巴哈拉克·塞耶達(dá)什拉菲/Baharak Seyedashrafi

徐知蘭 譯/Translated by XU Zhilan

1 世界文化遺產(chǎn)和城市發(fā)展

在最近發(fā)布的 《聯(lián)合國2030 年可持續(xù)發(fā)展議程》文件中，第11 個目標(biāo)提出呼吁：“建設(shè)包容、安全、有抵御災(zāi)害能力和可持續(xù)的城市和人類住區(qū)”；在這個目標(biāo)下的第11.4 項(xiàng)任務(wù)更明確地強(qiáng)調(diào)了遺產(chǎn)的重要性，呼吁各國應(yīng)“進(jìn)一步努力保護(hù)和捍衛(wèi)世界文化和自然遺產(chǎn)”[1]18。此外，在把文化遺產(chǎn)作為可持續(xù)歐洲戰(zhàn)略資源之一的歐盟相關(guān)文件[2]2結(jié)論中，也強(qiáng)調(diào)了文化遺產(chǎn)作為“包容的地方與地區(qū)發(fā)展的強(qiáng)大推動力”的作用，及其在可持續(xù)的城市發(fā)展與城市修復(fù)中的潛在資源地位。另一方面，盡管有這些最近提出的城市可持續(xù)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略，城市化進(jìn)程一直以來都是威脅文化遺產(chǎn)延續(xù)性的主要因素之一。聯(lián)合國教科文組織的統(tǒng)計(jì)分析[3]表明，繼“管理與制度因素”之后，“建設(shè)與開發(fā)”已成為1979-2013年世界遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)狀況（SOC）報(bào)告中最常提到的威脅因素。

考慮到這個問題有待解決，國際影響評估協(xié)會（IAIA）對“影響評估”的定義是“對當(dāng)前或擬實(shí)施的行動在未來將導(dǎo)致哪些后果進(jìn)行評定的過程”。在傳統(tǒng)上，影響評估一直以來都是一項(xiàng)在環(huán)境規(guī)劃領(lǐng)域廣泛應(yīng)用的技術(shù)，也就是“環(huán)境影響評估”（EIA），其目的是評價項(xiàng)目對其周邊環(huán)境造成的各方面影響。環(huán)評指令（2011/92/EU）文件的2014年修訂版（2014/52/EU）強(qiáng)調(diào)了“有形資產(chǎn)、文化遺產(chǎn)和景觀”是環(huán)境影響評估在評估項(xiàng)目的直接影響和間接影響環(huán)節(jié)需要重點(diǎn)考慮的一個方面。這版修訂文件同時指出：“為了更好地保護(hù)歷史和文化遺產(chǎn)與景觀，非常重要的是，在環(huán)境影響評估中明確項(xiàng)目的視覺影響，也就是自然景觀和城市區(qū)域的外觀風(fēng)貌或景觀視域的變化[2]。

為了有針對性地解決遺產(chǎn)價值受到損害的挑戰(zhàn)，最近形成了名為“遺產(chǎn)影響評估”（HIA）的評估手段?！斑z產(chǎn)影響評估”是“從緩解負(fù)面影響和促進(jìn)有益結(jié)果的角度，對一項(xiàng)當(dāng)前正在實(shí)施中或未來擬實(shí)施的開發(fā)政策或行動對遺產(chǎn)地的文化生活、社群習(xí)俗和資源所可能產(chǎn)生的影響，首先進(jìn)行認(rèn)定、預(yù)測、評價和表達(dá)，其次把發(fā)現(xiàn)的事實(shí)和結(jié)論納入規(guī)劃與決策程序的過程”[4]3。最終，國際古跡遺址理事會于2011 年形成了《世界文化遺產(chǎn)的遺產(chǎn)影響評估導(dǎo)則》文件。該導(dǎo)則認(rèn)為，“文化遺產(chǎn)具有獨(dú)立自主和獨(dú)一無二的特征，需要和環(huán)境評估有所區(qū)別。導(dǎo)則更進(jìn)一步專門闡述了世界遺產(chǎn)的受影響層面，包括突出普遍價值、真實(shí)性和完整性等，這些都應(yīng)在遺產(chǎn)影響評估中重點(diǎn)考慮”[5]。

2 兩個案例研究的比較分析

2.1 科隆大教堂，科隆，德國

作為哥特式建筑的杰作，科隆大教堂是全球聞名的世界遺產(chǎn)，于1996 年第20 屆世界遺產(chǎn)委員會會議期間以標(biāo)準(zhǔn)i：“作為人類天才的創(chuàng)造力的杰作”；標(biāo)準(zhǔn)ii：“擁有600 多年歷史的科隆大教堂標(biāo)志著教堂建筑的鼎盛時期及其巔峰水平”；以及標(biāo)準(zhǔn)iv：“對中世紀(jì)和現(xiàn)代歐洲經(jīng)久不衰的基督教信仰的有力證明”[6]列入《世界遺產(chǎn)名錄》（圖1）。

1 夜晚從霍亨索倫橋眺望科隆大教堂/The view of Cologne Cathedral from Hohenzollern Bridge in night （攝影/Photo: Baharak Seyedashrafi, 2017）

1 Cultural world heritage and urban development

In the recent UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, goal 11 calls for "make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable"; within this goal, the target 11.4 clearly highlights "Heritage" where states "strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world's cultural and natural heritage"[1]18. In addition, the conclusions on cultural heritage as a strategic resource for a sustainable Europe[2]2emphasises the role of cultural heritage as "a powerful driving force of inclusive local and regional development" as well as a potential resource in sustainable urban development and rehabilitation. On the other side, in spite of the recent urban sustainable development strategies, urbanisation has continued to be one of the main threats for the continuity of cultural heritage. The UNESCO statistical analysis[3]represents that after "Management and Institutional Factors", "Buildings and Development" has a most common threat which is described in the State of Conservation (SOC) reports from 1979 till 2013.

Recognising the gap, Impact Assessment is defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) as a "process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action". Traditionally, Impact Assessment has been a technique which is applied by environmental planning discipline, known as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), with the propose of assessing impacts of projects on various aspects of an environment surrounding the projects. The 2014 amendment (2014/52/EU) of the codified EIA Directive 2011/92/EU emphasises "material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape" as one of the major areas that the Environmental Impact Assessment needs to consider it in terms of direct and consequential impacts of a project. This amendment also states that "in order to better preserve historical and cultural heritage and the landscape, it is important to address the visual impact of projects, namely the change in the appearance or view of the built or natural landscape and urban areas, in environmental impact assessments"[2].

2 藍(lán)色是原計(jì)劃的洲際酒店高層建筑群/Original planned ICE High-rise Cluster in blue

With a view to specifically address the challenges related to loss of heritage values, an assessment tool so-called Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been recently established. HIA is "a process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and communicating the probable effects of a current or proposed development policy or action on the cultural life, institutions and resources of communities, then integrating the findings and conclusions into the planning and decision making process, with a view to mitigating adverse impacts and enhancing positive outcomes"[4]3. Eventually, ICOMOS had developed a "Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties" in 2011. "This guideline takes cultural heritage into consideration as an autonomous and distinguished character of each property which need to be separated from environmental assessment. The guideline, furthermore, addresses the specific aspects of World Heritage sites including the OUV, authenticity and integrity that should be particularly considered in the HIA"[5].

2 Comparative analysis of two case studies

2.1 Cologne Cathedral, Cologne, Germany

The Cologne Cathedral as Gothic masterpiece is one of the well-known World Heritage (WH) sites worldwide, which was inscribed on UNESCO World Heritage List in 1996 during the 20th World Heritage Committee meeting under criteria (i) "exceptional work of human creative genius", (ii) "more than six centuries Cologne Cathedral marks the zenith of cathedral architecture and at the same time its culmination", and (iv) "Cologne Cathedral is a powerful testimony to the strength and persistence of Christian belief in medieval and modern Europe"[6](Fig. 1).

3 紅色是就科隆大教堂的突出普遍價值的新修改方案/The new adapted scheme in respect to OUV of the Cologne Cathedral in red

However, Cologne like any other major city with a large number of inhabitants has been facing urban renewal and reconstruction steadily. In 2002, a new master plan for Cologne was a matter of concerns for the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. The five skyscrapers exceeding 100-metre height in the right bank of the Rhine river would have definitely negative impacts visually on both skyline of the city and the Cologne Cathedral.

Subsequently, UNESCO World Heritage Committee (27 COM 7B.63) requested a detailed report of a new urban development project from the State Party in 2003, and following in 2004 (28 COM 15B.70) the Cologne Cathedral was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger on the basis of lack of adequate details and cooperation of the State Party.

Accordingly, in 2005 the construction project was halted by Cologne municipality and Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) meanwhile has been done by RWTH Aachen University (Fig. 2). The visual assessment demonstrates large negative impacts of the high-rise towers on the visual integrity of Cologne Cathedral and its setting. Respectively, the study recommended, "the ICE High-Rise Cluster should be reviewed and the buffer zone around Cologne Cathedral should be enlarged by a monitored zone in order to avoid similar conflict in the future"[6].

As a result of VIA as well as the numerous workshops and conferences in different levels of stakeholders, the project was revised and a new design concept proposed with respect to Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the cathedral (Fig. 3). Moreover, it was recommended to extend the buffer zone in view of visual integrity and better protection of the World Heritage property of Cologne Cathedral (Fig. 3) against further urban developments. Eventually, the Cologne Cathedral was removed from World Heritage in Danger List in 2006 (30 COM 8C.3), and further on, the buffer zone was modified in 2008.

2.2 Historic Centre of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

The urban restructure and development projects in "Historic Centre of Vienna" is another example of this rising conflict. "Historic Center of Vienna" was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage property in 2001 during the 25th World Heritage Committee meeting (Decision 25 COM XA). This valuable site inscribes in the UNESCO List under criteria (ii) due to its urban and architectural features as "a continuing interchange of values throughout the second millennium", (iv) based on the "three key periods of European cultural and political development - the Middle Ages, the Baroque period, and the Gründerzeit -", and (vi) "since the 16th century Vienna has been universally acknowledged to be the musical capital of Europe"[7]. Although the site meets other the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) conditions such as integrity, authenticity as well as protection and management requirements, development pressures especially high-rise development and its negative visual impacts on the skyline of the site were addressed by ICOMOS and UNESCO World Heritage Committee. The Wien-Mitte project with a height of 97m was recognised as a potential risk on the World Heritage property in 2001. Since that time the site has faced many urban development projects such as Hochhausprojekt am Hauptbahnhof (2002), Planned 100m high building at Vienna Central Train Station and new Kometgründe-Meidling project (2008), and revitalisation of urban structure around InterContinental Hotel (2013). In 2008 and 2009, UNESCO World Heritage Committee asked for the comprehensive Visual Impact Assessment and finally, in 2010, the first Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) had been conducted which was focused on the impact of projects "Vienna Central Train Station and Kometgrunde on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)"1)[8]. Additionally, the city of Vienna did so much efforts to deal with the problem such as the state of conservation in 2011, Advanced 3D modelling technology, and 4 workshops in regard to a cooperative procedure for urban expert. Subsequently, the committee recommended the maximum height for the planned projects in 2012. However, VIA focused particularly on the impacts of the projects on the Palace and Gardens of Sch?nbrunn.

Currently, the planned construction of Heumarkt Neu building project in the area of World Heritage property of Historic Centre of Vienna has been faced the site the serious challenges again. The project is including the development of Intercontinental Hotel, Ice Skating Club, and Konzerthaus Area. The project has been addressed by the ICOMOS and UNESCO World Heritage Committee several times regarding the strong potential visual impacts particularly on the famous integrity of the Belvedere view (Fig. 4). Respectively, the proposed height and volume of an extant hotel is more than the current buildings and accordingly, ICOMOS and UNESCO World Heritage Com?mittee considered that the urban development project was unacceptable and would have the significant threats to OUV of the site. As a result, the property has been in the List of World Heritage in Danger since 2017 (decision 41 COM 7B.42) and the State Party had asked to conduct HIA regarding assessing the impacts of the proposed project to the OUV of the site by the purpose of mitigating adverse impacts.

In 2019, "Heritage Impact Assessment, Heumarkt Neu Construction Project and Development of the World Heritage property Historic Centre of Vienna" was conducted by michael kloos planning and heritage consultancy[12]. The HIA studied the characteristics of Vienna's urban features and skyline as well as Attributes of the World Heritage property Historic Centre of Vienna. Depend on the study, the important viewpoints were defined to evaluate the visual impacts of planned Heumarkt Neu project on the OUV of the site (Fig. 5). The assessment indicates that the planned project has large/very large impacts on the several attributes of Historic Centre of Vienna such as continuous exchange of values, Monocentric urban structure, Axial Baroque gardens and consistent streetscapes (Fig. 6).

Based on the HIA report 2019, ICOMOS requested the state party to halt any further construction of the project and apply the recommendation and mitigation strategies.

3 Discussion and conclusion

In 2015, the 20th General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention "adopted a Policy on the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention"[9]. Afterwards, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention[10](para. 119) emphasises that the sustainable use and any changes in the WH areas should be in respect to the OUV of World Heritage properties. HIA as an assessment tool could improve the management of WH sites while considering the Sustainable Development Goals. Identifying the threats and their corresponding negative impacts are the first and initial step to promote sustainable solutions. Afterwards, the fundamental step and result of HIA is recommendation and mitigation strategies. The mitigation measures should avoid, reduce, or compensate the negative impacts and improve the positive impacts of urban development in line with the sustainable development of WH properties as well as enhancing local community quality-of-life and well-being.

Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention 1972[11]underscores that each State Party is responsible for the protection and conservation of their cultural and natural heritage. In case of Cologne Cathedral, for example, the lack of appropriate collaboration of German authorities led to the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in danger. However, the visual impact study illustrated clearly the adverse impacts of new urban development on the OUV of the site. Accordingly, the proposed redesign of the project as a mitigation strategy promoted the sustainable solution for the site that was not only time- and cost-efficient for stakeholders, but also prevent the adverse impacts of the high-rise project on the OUV of property. Moreover, the extension of the buffer zone as another mitigation solution has improved the protection and conservation of the site and to sustain its OUV in future.

The Historic Centre of Vienna is an example of a WH site that has faced many urban renewals and changes in its history. The study of Vienna's skyline before and since the inscription of Historic Centre of Vienna on the WH List in 2001 demonstrations that the numerous high-rise buildings was constructed inside and outside of buffer zone of the property during this period that have caused negative impacts on the Vienna's historic skyline. The concept of Heumarkt Neu project was announced in an International architectural competition and the architectural office Isay Weinfeld won the competition in 2014 although their proposed design exceeded the maximum recommended height by UNESCO World Heritage Committee/ICOMOS in 2012.

The Heritage Impact Assessment in 2019 evaluated the potential negative and positive impacts of Heumarkt Neu project on the WH site especially from Belvedere garden which represents one of the most famous views of the historic city of Vienna including St. Stephen's Cathedral and the symmetry of the typical Baroque garden characteristics (Fig. 7). As mentioned above the project was not acceptable due to its several adverse impacts on the OUV of the site and as a result the project was stopped for two years in order to prepare more protection measures to sustain the OUV, such as the preparation of management plan and "adding formal protection and planning instruments at the level of the city of Vienna"[12].

Overall, rapid urbanisation is still one of the major threats to many WH properties worldwide. The management plans of WH properties should secure sustainable development and protection of the OUV. Heritage Impact Assessment can be considered as an effective tool to monitor and manage the changes in a sustainable way. Cologne Cathedral and Historic Centre of Vienna are two evidences of uprising conflict between urban development and heritage protection policies. Although HIA can be applied in pre-, during and post-construction phases, in both cases the HIA was applied too late resulting in more time, cost and effort. Obviously, early HIA at planning and proposal phases could drive a better role in balancing cultural heritage protection and urban development needs. Besides, both examples definite this fact that buffer zone is not a sufficient protection tool, particularly for safeguarding the visual integrity of a site, as long as it addresses only a horizontal map without considering the visual authenticity and integrity. Since many highrise constructions could arise out of buffer zone but still have their negative impacts on the OUV of the properties, the Visual Impact Assessment could support the identification of more adequate buffer zone for the World Heritage properties. Ultimately, it should be mentioned that so many HIAs are suffering from the lack of comprehensive methodologies that evaluate various impacts, besides the visual impacts, on the OUV.□

4 美景宮包括斯蒂芬大教堂的現(xiàn)狀/Current situation of Belvedere Garden view including Stephan's Cathedral

5 計(jì)劃中對洲際酒店的擴(kuò)建/Planned expand InterContinental Hotel

然而，科隆和任何其他擁有大量人口的主要城市一樣不斷面臨城市更新和重建的需求。2002 年，一份新的科隆市總體規(guī)劃提上了聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)委員會的議事日程。這份總規(guī)在萊茵河右岸規(guī)劃了5 座超過100m 高的摩天大樓，它們無疑會對城市天際線和科隆大教堂造成負(fù)面影響。

于是，聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)委員會（決議27 COM 7B.36）在2003 年要求締約國遞交一份有關(guān)新城市開發(fā)項(xiàng)目的詳細(xì)報(bào)告，并于此后的2004 年（決議28 COM 15B.70），在締約國未能提供足夠細(xì)節(jié)信息且未能充分配合的情況下，把科隆大教堂列入《瀕危世界遺產(chǎn)名錄》。

因此，科隆地方政府于2005 年暫停了這個建設(shè)項(xiàng)目，同時由亞琛工業(yè)大學(xué)完成了視覺影響評估（VIA）工作（圖2）。這份視覺評估報(bào)告闡述了這些高層建筑將對科隆大教堂及其周邊環(huán)境的視覺完整性產(chǎn)生若干嚴(yán)重的負(fù)面影響。與此同時，評估研究提出建議，“應(yīng)重新評審德國城際列車終點(diǎn)站的高層建筑項(xiàng)目，且科隆大教堂的緩沖區(qū)也應(yīng)根據(jù)遺產(chǎn)監(jiān)測范圍進(jìn)行擴(kuò)大，避免未來再次產(chǎn)生類似的沖突”[6]。

在進(jìn)行視覺影響評估和舉辦無數(shù)由不同層面利益相關(guān)者參加的工作坊和工作會議后，最終重新對項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行評審，并提出了尊重大教堂突出普遍價值（OUV）的新概念設(shè)計(jì)方案（圖3）。不僅如此，出于保護(hù)視覺完整性的目的和使科隆大教堂世界遺產(chǎn)地在未來免遭更多城市開發(fā)影響的考慮，締約國也提出了擴(kuò)大遺產(chǎn)地緩沖區(qū)范圍的建議?？坡〈蠼烫米詈笥?006 年（決議30 COM 8C.3）從《瀕危世界遺產(chǎn)名錄》上移除，并且于2008 年修改了緩沖區(qū)的邊界。

2.2 維也納城市歷史中心，維也納，奧地利

維也納城市歷史中心的城市重建和開發(fā)項(xiàng)目也同樣反映了此類矛盾與日俱增的情況。維也納城市歷史中心于2001 年第25 屆世界遺產(chǎn)委員會會議（決議25 COM XA）列入聯(lián)合國教科文組織《世界遺產(chǎn)名錄》。這一珍貴的遺產(chǎn)地因其城市和建筑風(fēng)貌特色按照標(biāo)準(zhǔn)ii：“貫穿人類紀(jì)元第二個千年的連綿不斷的人類價值交流”；和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)iv 提到的價值基礎(chǔ)：“見證歐洲文化和政治發(fā)展史上的3 個關(guān)鍵時期——中世紀(jì)、巴洛克時期和德國19 世紀(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮時期風(fēng)格”；以及標(biāo)準(zhǔn)v：“16 世紀(jì)以后維亞納成為全球公認(rèn)的歐洲音樂之都”[7]列入世界遺產(chǎn)名錄。盡管遺產(chǎn)地滿足了其他突出普遍價值的要求，如完整性、真實(shí)性和保護(hù)與管理要求等，國際古跡遺址理事會和聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)委員會仍然提到了它所面臨的城市開發(fā)壓力，尤其是高層建筑開發(fā)及其對遺產(chǎn)地天際線的負(fù)面視覺影響。2001年，曾有97m 高的公共交通樞紐建筑項(xiàng)目對這處世界遺產(chǎn)地構(gòu)成潛在威脅。自此之后，這處遺產(chǎn)地就不斷受到城市開發(fā)項(xiàng)目的影響，如中央火車站大廈（2002）、為維也納中央火車站規(guī)劃的100m 高層建筑和梅德林地區(qū)的新住宅開發(fā)項(xiàng)目（2008），以及洲際酒店附近城市空間結(jié)構(gòu)的更新項(xiàng)目（2013）等。聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)委員會曾分別于2008 年和2009 年提出，要求締約國提交遺產(chǎn)地綜合視覺影響評估。最后在2010 年完成了第一版視覺影響評估（VIA）報(bào)告，主要針對“維也納中央火車站和梅德林地區(qū)的新住宅開發(fā)項(xiàng)目對突出普遍價值”的影響進(jìn)行評估1）[8]。此外，維也納市政府也做了許多努力來應(yīng)對這個問題，如2011 年完成的遺產(chǎn)地保護(hù)狀況報(bào)告、先進(jìn)的三維建模分析技術(shù)，以及曾舉辦4 場城市規(guī)劃專家程序相關(guān)的工作坊。最后，世界遺產(chǎn)委員會在2012 年為這些規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目提出了限高建議。而視覺影響評估則只具體針對這些項(xiàng)目對申布倫宮殿和花園的影響狀況進(jìn)行評估。

目前，位于維也納歷史中心遺產(chǎn)核心區(qū)內(nèi)的新牧草市場大廈規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目又讓這處遺產(chǎn)地再次面臨嚴(yán)重挑戰(zhàn)。開發(fā)項(xiàng)目包括洲際酒店、速滑俱樂部和音樂廳的區(qū)域。國際古跡遺址理事會和聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)委員會曾多次提到該項(xiàng)目對遺產(chǎn)地構(gòu)成嚴(yán)重的潛在視覺影響，尤其是對著名的美景宮景觀完整性的破壞（圖4）。與此同時，規(guī)劃的酒店建筑高度和體量都超過了現(xiàn)有的建筑指標(biāo)，因此，國際古跡遺址理事會和聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)委員會認(rèn)為這個城市開發(fā)項(xiàng)目完全無法接受，并會嚴(yán)重威脅遺產(chǎn)地的突出普遍價值。由此導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果是，這處遺產(chǎn)地從2017 年（決議41 COM 7B.42）起列入瀕危世界遺產(chǎn)名錄，締約國也被要求對規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目對遺產(chǎn)地突出普遍價值的影響進(jìn)行遺產(chǎn)影響評估，以緩解其負(fù)面影響。

6 對維也納歷史中心世界遺產(chǎn)地核心價值要點(diǎn)的影響/Effects on attributes of the World Heritage property Historic Centre of Vienna（圖片來源/Sources: 參考文獻(xiàn)/Ref[12]）

7 美景宮著名景觀，左側(cè)還有圣斯蒂芬大教堂/The famous view of Belvedere garden including St. Stephen's Cathedral on the left side （攝影/Photo: Baharak Seyedashrafi, 2019）

2019 年，邁克爾·克羅斯規(guī)劃與遺產(chǎn)咨詢完成了《遺產(chǎn)影響評估——新牧草市場建設(shè)項(xiàng)目和世界遺產(chǎn)地維也納歷史中心的發(fā)展》報(bào)告[12]。這份遺產(chǎn)影響評估報(bào)告對維也納的城市風(fēng)貌、天際線，以及維亞納歷史中心作為世界遺產(chǎn)的核心價值要點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了研究。通過這份研究，認(rèn)定了若干重要的景觀視域，在此基礎(chǔ)上對規(guī)劃中的新牧草市場項(xiàng)目對遺產(chǎn)地的視覺影響進(jìn)行評估（圖5）。評估表明，規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目對維也納歷史中心的多項(xiàng)核心價值要點(diǎn)構(gòu)成嚴(yán)重或非常嚴(yán)重的影響，如對見證持續(xù)的價值交流的影響、對單一中心城市空間結(jié)構(gòu)的影響、對巴洛克軸線花園和連續(xù)街道景觀的影響等（圖6）。

根據(jù)2019 年的這份遺產(chǎn)影響評估報(bào)告，國際古跡遺址理事會要求締約國暫停項(xiàng)目未來的任何建設(shè)活動，并實(shí)施報(bào)告建議的內(nèi)容和緩解策略。

3 探討與結(jié)論

在2015 年的《世界遺產(chǎn)公約》第20 屆締約國全體會議曾“采納一項(xiàng)將可持續(xù)發(fā)展要素納入《世界遺產(chǎn)公約》進(jìn)程的策略”[9]。此后，《實(shí)施世界遺產(chǎn)公約的操作指南》[10]（第119 節(jié)）強(qiáng)調(diào)，在世界遺產(chǎn)地進(jìn)行可持續(xù)利用和進(jìn)行任何改變的行動都必須尊重世界遺產(chǎn)的突出普遍價值。遺產(chǎn)影響評估是一項(xiàng)能在改善世界遺產(chǎn)地管理水平的同時，考慮到各類可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)的工具。對威脅因素及其相應(yīng)負(fù)面影響結(jié)果的認(rèn)定是推廣可持續(xù)解決方案的首要措施和首善之舉。其次，遺產(chǎn)影響評估的基本步驟和結(jié)論是提出建議和緩解策略。緩解措施應(yīng)根據(jù)世界遺產(chǎn)地的可持續(xù)發(fā)展和加強(qiáng)本土社區(qū)生活品質(zhì)和健康發(fā)展的原則，避免、減輕或彌補(bǔ)城市開發(fā)的負(fù)面影響，并加強(qiáng)其正面影響。

1972 年的《世界遺產(chǎn)公約》第4 條強(qiáng)調(diào)，每個締約國都有責(zé)任保護(hù)和保存其文化遺產(chǎn)與自然遺產(chǎn)。在科隆大教堂的案例中，由于德國政府未能采取適當(dāng)?shù)膮f(xié)調(diào)措施，導(dǎo)致遺產(chǎn)列入瀕危世界遺產(chǎn)名錄。但視覺影響評估的研究清晰地說明了新城市開發(fā)項(xiàng)目對這處遺產(chǎn)地突出普遍價值的若干負(fù)面影響。由此，項(xiàng)目新設(shè)計(jì)的方案作為一項(xiàng)緩解措施為遺產(chǎn)地提出了可持續(xù)發(fā)展的解決方案（圖2）。對各利益相關(guān)方來說，這樣不僅節(jié)約了時間和資金成本，也讓遺產(chǎn)地的突出普遍價值能免遭高層建筑項(xiàng)目的負(fù)面影響。此外，緩沖區(qū)范圍的擴(kuò)大作為另一項(xiàng)緩解措施，也改善了遺產(chǎn)地的保護(hù)和保存狀況，并能在未來延續(xù)遺產(chǎn)地的突出普遍價值。

維也納歷史中心是一個歷史上一直都面臨許多城市更新和改造狀況的世界遺產(chǎn)地案例。在2001年維也納歷史中心列入世界遺產(chǎn)名錄的前后，對維也納天際線的研究就曾表明，在此期間位于緩沖區(qū)內(nèi)外的無數(shù)高層建筑建設(shè)項(xiàng)目對維也納的歷史天際線造成了負(fù)面影響。新牧草市場項(xiàng)目的概念公布于一次國際建筑方案競賽，艾賽·韋恩費(fèi)爾德建筑師事務(wù)所2014 年的方案獲選——盡管他們提交的設(shè)計(jì)突破了聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)委員會和國際古跡遺址理事會在2012 年提出的限高建議。

2019 年的遺產(chǎn)影響評估報(bào)告對新牧草市場項(xiàng)目對世界遺產(chǎn)地的潛在正面和負(fù)面影響進(jìn)行了評估，尤其是對美泉宮花園（圖7）的景觀視域進(jìn)行評估——這是維也納歷史城市最著名的景觀之一，圣斯蒂芬大教堂和巴洛克花園典型的對稱要素在其中一覽無余（圖5）。如前所述，由于可能對遺產(chǎn)地的突出普遍價值產(chǎn)生若干不同的負(fù)面影響，項(xiàng)目沒有得到認(rèn)可。于是，這個項(xiàng)目暫停了兩年，以便為延續(xù)遺產(chǎn)地的突出普遍價值準(zhǔn)備好更多保護(hù)性的措施，如管理規(guī)劃的籌備和“在維也納城市管理層面增加正式的保護(hù)和規(guī)劃工具”[12]。

綜上所述，迅速發(fā)展的城市化進(jìn)程仍是全球許多世界遺產(chǎn)地的主要威脅因素之一。世界遺產(chǎn)的管理規(guī)劃應(yīng)該確?？沙掷m(xù)的發(fā)展和對突出普遍價值的保護(hù)。遺產(chǎn)影響評估作為一項(xiàng)有效工具，可以以可持續(xù)的方式對遺產(chǎn)地進(jìn)行監(jiān)測和管理。科隆大教堂和維也納歷史中心正是城市開發(fā)與遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)政策之間的矛盾表現(xiàn)日益突出的兩個例證。盡管遺產(chǎn)影響評估可以在建設(shè)前、建設(shè)期間和建設(shè)后的各階段進(jìn)行，在這兩個案例中，都因?yàn)閷?shí)施評估階段的落后，導(dǎo)致了更多的時間、精力和資金的投入。顯然，在規(guī)劃和方案設(shè)計(jì)的早期階段就進(jìn)行遺產(chǎn)影響評估將對在遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)和城市開發(fā)需求之間取得平衡產(chǎn)生更好的作用。此外，這兩個案例都充分說明，當(dāng)遺產(chǎn)地的緩沖區(qū)劃定僅限于地圖平面的范圍，而不考慮視覺的真實(shí)性和完整性，緩沖區(qū)作為保護(hù)手段就相當(dāng)不充分，對遺產(chǎn)地視覺完整性的保護(hù)來說尤其是這樣。因?yàn)樵S多在緩沖區(qū)范圍之外建設(shè)的高層建筑仍對遺產(chǎn)地的突出普遍價值造成損害，所以世界遺產(chǎn)地的視覺影響評估結(jié)論能幫助劃定保護(hù)效果更充分的緩沖區(qū)。最后還應(yīng)提到的是，有許多遺產(chǎn)影響評估報(bào)告仍然欠缺綜合性的方法論來應(yīng)對除視覺影響之外、針對突出普遍價值其他層面進(jìn)行影響評估的工作?！?/p>

注釋/Note

1）遞交給世界遺產(chǎn)中心的維也納歷史中心和申布倫宮殿和花園的世界遺產(chǎn)地保護(hù)狀況報(bào)告，以及為兩處聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)的視覺影響研究，研究針對維也納中央火車站項(xiàng)目和梅德林地區(qū)的住宅項(xiàng)目對突出普遍價值的潛在影響進(jìn)行評估，是對2020年1月提交給聯(lián)合國教科文組織世界遺產(chǎn)中心評估報(bào)告的補(bǔ)充。/Report on the state of conservation of the world Heritage properties of the Historic Centre of Vienna and the Palace and Gardens of Schoenbrunn to the World Heritage Centre and a Visual Impact Study fort the two UNESCO World Heritage properties supplementing the assessment submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in January 2010 with regard to possible effects of the projects der Vienna Central Train Station and Kometgrunde on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV).

參考文獻(xiàn)/References

[1] United Nation. The Conclusions on Cultural Heritage as a Strategic Resource for a Sustainable Europe[C]. Brussels, 20 May, 2014.

[2] Directive E.I.A. Directive-Directive (2014/52/EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive (2011/92/EU) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [J]. Official Journal of the European Union L, 2014, 124:1-18.

[3] VEILLON R and UNESCO World Heritage Centre. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES: A statistical analysis (1979-2013). Paris: UNESCO world heritage centre, 2014.

[4] SAGNIA B K. Cultural Impact Assessment Project, Framework for cultural impact assessment. Dakar: International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD), 2004.

[5] SEYEDASHRAFI B, RAVANKHAH M, WEIDNER S, SCHMIDT M. Applying Heritage Impact Assessment to Urban Development: World Heritage Property of Masjed-e Jame of Isfahan in Iran [J/OL]. Elsevier Ltd: Sustainable Cities and Society, 2017(31):213-224[2019-09-25]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.01.002.

[6] UNESCO World Heritage Centre (1992-2017). World Heritage List, Cologne Cathedral, Ref. 292bis [OL]. [2017-08-15]. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/292.

[7] Republic of Austria. The World Heritage "The Historic Centre of Vienna", Nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List, Vienna[OL]. 2000[2019-09-20]. https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1033.pdf

[8] Stadt Wien und in Zukunft Wien. UNESCO World Heritage Committee 33. COM 7B.89 u.90 , Sevilla, June 2009 and 34. COM 7B.76, Brasilia, July 2010. 2011.

[9] UNESCO World Heritage Centre 1992-2019, Sustainable Development; World Heritage and Sustainable Development[OL]. [2019-10-05]. https://whc.unesco.org/en/sustainabledevelopment/.

[10] U N E S C O. O p e rat i o n a l G u i d e l i ne s fo r the Implementations of the World Heritage Convention[OL]. 2017[2019-10-05]. http://whc.unesco.org/document/163852.

[11] UNESCO. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage[OL]. 1972[2014-12-16]. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf.

[12] KLOOS M., SEYEDASHRAFI B., and TEBART P. Heritage Impact Assessment, Heumarkt Neu Construction Project and Development of the World Heritage property Historic Center of Vienna[R]. micheal kloos. planning and heritage consultancy (mkphc), 2019.

[13] IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment) and UK IEA (Institute for Environmental Assessment). Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice[OL]. 1999[2015-02-03]. http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/specialpublications/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf

[14] ICOMOS. Guidance on Heritage Impact A s s e s s m e n t s fo r C u l t u ra l Wo r l d He r i t a g e Properties[M]. Paris: International Council on Monuments and Site, 2011.

[15] ICOMOS. Report on the joint high level UNESCO world heritage centre icomos advisory mission to the historic centre of vienna, austria [1033]. 2018.

[16] KLOOS M. Heritage Impact Assessment as a tool to open up perspectives for sustainability: three case studies related to discussions concerning the visual integrity of World Heritage Cultural and Urban Landscapes[M]. 2015:214.

[17] United Nation. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development[OL]. 2015[2017-09-25]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20 for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf