natural geography to study cultural landscapes.

⑥ The interval town is a planning theory put forward by Thomas Sieverts, a famous German contemporary planning scholar. He calls those areas that do not have the obvious boundaries of cities or villages and tend to merge urban and rural areas to be called "inter-regional towns". This theory has important guiding significance for contemporary German town planning.

⑦ KulaDig is a cultural landscape collection system in Germany. Based on the geographic information system, historical geography analysis methods are used to collect and evaluate the cultural landscape elements of points, lines and areas, and spatial analysis can be performed in the geographic information system. At present, KulaDig mainly covers several states in western Germany and is widely used in land planning, town planning, landscape planning and cultural heritage protection.

Sources of Figures and Tables:

Fig. 1 ? Alfred Rethel's sketch painting in 1834; Fig. 2 ? Regional verund Ruhr; Fig. 3 ? Hans-Werner Wehling, translated by KONG Dongyi; Fig. 4-5 ? Stiftung für Industriedenkmalpflege und Geschichtskultur, translated by KONG Dongyi; Tab. 1 ? KONG Dongyi, according to whc.unesco.org; Tab. 2 ? Winfried Schenk, translated by KONG Dongyi.