亚洲免费av电影一区二区三区,日韩爱爱视频,51精品视频一区二区三区,91视频爱爱,日韩欧美在线播放视频,中文字幕少妇AV,亚洲电影中文字幕,久久久久亚洲av成人网址,久久综合视频网站,国产在线不卡免费播放

        ?

        關(guān)于(荒野)殖民化

        2019-03-24 22:23:08狄德瑞奇布魯斯王應(yīng)臨崔慶偉
        風(fēng)景園林 2019年8期
        關(guān)鍵詞:荒野公園人類

        著:(德)狄德瑞奇·布魯斯 譯:王應(yīng)臨 校:崔慶偉

        在風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科,從專業(yè)領(lǐng)域建立之初延續(xù)至今,設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)合自然和自然過程[1]一直是非常重要的基本理念。最初從業(yè)者在花園和公園設(shè)計(jì)中運(yùn)用“自然演進(jìn)”相關(guān)的概念、方法和技術(shù),后來進(jìn)一步將其運(yùn)用于景觀和生態(tài)規(guī)劃領(lǐng)域。作為風(fēng)景園林師,我們擅長(zhǎng)實(shí)踐,同時(shí)也必須深入思考所使用術(shù)語的含義。使用缺乏清晰定義的理念,即使其初衷是美好的,也有削弱作為專業(yè)基礎(chǔ)的共同信念的危險(xiǎn)。“荒野”,特別是“城市荒野”,在風(fēng)景園林領(lǐng)域是一個(gè)缺乏認(rèn)知的概念[2]。更加復(fù)雜的是,當(dāng)前我們正在學(xué)習(xí)和借鑒的一些新的、富有雄心的概念往往和“城市荒野”密切相關(guān),如“新生自然”(Novel Nature)、“工業(yè)森林”(Industrial Forest)、“城市森林”(Urban Woodlands)、“城市野地”(Urban Wildlands)和“城市荒野”(Urban Wilderness)。此外,新的公園和開放空間建設(shè)在某種程度上開始包括荒野的理念。這些概念和工程涉及多種荒野(和自然)的含義,運(yùn)用這些含義可能導(dǎo)致專業(yè)領(lǐng)域認(rèn)知的模糊,引發(fā)我們對(duì)于所做工作的困惑[3]。當(dāng)然,在概念錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜模糊不清的時(shí)候,也恰恰存在更好的機(jī)會(huì)用以指導(dǎo)我們的行為或?qū)嵺`。因此,對(duì)這些含義進(jìn)行探析顯得非常重要。

        筆者提出一個(gè)術(shù)語“殖民化”作為了解人類如何感知和進(jìn)入荒野的關(guān)鍵。本研究的目的并非賦予荒野及其相關(guān)術(shù)語明確定義,而是更好地理解與“城市荒野”相關(guān)的多重含義。將“殖民化”運(yùn)用于多個(gè)維度,包括征地、土地利用、社會(huì)占有和意識(shí)滲透等,同時(shí)也應(yīng)用于自然過程,如動(dòng)植物對(duì)某地區(qū)的入侵和定植定居。

        1 荒野相關(guān)理念

        人類其實(shí)是通過命名,創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)又一個(gè)荒野。這種命名的途徑包括認(rèn)定某個(gè)區(qū)域是荒野,或者賦予其荒野的意味。盡管人類對(duì)于荒野地并不了解,而一旦稱其為荒野,說明他們將會(huì)占有這片區(qū)域,開始對(duì)這里進(jìn)行殖民。人類對(duì)一處區(qū)域進(jìn)行殖民的復(fù)雜性在于不僅包括身體活動(dòng)(散步、劃船、野營等),還包括社會(huì)實(shí)踐(團(tuán)體活動(dòng)、競(jìng)技和社會(huì)媒體等)和意識(shí)(“荒野體驗(yàn)”)。占有土地及物質(zhì)資源是殖民化的第一個(gè)和最重要的維度。思想的滲透和占有則是一種不具體但強(qiáng)有力的殖民化維度,是文化和理念層面占有,如將一片區(qū)域劃定為荒野“保護(hù)地”并進(jìn)行管理。在所有這些活動(dòng)和過程中,一些荒野品質(zhì)遺失了。人類欣賞并游覽那些被歸入原始自然的區(qū)域。每次的到訪都會(huì)減弱這些原始區(qū)域“無拘束”(untrammelled)的特性。游人被荒野地區(qū)的自然特征(自然聲音、純凈水體、清潔空氣等)吸引。同時(shí),通過支持其保護(hù)和管理、控制可進(jìn)入權(quán)和使用(游客低密度的物質(zhì)殖民),人類也占領(lǐng)了這些“純凈”的荒野區(qū)域。實(shí)質(zhì)上,從日常生活(主要在城市)中解脫出來的游客,在荒野保護(hù)地中,可能更喜歡有人類不經(jīng)意地出現(xiàn)。城市景觀尚且不具有這些特質(zhì),因此,一些人將具有自然面貌的城市區(qū)域稱作荒野。當(dāng)提到“城市荒野”,人們腦海中會(huì)浮現(xiàn)出哪種類型的區(qū)域呢?

        在不同時(shí)期和文化背景存在不同的荒野理解[4-7]。通過提出3個(gè)荒野類型,試圖理解與“城市荒野”理念相關(guān)的荒野區(qū)域[8]。它們包括:1)“未知荒野”(Unknown Wilderness),例如神秘森林;2)“特定荒野”(Specific Wilderness),例如人類認(rèn)為是野生區(qū)域的場(chǎng)地;3)“過程荒野”(Process Wilderness)強(qiáng)調(diào)與生態(tài)活力有關(guān)的自然性。

        2 殖民“未知荒野”

        在史前時(shí)期,野性因素是指超越或者外在于人類日常生活范疇的事物[9]。人類將這種“外在性”看作“偉大的未知”,看作充滿神奇力量的虛幻和神秘世界。然而,不論這個(gè)世界看上去多么未知、荒涼和危險(xiǎn),總有人會(huì)冒險(xiǎn)進(jìn)入它。無論是游牧生活還是不斷遷移(荒野曾經(jīng)是摩西及其子民進(jìn)行探索的區(qū)域),他們都需要探索食物來源并殖民新的土地。他們還會(huì)外出尋求非凡的經(jīng)歷,或在面對(duì)恐懼、忍受和抵抗誘惑的時(shí)候證明自己。因此幾千年以來,人類已經(jīng)改變了一部分地球環(huán)境,不僅改變了他們家園范圍之內(nèi)的區(qū)域,還包括那些直接控制之外的領(lǐng)域。任何曾經(jīng)到訪原住民區(qū)域的人,都會(huì)了解到原住民如何富有創(chuàng)意地賦予遠(yuǎn)離家園的區(qū)域以精神層面的意義。例如處在村莊和打獵場(chǎng)地之間的古代精神場(chǎng)所和路線。由于打獵和采集活動(dòng)對(duì)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)有影響,如促進(jìn)有用物種生長(zhǎng)、使用火改善生活狀況和加工食物等[10],當(dāng)現(xiàn)代政府開始把荒野地作為保護(hù)地進(jìn)行保護(hù)的時(shí)候,他們習(xí)慣性地忽視人類在這些區(qū)域生活并且已經(jīng)生活了很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的事實(shí)。例如,政府在宣布建立保護(hù)地的時(shí)候,沒有一個(gè)國家公園是“沒有人類存在的荒野地區(qū)”[11]。

        在古代,很長(zhǎng)時(shí)期里,荒野是定義模糊的領(lǐng)域,是一種有關(guān)未知甚至偉大的未知的理念。例如,生活在地中海區(qū)域的人們認(rèn)為任何野生的事物往往處于天堂的對(duì)立面,或者說在天堂之外。封閉空間的古波斯語是“pairidaēza”,在很多語言中,這個(gè)詞用以指代天堂①。作為最宜人的場(chǎng)所,在很多文化背景下,天堂的創(chuàng)建與再造是幾千年來被重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的問題?!捌閸绲幕囊埃╯teep wilderness)”圍繞在約翰·米爾頓(John Milton)伊甸園“芬香的天堂(delicious Paradise)”周圍,在花園圍墻的遠(yuǎn)處充斥著黑暗。在中世紀(jì)的歐洲文化中,作為神秘土地的荒野處在家園、城堡、城鎮(zhèn)和農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)域之外。在曠野、沼澤、野生森林、高山和遠(yuǎn)海等環(huán)境中有令人恐懼和敬畏的野獸。森林作為有魔力和危險(xiǎn)的地方,是所有林地自然狀態(tài)地區(qū)中典型的荒野[今天許多人認(rèn)為“叢林”(jungle)一詞才是“真正的荒野”]。森林邊界是人類通常不會(huì)冒險(xiǎn)去跨越的一條線:農(nóng)民很少遠(yuǎn)離村莊去旅行,他們不能確保在村莊的不遠(yuǎn)處沒有住著一個(gè)食人魔、女巫或罪犯。而在古老的神話故事中,英雄(比如羅賓漢)確實(shí)進(jìn)入了森林(去藏身)。森林充滿魅力,誘惑人去冒險(xiǎn),幫人躲避追趕。魔力森林是超出常人經(jīng)驗(yàn)的、變化莫測(cè)的地區(qū)。例如在德國民俗中,森林代表危險(xiǎn)的場(chǎng)地和神奇的避難所。德魯伊人、隱士或者勇敢的騎士會(huì)跨越國境,去尋找隱居之地、靈感、偉大的寶藏或者極端的冒險(xiǎn)[12]111。而根據(jù)科學(xué)研究,歐洲的森林從舊石器時(shí)代就已被顯著的利用和改造[13]。

        總之,在史前和早期歷史時(shí)期,荒野是與精神層面有關(guān)的概念,包含危險(xiǎn)的意味。通常來說,荒野是一個(gè)總體概念而不具體指代一個(gè)地方。很少有人能夠?qū)ふ业侥程幘唧w的荒野地(比如隱藏的山洞和神圣的土地)?,F(xiàn)實(shí)中的土地利用形式并不是荒野概念的組成部分。

        荒野及其相關(guān)概念如何繼續(xù)演化,以及這些概念如何開始與具體場(chǎng)地發(fā)生關(guān)聯(lián),在起初并不明確。隨著時(shí)代發(fā)展,有關(guān)荒野是偉大的未知,是安全和美好事物的對(duì)立面等認(rèn)知逐漸減弱。例如在羅馬歷史學(xué)家塔西托斯(Tacitus)的《日耳曼》(Germania)中,提到了一個(gè)具體的、明確界定了邊界的地區(qū)。然而,他用并不明確的術(shù)語描述了這個(gè)地區(qū)的多種特性。大約公元98年,在把《日耳曼》作為一個(gè)信息傳遞給當(dāng)時(shí)的羅馬讀者時(shí)[14]77,塔西托斯對(duì)這個(gè)地區(qū)的土著人有一套刻板印象,認(rèn)為他們是“高貴但嗜血的野蠻人”,他們的土地是“野生森林”。他粗略描述的日耳曼森林是充斥著殘忍野獸和野蠻人類的黑暗領(lǐng)域。

        塔西托斯創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)思想庫,使得后世的作家可以從中汲取靈感,并繼續(xù)加以豐富。16—19世紀(jì),當(dāng)歐洲人游覽和殖民美洲、非洲、亞洲和大洋洲時(shí),他們往往會(huì)遇到原住民。很多原住民并沒有關(guān)于土地的正式地圖,也沒有關(guān)于他們自己的正式文字記錄。這些歐洲訪客開始繪制地圖,記載他們是如何認(rèn)知這些原住民的,盡管這種記載具有選擇性[15]。這些記載中充滿了鼓舞人心的細(xì)節(jié),啟發(fā)藝術(shù)和文學(xué)思想。例如,19世紀(jì),浪漫主義從中提取元素來更新其陳舊的模式(包括紳士和殘忍的紅色惡魔)。舊的模式馬上被拋棄[16]。北美洲大地成為具體但仍然定義模糊的地區(qū),即“野性西部”(Wild West)。亨利·大衛(wèi)·梭羅(Henry David Thoreau)在文章《漫步》(Walking)中說道:“我所謂的西部其實(shí)是荒野的代名詞?!蔽鞑恳辉~似乎不再指代黑暗,而是伊甸園,宣告著它的神圣,“我從沒有聽過或讀到過任何有關(guān)天堂的描述趕得上它(此處指代西部)的一半”[17]。到1991年,植物學(xué)家斯坦溫·謝特勒(Stanwyn Shetler)將其感知的荒野描述為“最初的伊甸園,一處原始的自然王國”,這里“原住民在景觀中是透明的,作為生物圈中的自然要素一般生活。他們的世界……是一處幾乎察覺不到人類干擾的凈土”[18]。

        綜上,荒野“本質(zhì)上由人類創(chuàng)造……它看上去如此自然,因而更為引人遐想”[19]。所謂“未知荒野”,是針對(duì)沒有人類的世界(或者人類屬于荒野的天然組成部分)的一種構(gòu)想,是一種近乎天堂和自然的理念。城市荒野概念可能保留了一些人類與“未知”相聯(lián)系的痕跡,例如很少的人類活動(dòng)以及因?yàn)樽匀恢髟锥枰Σ拍苓M(jìn)入的地區(qū)。

        3 殖民作為自然遺產(chǎn)的“特定荒野”

        在探索和發(fā)現(xiàn)時(shí)期,荒野不再與“未知”的領(lǐng)域相關(guān)聯(lián)。接下來的例子證明了荒野如何轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐惶帯疤囟ā钡牡胤?,即人類將其看作“自然遺產(chǎn)”加以贊美和保護(hù)。在17、18世紀(jì)的諸多探索中,在北美洲的“西部”變成“荒野”之前,來自西班牙的征服者們?cè)噲D尋求冒險(xiǎn)和財(cái)富,而神父?jìng)儎t努力尋找并轉(zhuǎn)化“野蠻的”當(dāng)?shù)厝?。西班牙人到達(dá)了與他們毫無關(guān)聯(lián)并且語言不通的地區(qū)。例如,有時(shí)候他們難以描述一條巨大且無法跨越的河流的規(guī)模和特征。他們只能記錄河流的具體位置和水的顏色,并將這條河流命名為“科羅拉多”(Colorado)[20]。許多年后,在洪堡式(Humboldtian style)探險(xiǎn)時(shí)代末期,大約1857—1858年,浪漫主義藝術(shù)家發(fā)表了他們通過地圖和繪畫記載其游覽這條河流的場(chǎng)景[21]。不像早期的神父,這些浪漫主義旅行者的行李中除了《圣經(jīng)》,可能還有盧梭(Rousseau)、沙夫茨伯里(Shaftesbury)以及其他人的著作。盧梭解釋了自然狀態(tài)下人類如何享有充足的自由。安東尼·阿什利·庫珀(Anthony Ashley Cooper,1621—1683,即沙夫茨伯里伯爵)闡明了荒野如何令人愉悅以及自然的經(jīng)歷如何引發(fā)“合理的喜悅”(reasonable extasy)[6]447,[12]111。如今浪漫主義者懷著極度的驚喜站在科羅拉多河流峽谷邊,試圖通過很多語匯去描述這些過去神父?jìng)儾荒苄蕾p的(特殊)場(chǎng)景。在世界很多地方,人類開始用新的視角觀看過去的場(chǎng)景。回到歐洲,浪漫主義者重新發(fā)現(xiàn)了阿爾卑斯山脈。在人類的認(rèn)知中,這些地方從原來的冷漠荒涼變?yōu)槿缃竦氖孢m、受歡迎。在曾經(jīng)危險(xiǎn)的“荒野西部”,浪漫主義者看見了如畫般的崇高場(chǎng)景[22]。此時(shí),科羅拉多峽谷成為所謂的“大峽谷”(Grand Canyon)[20]38。

        在西方文化中,冒險(xiǎn)和探索時(shí)代帶來了一種變化,荒野從暗示著野蠻危險(xiǎn)和模糊(外面的世界)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榱钊伺d奮和敬畏的場(chǎng)所。航海者跨越邊境,在荒野之地尋找并占有財(cái)富。世界旅行者在冒險(xiǎn)之旅中記述那些鼓舞人心的見聞,這些旅行見聞的出版進(jìn)一步激發(fā)了國內(nèi)讀者的熱情。整個(gè)大陸都在等待發(fā)現(xiàn)和殖民?;囊皩⒈徽鞣?,寶藏將被發(fā)掘[14]77。

        科羅拉多大峽谷是一處特殊的寶藏。1919年,當(dāng)政府取得這里的所有權(quán)并宣布對(duì)其進(jìn)行保護(hù)的時(shí)候,這里被“正式殖民”。做出這一決定的過程是艱難的。很多利益相關(guān)組織對(duì)于保護(hù)“自然遺產(chǎn)”而不是開發(fā)這片土地及其“資源”的想法提出質(zhì)疑。盡管這里如此荒野(基于當(dāng)今IUCN的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)),政府宣布將大峽谷(以及西部幾個(gè)其他壯觀的地區(qū))作為一處公園而不是荒野進(jìn)行保護(hù)?;囊俺蔀榫哂谐绺咝曰蛎缹W(xué)上的愉悅性而受人歡迎的空間。在1864年,風(fēng)景園林師奧姆斯特德作了題為《約塞米蒂和蝴蝶林》(Yosemite and the Mariposa Grove)的報(bào)告,報(bào)告中他以一處設(shè)計(jì)的公園、一系列具體場(chǎng)景和視圖、一幅壯麗的藝術(shù)作品的方式來描述了山谷和叢林。

        作為公園,國家公園和其他大型保護(hù)區(qū)一樣,都有明確的邊界和大門、建設(shè)的游覽路線和停車場(chǎng)、指定的露營地、餐館和旅館等其他服務(wù)設(shè)施。政府通過劃定保護(hù)地并建設(shè)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的方式對(duì)國家公園進(jìn)行殖民,忽視了當(dāng)?shù)卦∶竦睦婧蜋?quán)利。荒野不再具有野性,而成為一種美麗的土地利用形式。所謂“特定荒野”是關(guān)于游客進(jìn)入“野地”看一部分世界的構(gòu)想,他們可以舒適地享受貼近大自然的感覺,并尋求他們與某處特定區(qū)域相關(guān)聯(lián)的特殊體驗(yàn)。城市荒野理念可能包括人類與“特定場(chǎng)地”(specific)相關(guān)聯(lián)的痕跡,比如遇見相似觀念的人,發(fā)現(xiàn)特殊類型的自然,在這類自然中已經(jīng)有人(公園管理者、設(shè)計(jì)師等)為游客提供可接近的便利條件。作為公園,城市荒野區(qū)域同樣具有邊界、可進(jìn)入的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和游客。

        直到今天,政府通過劃定某個(gè)區(qū)域?yàn)閲夜珗@來保護(hù)重要的、在全球范圍內(nèi)具有影響力的遺產(chǎn)[2,20]。除了自然遺產(chǎn),《保護(hù)世界遺產(chǎn)公約》(UNESCO,1972年)還保護(hù)文化遺產(chǎn)。地區(qū)的軍事和工業(yè)遺產(chǎn)是其文化遺產(chǎn)的一個(gè)類別。自20世紀(jì)70年代以來,這兩個(gè)概念都已成為一個(gè)美學(xué)范疇。下文將通過一個(gè)例子來展示文化遺產(chǎn)如何與荒野理念相融合。

        4 殖民作為文化遺產(chǎn)的“特定荒野”

        軍事區(qū)、采礦廠、鋼鐵廠、鐵路轉(zhuǎn)運(yùn)站等在運(yùn)營或者停止運(yùn)營一段時(shí)間后屬于危險(xiǎn)場(chǎng)地,不準(zhǔn)許人們進(jìn)入。如同偉大的未知荒野,它們也處在人們?nèi)粘I钪?,是處于圍墻中的禁忌?chǎng)地。政府常常在官方地圖上把這些未經(jīng)授權(quán)的未知領(lǐng)域畫成白色,而不標(biāo)注細(xì)節(jié)。20世紀(jì)50年代以及接下來的20年見證了一個(gè)重工業(yè)時(shí)代的結(jié)束。重工業(yè)區(qū)關(guān)閉的浪潮改變了世界范圍內(nèi)工業(yè)區(qū)的特征。采礦和鋼鐵制造業(yè)關(guān)閉,工人離開。只有圍墻依然存在。例如,1985年,在德國魯爾區(qū)(Ruhrgebiet),杜伊斯堡—梅德瑞克(Duisburg-Meiderich)蒂森(Thyssen)工廠的冶煉工作停止了。因?yàn)橹挥袖撹F工人才能進(jìn)入,幾乎沒有人熟悉這塊場(chǎng)地。在停止生產(chǎn)之后,這片場(chǎng)地仍然關(guān)閉以免公眾受害。雜亂的植物開始在這里出現(xiàn),并不受人為干擾地生長(zhǎng),無秩序的黑莓藤條和野生灌木叢逐漸覆蓋了場(chǎng)地的大部分面積??梢韵胂?,有一天人類在圍欄上鑿了一個(gè)洞來到這里,穿過灌木叢尋找道路,如同在叢林探險(xiǎn),他們將面臨一個(gè)一無所知的世界:鑄造廠、儲(chǔ)氣罐、冷卻塔、汽輪機(jī)、礦坑和礦渣堆。特別是對(duì)于孩子來說,這一定是令人激動(dòng)的。當(dāng)“現(xiàn)代”浪漫主義者們來到這里,他們采用如同描述魔法森林的傳說一般強(qiáng)有力的隱喻來描述這片場(chǎng)地?,F(xiàn)在這里是杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園(Landscape Park Duisburg-Nord)。紐約時(shí)報(bào)在關(guān)于這個(gè)公園的一篇文章中,將3個(gè)高爐描述為“盤旋在場(chǎng)地之上的生銹的巨龍,它們的嘴巴不再噴火”。冶煉廠關(guān)閉時(shí),文章繼續(xù)寫道:“可怕的龐然大物仍然存在,它們的恢宏和壯麗幾乎是神話一般,宿命般地被困在此處。在21世紀(jì)早期的典型公園中,它們可能會(huì)重生的想法如同看見翼龍從頭頂飛過一般都有可能發(fā)生?!盵23]

        這篇文章的目的并不是如題目所說的“反奧姆斯特德(Anti-Olmsted)”,或是對(duì)奧姆斯特德反浪漫主義的論述提出質(zhì)疑。文章主要內(nèi)容介紹杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園遺產(chǎn)?!胺磰W姆斯特德”是指在設(shè)計(jì)中不是完成一種看上去自然的、人類在其中“幻想在原始自然中得到庇護(hù)”進(jìn)而滿足的景觀。相反,通過允許野生植物自由生長(zhǎng),實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)更大面積廢棄土地的殖民;通過完整保留高爐、煤氣罐和儲(chǔ)料坑,工業(yè)時(shí)代的文化遺產(chǎn)本身成了公園設(shè)計(jì)的主題。杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園的規(guī)劃并不是創(chuàng)造一處地球上的天堂,而是展現(xiàn)那段人口稠密和傷痕累累地貌的歷史。在這里,如同伊甸園一樣,碧草青青也非常遙遠(yuǎn)[23]。

        景觀及其創(chuàng)造物(花園和公園等)隨時(shí)間不斷演化。設(shè)計(jì)一處景觀實(shí)際上設(shè)置了一個(gè)融入自然過程的序列。杜伊斯堡北風(fēng)景公園的設(shè)計(jì)師彼得·拉茨(Peter Latz)持續(xù)關(guān)注公園內(nèi)的變化。在觀察這些變化25年之后,他發(fā)表了他的發(fā)現(xiàn)[24]。就像奧姆斯特德一樣,拉茨在19世紀(jì)對(duì)這個(gè)公園進(jìn)行了描述和討論。盡管擁有清晰的結(jié)構(gòu),不夸張地說,場(chǎng)地的大部分區(qū)域都表現(xiàn)出荒野的屬性。然而,所有在無序的系統(tǒng)中看上去自然和自發(fā)的要素其實(shí)是偉大規(guī)劃的一部分。對(duì)于風(fēng)景園林師來說,這里沒有自然秩序和未經(jīng)觸碰的自然。公園成為一處受歡迎的目的地,滿足人們自然、文化和運(yùn)動(dòng)相關(guān)的休閑活動(dòng)需求。人們迅速占領(lǐng)這里,在建筑師尚未提出再利用策略之前就開始充分利用場(chǎng)地空間:一面古舊的混凝土墻成為一個(gè)攀爬公園;一個(gè)跳水俱樂部則占據(jù)了煤氣罐,將里面灌入20 000 m3的水,用來進(jìn)行潛水練習(xí);戲劇、歌劇和電影等節(jié)事活動(dòng)在冶煉高爐舉行;礦坑中有繁榮生長(zhǎng)的花園。來自鄰里社區(qū)的人們從墻的缺口(被設(shè)計(jì)的)處溜進(jìn)來,帶著他們的狗在這里散步。

        在這片區(qū)域,受約束的和自然的生長(zhǎng)彼此競(jìng)爭(zhēng),植物可以自發(fā)傳播。例如,一場(chǎng)關(guān)于外來植物已經(jīng)入侵這片土地的激烈討論已持續(xù)多年。植物專家知道某些植物屬于歐洲地區(qū)德國以外的原生物種。他們也知道這里的一些其他植物是從遙遠(yuǎn)的大陸遷移來的。隨著鐵礦石的運(yùn)輸,外來物種(Alien species)可能是最先到達(dá)杜伊斯堡的偷渡者。生態(tài)學(xué)家通過公園調(diào)查,發(fā)現(xiàn)這里有百余種非原生物種?!氨Wo(hù)專家希望徹底去除這些外來植物,而拉茨想要告訴園藝師如何培育這些植物,其中有一些是非常稀有的”[23]。與文化遺產(chǎn)公園有關(guān)的設(shè)計(jì)和理念變得流行。樺樹、柳樹和醉魚草屬植物與人工栽植的樹木一起生長(zhǎng),同時(shí)裝飾著巨大的礦渣堆。

        5 “過程荒野”

        第3個(gè)荒野類型是“過程荒野”,這個(gè)名字源于自然(所謂的“野生”)演替的過程性,進(jìn)而與其他類別相區(qū)別。只要一個(gè)區(qū)域有適宜的條件,就會(huì)有野生動(dòng)植物的入侵。森林大火和地質(zhì)滑坡之后,休眠的種子會(huì)立刻萌發(fā);風(fēng)和鳥類在空中運(yùn)送植物和小動(dòng)物,使其在任何可能條件下茁壯生長(zhǎng),包括屋頂、泥漿池和軍事訓(xùn)練場(chǎng)。在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)和舊工業(yè)設(shè)施清理之后,野生生物出現(xiàn)。20世紀(jì)20—30年代,注意到自然入侵經(jīng)常形成豐富的野生物種群體,生物學(xué)家和工程師開始研究能夠?qū)⒆匀谎萏嫒谌刖坝^工程的技術(shù)[25]。自然的發(fā)展演變需要時(shí)間:自然草地的再生需要幾十年,森林再生則需要幾百年,這個(gè)時(shí)間對(duì)于委任的景觀工程來說太長(zhǎng)。20世紀(jì)30年代早期,風(fēng)景園林師開始嘗試加速自然發(fā)展的進(jìn)程。他們?cè)诮ㄔO(shè)新的,例如基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和房地產(chǎn)項(xiàng)目時(shí),從草地和森林中收集當(dāng)?shù)氐姆N子和植物,建立原生植物群落。這種對(duì)于自然植物的使用與18世紀(jì)設(shè)計(jì)具有自然面貌的風(fēng)景公園不同。風(fēng)景園林師不再提倡模仿自然棲息地,而是構(gòu)建自然棲息地。例如,德國在景觀建設(shè)中使用原生植物物種的目的并不是去仿造一處荒野,而是通過綠化展示場(chǎng)地的自然特征[26]。在考慮場(chǎng)地的自然特征時(shí),設(shè)計(jì)師為了在沒有原生植被的情況下確定參考點(diǎn)和證據(jù),往往運(yùn)用生態(tài)數(shù)據(jù)來繪制所謂的“潛在自然植被圖”(PNV)。這些地圖展示的不是最初的和原始的荒野,而是假設(shè)在自然入侵和演替之后,在不經(jīng)過人類干擾的情況下,地區(qū)將會(huì)發(fā)展出來的植被類型[27]。從大約20世紀(jì)60年代開始,自然入侵和本地植物的利用成為土地復(fù)原、生態(tài)修復(fù)和棲息地重建實(shí)踐中的技術(shù)手段[25]。

        接下來的案例展示了20世紀(jì)80年代德國政府在實(shí)行減輕和補(bǔ)償環(huán)境影響措施時(shí)如何運(yùn)用自然過程來配合設(shè)計(jì)修復(fù)工程。案例位于德國黑森(Hessen)州富爾達(dá)(Fulda)市郊區(qū),是用于補(bǔ)償大尺度鐵路轉(zhuǎn)換站工程的濕地修復(fù)項(xiàng)目。1983年,黑森州管理局將這個(gè)濕地修復(fù)補(bǔ)償工程納入高速鐵路線的審批工作中。在一些低于地下水位幾米的地方,工程師去除了所有的植被和頂層土壤,因此這里成為一張白紙,植物可以自然入侵。修復(fù)工程實(shí)際上降低了過去對(duì)開放濕地棲息地的影響,新的場(chǎng)地需要盡可能地長(zhǎng)年保持開放和陽光照射。規(guī)劃的目標(biāo)是為鄰近的濕地“貢獻(xiàn)”入侵物種,在林地植被的種子到達(dá)此處和萌發(fā)之前,讓濕地植物首先覆蓋所有開放土地。場(chǎng)地設(shè)計(jì)的目標(biāo)是進(jìn)一步釋放植物的入侵定植過程,并允許自然過程在這里快速發(fā)展[28]。

        建造工程與官方監(jiān)測(cè)在1986年停止。作為該工程的設(shè)計(jì)師,筆者持續(xù)關(guān)注著場(chǎng)地發(fā)生的變化。最初,一切發(fā)展順利。自然的入侵最初是一年生草本植物,第二年是多年生的濕地植物。兩棲類動(dòng)物和濕地鳥類也如預(yù)期般到來。如同最初的期望,樹木僅在靠近現(xiàn)有林地的區(qū)域內(nèi)萌發(fā)。在沒有人類干擾的情況下,榛樹和赤楊類植物需要花費(fèi)約20年的時(shí)間才能出現(xiàn)在這個(gè)場(chǎng)地(大約在12 000年前的末次冰河時(shí)期之后,這些樹種經(jīng)歷了1 000多年才在歐洲定植。)

        在當(dāng)?shù)乇Wo(hù)專家對(duì)這里的林地發(fā)生興趣并在這片開放的濕地棲息地規(guī)劃種植幾百棵柳樹之后,一切都發(fā)生了變化。一年之內(nèi),整個(gè)場(chǎng)地全部變?yōu)榱鴺淞帧?990年,區(qū)域保護(hù)當(dāng)局決定將40 hm2的柳樹林劃為自然區(qū)域。2008年,也就是建造完成22年之后,這里成為歐洲棲息地保護(hù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)計(jì)劃—Natura 2000中的一處保護(hù)地。當(dāng)局宣稱根據(jù)歐盟動(dòng)物—植物—棲息地(Flora-Fauna-Habitat)法令,這片人造濕地是一處“自然的河岸生境”。對(duì)于管理當(dāng)局來說,這里是一處“連續(xù)的荒野”。如同許多“城市荒野”案例,新的(完全人工的)濕地可能某種程度上展示了自然的特征。它可能喚起人們對(duì)于浪漫主義繪畫及其描繪的夢(mèng)幻荒野景象的回憶。如同城市荒野的主宰者,保護(hù)機(jī)構(gòu)的工作人員可能基于美學(xué)基礎(chǔ)而不是生物學(xué)證據(jù)對(duì)這片場(chǎng)地加以決策。比如在上面的案例中,早期的德國保護(hù)專家瓦爾特·斯格尼切(Walther Schoenichen)在一本書中把場(chǎng)地中在河邊枝條倒垂的柳樹和榿木景象稱作“初級(jí)荒野”(Urwaldwildnis),并把“Urwaldwildnis”一詞作為這本書的書名(發(fā)表于1943年)。

        6 作為生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的內(nèi)部殖民化荒野

        20世紀(jì)70年代,恢復(fù)生態(tài)學(xué)家和規(guī)劃師認(rèn)識(shí)到自然入侵場(chǎng)地對(duì)于保存原生植被和野生生物具有重要意義,因此他們提出,并非所有再利用的土地都需要進(jìn)行生態(tài)恢復(fù),部分可以任其發(fā)展為荒野地區(qū)[29],并提出了建立野性特征區(qū)域的規(guī)劃。近年來,劃定荒野景觀區(qū)成為生物多樣性保護(hù)工具和保護(hù)策略的重要組成部分。例如在歐洲,“再自然化”(re-naturalising)城市棕地和其他廢棄地成為確定自然過程占主導(dǎo)的區(qū)域和“自然特征”景觀區(qū)域規(guī)劃的組成部分[30]。在德國這個(gè)幾乎國土范圍內(nèi)每一片都為人工區(qū)域的國家,到2020年將有包括城市區(qū)域在內(nèi)的2%土地成為“荒野”?;囊埃^去是一種“在外面”的事物,正在成為“在里面”的事物。新的荒野通過“內(nèi)部殖民化”而制造出來。

        通常,殖民化是指來自外部的強(qiáng)有力的規(guī)則支配偏遠(yuǎn)的人類及其土地的控制系統(tǒng)。內(nèi)部殖民化則相反,是創(chuàng)造一種來自內(nèi)部的動(dòng)力控制系統(tǒng)。歷史學(xué)家在營建新社區(qū)或在已有國家的“處女地”進(jìn)行重建工程時(shí),往往會(huì)使用內(nèi)部殖民化這一術(shù)語[31]。在18世紀(jì)和19世紀(jì)的歐洲,隨著公國成為一個(gè)國家,內(nèi)部領(lǐng)土成為政府關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn),以解決其人口增長(zhǎng)需要土地的問題[32]。在建成區(qū)內(nèi)劃定“荒野”區(qū)域也是一種內(nèi)部殖民化的形式,城市區(qū)域內(nèi)點(diǎn)綴著荒野—如同一種圖底關(guān)系的翻轉(zhuǎn)。

        制造荒野(包括城市荒野)的內(nèi)部殖民化途徑包括:話語、重新命名場(chǎng)地、賦予新命名場(chǎng)地新的功能、將這些功能正式納入?yún)^(qū)域和城市綠地體系等[33]。不同的觀念帶來矛盾。例如,生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)理念的支持者認(rèn)為城市生態(tài)系統(tǒng)與原始生態(tài)系統(tǒng)存在多個(gè)層面差異。一方面,對(duì)他們來說,被建筑和硬質(zhì)地表所支配的地區(qū)不具有“生物學(xué)上的多樣性”,在這些地區(qū),“自然”過程很難有能力維持“自我平衡”的狀態(tài)。因此,這些區(qū)域不像高山、森林、叢林、沼澤等區(qū)域那樣能提供(自然的)“服務(wù)”。另一方面,城市生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)于城市的規(guī)劃和發(fā)展。規(guī)劃師可能對(duì)包括所有形式的城市荒野和所有形式的自然過程感興趣,例如發(fā)生在舊工業(yè)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施等廢棄地區(qū)的自然過程。人們可能喜愛城市荒野,希望體驗(yàn)?zāi)切┧麄冋J(rèn)為很大程度上受生態(tài)系統(tǒng)自身調(diào)節(jié)的區(qū)域,如能夠展現(xiàn)本土和非本土物種的種群活力、受人類直接影響很小的區(qū)域[34]。

        7 結(jié)論

        近20年的研究已經(jīng)證明“原始”自然的神話形象僅停留在神話中[35]。與古代地球上還保有未經(jīng)觸碰的荒野不同,如今人類對(duì)于世界所有區(qū)域都有深遠(yuǎn)的影響,包括存在數(shù)千年的雨林、苔原、沙漠和極地區(qū)域?!白詈蟮幕囊啊彼奶刭|(zhì)也蕩然無存。歷史不再允許我們?cè)诂F(xiàn)存的野生特征區(qū)域進(jìn)行持續(xù)的砍伐、焚燒、采礦和農(nóng)業(yè)種植活動(dòng)。這些區(qū)域是不可替代的,每一處都是獨(dú)特的。然而,這些地區(qū)并不能提供荒野發(fā)展演變的藍(lán)圖。對(duì)于一個(gè)如今不再有明顯人類活動(dòng)痕跡的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的殖民政策來說,“再野境化”城市開放空間尤其不能成為一種生態(tài)補(bǔ)償。

        通過3個(gè)特殊的荒野類型來研究不斷演化的荒野理念可知,新的(城市的)荒野理念和傳統(tǒng)荒野理念似乎有共通之處。兩者都是或者看上去是野生的,并在一定程度上處于人類直接的控制之外。在古代,人類通過去“外面”和“跨越邊界”殖民荒野。而現(xiàn)代,人們正在通過“內(nèi)在殖民化”,尋求占有或創(chuàng)造荒野。荒野是“未知”的一部分,人類通過給荒野地命名、將符號(hào)或其他意義賦予荒野、進(jìn)入和訪問荒野等途徑,令荒野變得獨(dú)特。所有的荒野地區(qū)似乎擁有與自然殖民和自然動(dòng)力過程相關(guān)的特性。人類將荒野地作為特殊的、在不同語境下非凡的和獨(dú)特的地段來認(rèn)知(像杜伊斯堡這樣的地方甚至帶有“壯麗”的特質(zhì))。這些地方還可能是區(qū)域或地方認(rèn)同感的標(biāo)志和來源。原始的和城市的荒野通過各自的方式提供了一系列情感體驗(yàn)。人類因?yàn)檫h(yuǎn)離了日常生活的范疇而感到振奮和激動(dòng)。盡管有其他人在場(chǎng)并共享場(chǎng)地,在自然中避難的幻想仍可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生。

        所以,當(dāng)我們提到和設(shè)計(jì)城市荒野時(shí),我們的態(tài)度是什么?我們要考慮什么?可以確定的是,我們不是簡(jiǎn)單的提供生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù),或是滿足人口眾多的城市對(duì)于開放綠色空間的需求。我們也不是簡(jiǎn)單的在語匯中增加一個(gè)新的流行詞。通過提供處在我們直接控制之外的場(chǎng)地,我們是不是正在嘗試回味敬畏與興奮的感受?迷失在充滿魔法和夢(mèng)幻的神秘場(chǎng)所的感受?進(jìn)入城市荒野將提供不斷的驚喜與未知的神秘交織在一起的體驗(yàn)。我們甚至可能希望去看一眼天堂。我們可能會(huì)努力感受自己是自然甚至是更大宇宙的有機(jī)組成部分[36]。盡管“未知荒野”“特定荒野”“過程荒野”和“作為生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的荒野”之間的差別很大,但可能它們都是一個(gè)屏幕,人們可以在這個(gè)屏幕上投射荒野區(qū)域感染他們的那些感知,如同置身于一個(gè)反世界(counter-world)之中,每個(gè)荒野特征都有其相對(duì)應(yīng)的感知圖像。設(shè)計(jì)這樣的反世界,風(fēng)景園林師可能要給城市居民提供他們渴望的經(jīng)歷和感受。

        我們已經(jīng)證明自然殖民化對(duì)城市生物多樣性做出了貢獻(xiàn)。但是,我們對(duì)于可能正在植入我們思想中的自然和荒野理念仍然知之甚少,盡管我們已經(jīng)做出了一系列的努力去描繪荒野感知[37]。我們對(duì)于人類如何與自然和荒野特征區(qū)域相聯(lián)系的了解遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠[38-39]。目前結(jié)論性的研究很有限,有關(guān)如何“基于自然進(jìn)行建設(shè)”的問題可能對(duì)提供令人滿意的景觀更有意義[40]。沒有什么能彌補(bǔ)人們?cè)诒┝_突或?yàn)?zāi)難破壞的環(huán)境中所經(jīng)歷的損失,即使是春天野花遍布般的壯麗[41]。在經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條時(shí)期,居住在曾經(jīng)繁榮過的城市內(nèi)的人們可能希望維持美麗的鄰里社區(qū)外觀,包括精細(xì)打理的花園和有秩序的公園。對(duì)于“遺產(chǎn)城市”的居民來說,雜亂無章的植被區(qū)域并不是在展示自然,而是在展現(xiàn)象征衰退、缺乏管理的破敗土地景象,甚至是危險(xiǎn)的、具有犯罪風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的地方[42]。同時(shí),未經(jīng)使用的土地好比一些提供玩耍和冒險(xiǎn)機(jī)會(huì)的公共場(chǎng)所,用于觀察其呈現(xiàn)的自然過程。野生動(dòng)植物則可以進(jìn)一步增加位于社區(qū)附近的當(dāng)?shù)鼐G色區(qū)域的吸引力。

        自然特性對(duì)于廣大民眾享受城市空間、體驗(yàn)幸福和快樂(盡管廢棄工業(yè)場(chǎng)地存在土壤和水污染問題)非常重要[43]?,F(xiàn)代作家借助晚期浪漫主義模式,確信今天如果我們要在擁擠不堪的世界里找到任何一個(gè)野生場(chǎng)所,那就必須把自己帶到非常偏遠(yuǎn)的地方[44]。野外旅行運(yùn)營商就是這樣做的:將游客帶到南極洲、喜馬拉雅山、育空、大峽谷等地進(jìn)行開拓。我們真的需要通過離開家、去參與極限旅行來走入荒野嗎?并不是。如今在我們的城市社區(qū)就能發(fā)現(xiàn)并體驗(yàn)“野生景觀”[45]②。我們開始更好地了解荒野本身和我們對(duì)荒野的態(tài)度[42,46]。作為景觀的設(shè)計(jì)師,風(fēng)景園林師需要關(guān)注設(shè)計(jì)項(xiàng)目所發(fā)生的變化,花時(shí)間進(jìn)行密切觀察并撰寫城市荒野的景觀傳記,這是非常值得的。

        致謝:

        感謝Annette Voigt與Daniel Münderlein在初稿階段有關(guān)綜述和評(píng)論方面提供的幫助。

        注釋:

        ① 參考牛津通用詞典(1955年)。

        ② 詳見 http://www.wildernessinthecity.org/。

        (編輯/劉玉霞)

        Designing “with nature” and natural processes is and always has been important in landscape architecture,even from the start when the professional field established[1].Professionals have employed concepts,methods and techniques of “nature development”,initially in garden and in park design,but then in landscape and ecological planning.As landscape architects,we are intent on action.However,we must think through the meaning of the terms we use.Poorly defined ideas,even propelled by good will,can undercut what we believe is our common ground.“Wilderness” is a concept that,even in the field of landscape architecture,and particularly when speaking about “Urban Wilderness” is poorly understood[2].To complicate matters,we are learning about and contesting over new and extremely ambiguous ideas that all relate to “Urban Wilderness”,such as “Novel Nature” “Industrial Forest” “Urban Woodlands”“Urban Wildlands” and “Urban Wilderness”.In addition,park and open space projects are developing that appear to include ideas of wilderness in one way or another.These concepts and projects all contain many more than one meaning of wilderness (and nature) and using them may lead to vagueness in the field and confusion over the things we do[3].However,where there is faction tension on meaning,great opportunity exist in the many options for movement and action that may guide us.It may be important to try exploring them.

        As a key to understanding how people perceive and access wilderness,this essay introduces the term“colonisation”.For the purpose of this essay,the term colonisation applies in many dimensions,including land taking,land-use,social occupation and penetration of consciousness.The term colonisation also refers to natural processes,such as the colonisation of areas by plants and animals.The aim is not to arrive at a definition of wilderness and related terms,but to get a better understanding of some facets of the many meanings of “Urban Wilderness”.

        1 Wilderness Ideas

        By calling an area wilderness,people are creating one.They are doing this by identifying the area as wilderness and by attaching wilderness meaning to the area.Knowing about wilderness areas might not be enough,however,and people will take ownership of areas they call wilderness,and they will start colonising them.The complicated thing about people colonising areas is that it encompasses not just physical activities (walking,boating,camping,etc.) but also social practice(group activities,competitions,social media,etc.)and consciousness (“wilderness experience”).The taking of land and material resources is the first and foremost dimension of colonisation.The penetration and occupation of minds is a not so concrete but very powerful dimension of colonisation,one that takes ownership of cultures and ideas,such as the designation and management of areas as wilderness “reserves”.During all of these activities and processes,some wilderness qualities are lost.People appreciate areas that classify as pristine wilderness but they also visit them,leaving them less “untrammelled” every time they do so.Recreationists cherish wilderness areas for their natural character (natural sounds,pure water,clean air,etc.).However,people also take ownership of “pure” wilderness areas by supporting their protection and management,to allow for controlled access and use (low density of physical colonisation by visitors).Visitors of designated wilderness areas,seeking respite from everyday life (mainly in cities),prefer a presence of humans that is substantially unnoticeable.Urban landscapes offer none of these qualities and yet,some people call some naturally looking urban areas wilderness.What sort of areas do people have in mind when they speak of “Urban Wilderness”?

        Different understandings of wilderness exist in any given period and cultural context[4-7].In order to try to learn how understandings of wilderness might relate to ideas of “Urban Wilderness”,this essay uses three wilderness categories[8].They are 1) the “Unknown Wilderness” such as mythical forests,2) the “Specific Wilderness” such as places that people perceive as wild,and 3) the “Process Wilderness” emphasising naturalness pertaining to ecosystem dynamics.

        2 Colonising the “Unknown Wilderness”

        In prehistoric times,anything wild would be what lies beyond and outside of the boundaries of everyday lives[9].This “outside” people might have perceived as the “great unknown”,as vague and mythical worlds filled with superior powers.However,no matter how impenetrable,savage and dangerous these worlds might have appeared,some people would have ventured into it.Whether they had nomadic lives or went on migrations (The wilderness was where Moses had wandered with his people),they would explore food sources and colonise new land.They would also have been going out to have a divine experience or to prove themselves in the face of the frightening,enduring and fighting temptations.People,therefore,have changed parts of the Earth for millennia,altering areas not only inside of the boundaries of their homes and gardens,but also in realms that are outside of their immediate control.Anyone who has visited indigenous people will know how they are very capable of mentally mapping out places in areas far away from home,such as ancestral spirit places and routes between villages and good areas for gathering and hunting food.Hunting and gathering affect ecosystems,for example by furthering particularly useful species and by using fires to improve living and food conditions[10].When modern governments started to “protect” wilderness as “reserves” they conveniently ignored that people lived in these areas and that they had been living there for very long times.For example,at the time of their declaration,no National Park had been an “unpeopled wilderness”[11].

        During antiquity,wilderness continues to be a vaguely defined realm,continues as the great unknown,or at least as an idea being unknown.For example,people living in Mediterranean regions would consider anything wild that lies opposite or outside of paradise.The Old Persian word for enclosed space is “pairidaēza”,a term that was adopted in many languages to refer to Paradise on Earth①.The creation and recreation of paradise as a most desirable place has been a major concern in many cultures for thousands of years.A “steep wilderness” surrounds the “delicious Paradise” of John Milton's Eden and darkness prevails on the far side of the garden wall.During medieval times,in European cultures,wilderness was the mysterious land that expanded outside of their homes,castles,towns and cultivated fields.Moors,swamps,wild forests,high mountains and the open sea harboured horror and formidable beasts.The forest as a place of magic and danger is the quintessential wilderness in all regions where the natural state of wild land is forest(To this day,the “jungle” is what many people think of as “True Wilderness”).The forest edge is the line beyond which people normally would not venture:Peasants who seldom if ever travelled far from their villages could not conclusively say that it was impossible that an ogre,a witch or outlaws could live an hour away.According to old sagas and fairy tales,however,the hero (such as Robin Hood) does go into the forest (to hide).The forest contains enchantments,lures the adventurous and gives safety from pursuit.Being outside of normal human experience,the enchanted forests acts as a place of transformation.In German folklore,for example,forests can be places of danger and of magical refuge.Druids and hermits,or brave knights would surpass the frontier,to find solitude and inspiration,or great treasures and extreme adventure[12]111.According to scientific research,however,European forests have been used and altered considerably since Palaeolithic periods[13].

        In summary,during prehistoric and early historic times the concept of wilderness pertained to the spiritual and included realms of danger.Usually,wilderness was a general idea and the wild not a specific place.Accordingly,only few people were able to find specific places in the wild (such as hiding holes and sacred grounds).Realities of land use were not part of wilderness concepts.

        How ideas about the wild and wilderness continue to evolve,and how they started to refer to specific places,is not always evident at first glance.In the course of time,wilderness is gradually loosing attributes of the great unknown and of being the opposite of all that was safe and good.For example in his work “Germania”the Roman historian Tacitus refers to a concrete region and specifically defined its boundaries.Nevertheless,he describes the region's various qualities in not very concrete terms.In designing “Germania” as a message to his fellow Romans[14]77,Tacitus assigns,around 98 AD,a set of stereotypes to the native people of this region as “the noble yet bloodthirsty savage” and to their land as “wild forest”.Germania's forest he depicts vaguely as a realm of darkness filled with ferocious beasts,human savages included.

        Here,Tacitus created the reservoir of ideas from which generations of writers would draw and continue enriching it with detail.During the era from roughly 1500 to 1900,when Europeans explored and colonised the Americas,Africa,Asia and Oceania,they usually encountered native people.Many of them had no official maps of their land and no formally written records of their own.The visitors would draw maps and document,albeit selective,how they themselves perceived the “natives”[15].These records are filled with inspirational details that would captivate the artistically and literary minded.For example,19th century Romantics picked from these records what they needed to expand on old stereotype of natives as both “gentlemen” and “bloodthirsty red devils”,“soon to be pushed aside”[16].In the case of North America,the land was a specific but still vaguely defined region,the “Wild West”.“The West of which I speak is but another name for the Wild”,writes Henry David Thoreau in his essay “Walking”,likening it not to darkness but to Eden itself,declaring it divine:“No description of Heaven that I have ever heard or read of seems half so fine”[17].As late as 1991,Stanwyn Shetler,a botanist,describes his perception of wilderness as “The First Eden,a pristine natural kingdom,” where the “native people were transparent in the landscape,living as natural elements of the ecosphere.Their world … was a world of barely perceptible human disturbance”[18].

        Summing up the above,wilderness is“profoundly a human creation … all the more beguiling because it seems so natural”[19].The category of the “Unknown Wilderness” in particular is a construct where parts of the world are without people (or people being “natural” parts of the “wild”),as being close to ideas of paradise and close to nature.Urban Wilderness ideas might include traces of what people associate with the“Unknown”,such as few people and areas where nature rules and that require effort to penetrate.

        3 Colonising the “Specific Wilderness”of Natural Heritage

        During times of explorations and discovery,wilderness ceases to be associated with realms of the “unknown”.The following example illustrates how wilderness is turning into a “specific” place,one that people admire and cherish as “Natural Heritage”.During their many 17th and 18th century explorations,before the North-American “West”became “wild”,Spanish Conquistadores were looking for adventure and riches,while Padres were engaged to find and convert “wild” natives.The Spanish encountered a land that exhibited nothing they could relate to and words failed them altogether.For example,on several occasions they were unable to describe the size and character of a particularly large river gorge that they tried to cross.They only recorded the specific location of the abyss and noted the specific colour of the water,naming the river the“Colorado”[20]18.Many years later,towards the end of the era of Humboldtian style expeditions,around 1857—1858,artists of the Romantic era published visual logs in the form of maps and paintings of their trip along the same river[21].Unlike the padres of earlier times,these Romantics would have carried,in their cultural luggage,not only the Bible but also the works of Rousseau,Shaftesbury,and others.Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778) explained how humans in the state of nature are blessed with enviable amounts of freedom.Anthony Ashley Cooper,Earl of Shaftesbury (1621—1683),had stated how ?wilderness pleases“ and how the experience of nature triggers “reasonable extasy”[6]447,[12]111.Standing at the rim of the Colorado River gorge,with utter amazement,Romantic's eyes now rested on and found many words for the (specific) scenes that the padres failed to appreciate.In many parts of the world,people are now beginning to see old scenes with new eyes.Back in Europe,Romantics rediscovered the Alps that,in people's perception,changed from inhospitable to welcoming.In the once dangerous“Wild West”,the Romantics saw the picturesque and the sublime[22].This is when and how the Colorado gorge became the “Grand Canyon”[20]38.

        In Western culture,the period of adventure and discovery brought a shift in its connotation from the wild as something savage and dangerous but vague (somewhere “out there”) to specific places of exhilaration and awe.Trying the frontiers,voyagers were finding riches in the wild,making them their own.Publishing their travelogues,world travellers where enflaming others to undertake explorative trips themselves the account of which were,in turn,inspiring a perceptive audiences at home.Entire continents awaited discovery and colonisation.Their wilderness were to be conquered and their treasures be taken[14]77.

        The gorge of the Colorado River was a special treasure,“officially colonised” in 1919 when government took ownership of it and declared it protected.The process that lead to this decision was arduous.Many interest groups contested the idea of preserving a “natural heritage” instead of exploiting the land and the “resources” it held.However wild it was (by current IUCN standards),government declared the Grand Canyon (and several other spectacular areas in the West) not a wilderness but a “park”.Wilderness became equal to areas being cherished for sublimity and aesthetically pleasing.In 1864,the landscape architect F.L.Olmsted presented a report titled “Yosemite and the Mariposa Grove” in which he describes the valley and groves in much the same way,as he would describe a designed park,as sets of specific scenes and views,and as a “magnificent” piece of art.

        As parks,National Parks and other large reserves have defined boundaries and gates,engineered access routes and parking,prescribed camping and various services such as restaurants and accommodation.Governments colonise areas in the form of reserve declaration and inserting infrastructure,all the while ignoring interests and rights of indigenous people.Wilderness ceased to be “wild” and became a form of beautiful land-use.The category of the “Specific Wilderness” is a construct where visitors enter “wild”looking parts of the world,comfortably enjoying closeness to nature and seeking specific qualities that they associate with specific areas.Urban Wilderness ideas might include traces of what people associate with the “Specific”,such as meeting kindred minded people and finding a specific kind of nature that someone (park manager,designer,etc.) has made accessible to them.As “parks”,Urban Wilderness areas also have boundaries,access infrastructure and visitors who use them.

        To this day,governments designate areas as National Parks to preserve important and,as is the case all around the world,iconic heritage[2,20].In addition to natural heritage,the convention concerning the protection of World Heritage (UNESCO,1972) also includes cultural heritage.The military and industrial heritage of a region is an aspect of its cultural heritage.Both have become an aesthetic category since about the 1970's.The following presents one example illustrating how cultural heritage can fuse with ideas of wilderness.

        4 Colonising the “Specific Wilderness”of Cultural Heritage

        Military grounds,mines,steel factories,rail switchyards,etc.are,during and sometimes after operation,too dangerous for unauthorised persons to enter.Like the great-unknown wilderness,they remain outside of the boundary of people's everyday lives,forbidden places with a wall around them.Like unchartered territory,terra incognita,governments used to put white space instead of details on official maps.The 1950's and following decades saw an era ending that is based on heavy industry.A wave of shutdowns changed the character of industrial regions around the world.Mining and steel making ended and workers left.Only the fences stayed.For example,in 1985,in the German “Ruhrgebiet”,the Thyssen plant of Duisburg-Meiderich smelting works closed.Very few people knew the place well because the steelworkers alone had always gone in.After closing,the site remained fenced in,keeping the public out of harm's way.Scruffy vegetation appeared and,undisturbed by people,the unruly vines of bramble and wild brush started to cover large portions of the area.Imagine people,one day,cutting a hole in the fence and visiting the place.Finding their way through thickets of brush,as if on a jungle expedition,they would have stood faceto-face with phenomena that exhibited nothing they knew:foundries,gasholders,cooling towers,turbines,ore bunkers,and overgrown slag heaps.It must have been very exciting,particularly for children.When“Modern” Romantics visited the site,they used powerful metaphors,like out of tales that describe enchanted forests.The Landscape Park Duisburg-Nord now occupies the area,and in an article about this park,the New York Times speaks of three blast furnaces as “l(fā)ooming” over the area “l(fā)ike rusting dragons,their flaming mouths silenced”.The moment the smelting works closed,the article continues,the “nightmarish hulks that remained—almost mythic in their lurid grandeur—stood stranded,presumed doomed.The notion that they would come back to life in the quintessential park of the early 21st century seemed about as probable as sighting a pterosaur in flight overhead”[23].

        The objective of the NYT article was not launching,as the title “The Anti-Olmsted”might suggest,a polemic anti-romantic discourse about Olmsted.The article is about the legacy of“Landscape Park Duisburg-Nord”.“Anti-Olmsted”refers to a design that did not aim to achieve,as Olmsted had in his time,a landscape that appears natural and where people enjoy the “fantasy of taking refuge in pristine nature”.On the contrary,by allowing wild plants to continue on their successional path of colonising large tracts of abandoned land,and by leaving blast furnaces,gas tanks and storage bunkers intact,the cultural heritage of the industrial era itself became theme and subject of park design.The plan for Duisburg-Nord was not to create paradise on earth,rather it “deferred to the history of a densely populated and deeply scarred terrain,where virgin verdure seems as remote as Eden”[23].

        Landscapes and landscape creations such as gardens and parks unfold over time.Designing a landscape sets a process in train and natural processes proceed.Peter Latz,the designer of Landscape Park Duisburg-Nord,keeps an eye on changes going on in the park.After observing these changes for a quarter of a century,he published his findings[24].Like Olmsted did,in the 19th century,Latz describes and discusses the site as a park.Although unmistakably fabricated,to the unassuming eye,much of this area would have appeared quite wild.However,all that appears natural and spontaneous in its successional dishevelment is part of a greater plan.To the landscape architect there is no natural order and untouched nature here.The park developed into a popular destination for natural,cultural and sportsrelated leisure pursuits.People took ownership quickly,filling gaps where the architect did not prescribe a specific programme.A climbing park established on old concrete walls.A diving club adopted the gasometer,had it filled with 20,000 cubic metres of water and now use it for diving exercises.Theatre,opera and film events take place where the blast furnace once operated.Gardens flourish within the confines of ore bunkers.People from nearby neighbourhoods slip through (designed) wall openings and take their dog for a walk.

        Contested are the areas where controlled and wild growth mix so that vegetation could spread spontaneously.For example,a heated debate over exotic plants that had colonized this land prevailed for years.Specialists know how some plants are native to European regions outside of Germany; they know how others have migrated here from faraway continents.“Alien species” probably first arrived in Duisburg as stowaways on shipments of iron ore.Surveying the park,ecologists found hundreds of species that are not native to the area.“Conservationists favored extirpating these exotics,while Latz wanted to educate the gardeners in how to care for the plants,some of which are rare”[23].The designer and the idea of a cultural heritage park prevailed.Birches,willows and buddleias are living side-by-side with planted trees together adorning huge slag heaps.

        5 “Process Wilderness”

        The third wilderness category is “Process Wilderness”,and the category's title derives from the processes of natural (allegedly “wild”) succession that distinguishes it from other categories.Wild plants and animals colonise an area the moment it becomes available.Dormant seeds germinate immediately after forest fires and landslides.Wind and birds transport plants and small animals through the air,for them to thrive anywhere possible,including rooftops,slurry ponds and military exercise fields.Wild life appears in the wake of warfare and after clearance of old industrial installations.Noticing,during the 1920s and 1930s,how natural colonisation often establishes rich assembles of wild species,biologists and engineers began to develop techniques that incorporate natural succession into landscape projects[25].Nature development takes time,several decades for natural grasslands to re-establish,hundreds of years for forests to re-generate; too long for commissioned landscape projects.As early as the 1930s,landscape designers where experimenting in hastening processes of nature development.They were harvesting seeds and plants locally from grasslands and woodlands to establish native vegetation in the course of building new infrastructure,housing estates,etc.This interest in using “natural” vegetation differed from designing naturalistic landscape parks in the 18th century.Landscape architects were now advocating not to imitate but to construct natural habitats.In Germany,for example,the aim of using native vegetation in landscape construction was not to imitate wilderness but for greened areas to exhibit natural character[26].To establish reference points and evidence for defining what designers considered natural character,in the absence of primary vegetation,ecological data served to produce maps of the so-called “potential natural vegetation”,PNV.These maps present no primary and pristine wilderness,but vegetation types that would hypothetically develop through natural colonisation and succession and in the absence of human intervention[27].Since about the 1960s,natural colonisation and the use of native plants are established techniques in the practice of land rehabilitation,ecosystem restoration and habitat reconstruction[25].

        The following example illustrates how,during the 1980s,when German government made mitigation and compensation for environmental impacts mandatory,employing natural processes became particularly fitting with designing restoration projects.The example is about a wetland restoration that served as compensation for a rail switch project of enormous dimensions,located in the outskirts of the City of Fulda in the State of Hessen.In 1983,the Hessen administration included this compensatory wetland restoration project into the approval for a high-speed rail line.Engineers scraped away all vegetation and top soil,several meters below the water table at some places,thus providing a kind of tabula rasa where plants could naturally colonise.As the restoration project was meant to compensate mainly for impact on open wetland habitat,the newly formed area needed to remain open and sunlit for as many years as possible.The plan was for adjacent wetlands to “donate” colonisers and for wetland vegetation to cover all open soil before woodland seeds would arrive and germinate.Designing the site aimed to ease colonisation and to allow natural processes to proceed quickly[28].

        Construction and official monitoring ended in 1986.As the designer of the project,I continued keeping an eye on changes occurring on the site.Initially,all went well.Natural colonisation included annuals at first,followed by perennial wetland plants in the second year.Amphibians and wetland birds developed as expected.As hoped,trees germinated only along a small strip of land adjacent to existing woodland.Without people interfering,it would take decades for Hazel and Alder to spread into the site (it took those tree species more than a thousand years to colonise Europe after the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago).

        Everything changed when local conservationist,interested in woodland and contesting plans for an open wetland habitat,planted hundreds of willows.All of the area turned into willow thickets within a year.In 1990,the regional conservation authority decided to designate 40 hectares of this thicket as nature area.In 2008,22 years after construction ended,the site became part of the European habitat network Natura 2000.Authorities declared the entirely manufactured wetland a “natural riparian habitat” according to the EU Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive.To the authorities,a “Successional Wilderness” presented itself.Like many examples of “Urban Wilderness”,the new(entirely artificial) wetland might have exhibited,at least to the unassuming eye,a somewhat natural character.It might have reminded people of romantic paintings and their dreamy versions of wilderness.Like protagonists of “Urban Wilderness”,the people who worked in conservation authorities might have made their decisions not based on biological evidence but on aesthetic grounds,in this case referring to images of willows and alders drooping over riverbanks that the early German conservationist Walther Schoenichen had called “Urwaldwildnis” (“Primary Wilderness”) in a book of the same title (published 1943).

        6 Wilderness as Ecosystem,Internal Colonisation

        Observing how naturally colonised sites have become important refuges for native vegetation and wildlife,restoration ecologists and planners have,during the 1970s,suggested that not all land earmarked for reclamation should be restored but much of it left to become wilderness areas[29].They put plans for creating areas of wild character forward.More recently,designating wild landscapes has become instrumental for and part of biodiversity strategies.In Europe,for example,“re-naturalising” urban brownfields and other abandoned grounds has become part of plans for designating areas where natural processes dominate and landscapes of “natural character”develop[30].In Germany,where nearly every piece of the country is artificial,2% of the land is destined to become “Wilderness” until 2020,urban areas included.Wilderness,once thought of as something “out there”,is now establishing “inside”.The new making of wilderness happens through “internal colonisation”.

        Colonisation usually refers to systems of domination whereby external powers rule over people and their land from afar.Internal colonialism,by contrast,refers to processes of creating systems of domination whereby forces exercise power internally.Historians also use the term internal colonization when referring to the building of new communities and to reclamation projects on “virgin lands” inside of an existing country[31].In the advent of principalities becoming a nation,for example during 18th and 19th century Europe,internal territories became the focus of attention for governments in need of land for their expanding population[32].Designating “Wilderness”inside of built up areas is also a form of internal colonisation,the city perforates to include wilderness—as in a figure-ground reversal.

        Internal colonisation for making wilderness(including Urban Wilderness) is happening by words,by renaming places,by inscribing new functions to the renamed,and by formally including these functions into regional and urban green systems[33].Different ideas lead to conflict.For example,protagonists and providers of “Ecosystem Services” understand urban ecosystems as differing in several ways from primary ones.For them,areas dominated by buildings and hard surfaces are not “biologically diverse” and their“natural” processes are not seen as capable of ever reaching states of “equilibrium”.They,hence,will not be providing the same (natural) “services” as places such as high mountains,forests,moors,marshes,etc.would.On the other hand,urban ecosystems are subject to urban planning and development.Planners might be interested in including all forms of Urban Wilderness and all forms of natural processes such as the ones occurring on abandoned areas of old industry,infrastructure,etc.People might cherish Urban Wilderness,hoping to experience what they perceive as high levels of ecosystem self-regulation,including,for example,phenomena that represent population dynamics of native and non-native species,while direct human impact remains small[34].

        7 Conclusions

        Researchers in recent decades have shown that the mythical image of “pristine” nature is just that—a myth (in a seminal paper)[35].No ancient,untouched wilderness remains on Earth,and humans have had a major impact on all areas of the World,including rainforest,tundra,desert and Polar Regions for thousands of years.Yet,the “l(fā)ast of the wild” includes qualities that do not exist anywhere else.History offers no permit for continued logging,burning,mining and agricultural cultivation of any existing wild character area.These areas are irreplaceable and each of them is unique.They provide no blueprint for wilderness development.“Rewilding” urban open space,in particular,can be no eco-compensation for a policy aiming at colonising ecosystems that are free from obvious signs of human activity today.

        Studying different ideas of wilderness,as they have evolved over time,and by applying three distinct wilderness categories,it seems as if new(urban) and some old ideas of wilderness do have things in common.Since both either are or seem wild,they somehow border or appear to be outside of people's immediate control.In ancient times,people would colonise wilderness by going “out there” and “beyond the frontier”.In modern times,people are seeking to locate or create wilderness through “internal colonisation”.All wilderness is part of the “Unknown”,yet they specific in the way that people give wilderness areas names,associate symbolic or other meaning with them,access and visit them.All wilderness areas either are or seem to be possessing properties that pertain to processes of natural colonisation and natural dynamics.People perceive wilderness areas as special places,remarkable and exceptional in their respective context (places such as Duisburg-Nord even qualify as “grand”).Both are or can be iconic and sources of regional or local identity.In their own ways primary and urban wilderness offer a range of emotional experiences.People would feel inspired and excited,being away from and outside of the boundaries of everyday life.Phantasies of taking refuge in nature might arise even in the presence of other humans sharing the same place and interest.

        So,what are our attitudes towards and what are we thinking of when we speak of and design for Urban Wilderness? Surely,we are not simply providing“Ecosystem Services” or trying to satisfy needs for open green space in overpopulated cities.We are not simply adding a new buzzword to our repertoire,are we? By providing areas apparently lying outside of our immediate control,are we attempting to bring back feelings of spiritual awe and excitement,feelings of getting lost in mysterious places filled with magic and enchantment? Entering urban wilderness would offer experience where constant surprises interweave with the mysteries of the undiscovered.We might even be hoping for a glimpse of paradise.We might be striving to feel as being organic parts of nature and of a greater cosmology[36].As different as “Unknown Wilderness” “Specific Wilderness” “Process Wilderness” and “Wilderness as ecosystem”are,they all might be serving as a screen onto which people project perceptions that get hold of them while inside of wild looking areas,like being in a kind of counter-world where every feature has its counter image.Designing for such counter-worlds landscape architects might be offering experiences and feelings that urban dwellers are longing for.

        We have evidence about natural colonisations contributing to biodiversity of cities.However,despite serious professional efforts to map wilderness perception[37],we have sparse knowledge about ideas of nature and wilderness that might be colonising our minds.We know little about how people relate to areas of natural and wild character[38-39].Conclusive studies are limited and the question stands how “constructing with nature” might contribute to the providing of desirable landscapes[40].Nothing,not even the splendour of a spring wild flower explosion,can compensate for losses people experience in environments disrupted by violent conflict or disaster[41].During economic depressions,people who live in once prosperous towns may hope to maintain the fa?ade of nice neighbourhoods with well-managed gardens and orderly parks.To residents of “l(fā)egacy cities”,scruffy vegetation exhibits not nature but lack of care and derelict land symbolises decline,even danger and risk of crime[42]249.At the same time,unused areas are like commons that offer opportunities for play and adventure,for observing natural processes unfold.Wildlife and wild flora can add significantly to the perceived attractiveness of local green areas near home.Natural character can be very important for broad segments of the population to enjoy urban space[43]and for people to experience well-being and happiness (despite soil and water contaminants of abandoned industry).

        Modern writers,drawing on late-Romantic models,are convinced that if we were to find any wild places in our overcrowded world today we must take ourselves to the remotest of lands[44].Wilderness travel operators do exactly that:colonising Antarctica,the Himalaya,the Yukon,the Grand Canyon,etc.with tourists.Do we really need to leave home and go on extreme trips for wilderness encounters? We do not.We are finding and experiencing “wildscapes” in our urban neighbourhoods[45]②.We are only beginning to understand them and our attitudes towards them better[42,46].As designers of landscapes,landscape architects need to keep an eye on changes occurring with our projects.Taking a closer look takes time.It is time worth spending and writing the biographies of our urban wilderness landscapes.

        Acknowledgements:

        I thank Annette Voigt and Daniel Münderlein for reviewing and commenting on early stages of the manuscript.

        Notes:

        ① The Oxford Universal Dictionary,1955.

        ② See http://www.wildernessinthecity.org/.

        猜你喜歡
        荒野公園人類
        我家門前的小公園
        軍事文摘(2022年14期)2022-08-26 08:15:26
        人類能否一覺到未來?
        人類第一殺手
        在公園里玩
        荒野求生
        1100億個(gè)人類的清明
        荒野求生
        荒野求生
        荒野求生
        人類正在消滅自然
        奧秘(2015年2期)2015-09-10 07:22:44
        视频一区二区三区中文字幕狠狠| 精品麻豆国产色欲色欲色欲www| 少妇的丰满3中文字幕| 国产呦系列视频网站在线观看| 少妇人妻无一区二区三区| 日本国产成人国产在线播放| 国产成人综合在线视频| 亚洲精品中文字幕观看| 亚洲97成人精品久久久| 97久人人做人人妻人人玩精品| 午夜不卡久久精品无码免费| 99久久这里只精品国产免费| 日本频道一区二区三区| 国产情侣真实露脸在线| 中文字幕无码家庭乱欲| 亚洲AV成人综合五月天在线观看| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 亚洲日韩国产一区二区三区| 亚洲熟妇无码av不卡在线播放 | 国产深夜男女无套内射| 日韩免费小视频| 久久青青草原亚洲av| 欧美性受xxxx黑人猛交| 亚洲av无码精品色午夜蛋壳| 最新亚洲无码网站| 国产高清一区二区三区三州| 亚洲精品成人片在线观看精品字幕 | 一夲道无码人妻精品一区二区| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添一区二区| 亚洲天堂av在线免费看| 国产免费又色又爽粗视频| 中文字幕乱码免费视频| 无码伊人久久大蕉中文无码| 中文字幕第一页人妻丝袜| 亚洲色欲色欲大片www无码| 久久久久久久98亚洲精品| 亚洲一区二区三区精彩视频| 欧美肥妇毛多水多bbxx水蜜桃| 开心婷婷五月激情综合社区| 国产不卡一区二区av| 中文字幕在线乱码一区|