日本地域景觀的獨特性及其可持續管理

（日）下村彰男 劉銘

1 近年來景觀概念的變化

1.1 政策走向中體現出的景觀概念變化

21世紀，日本政府修訂、新增了關于景觀的一系列法律條例。不僅制定了與景觀直接相關的《景觀法》（《景観法》），而且對《文化財保護法》（《文化財保護法》）進行了修訂，首次將文化景觀歸類到文化財產之中。此外，對旅游相關基本法也進行了修訂，增加了推進文化旅游、生態旅游的相關法律條文（表1）。

這一系列的變動都有一個共同的關鍵詞即“地域個性”，《景觀法》中也明確提出該關鍵詞。雖然各個法律所涉及的對象、內容不同，但是都在強調地域個性——地域的自然、文化獨特性的重要性，并將通過政府與民間連攜形成地域個性作為目標。

表1 日本21世紀初期的風景法律政策動向Tab. 1 Movement of laws which is related to landscapes in the 2000s

1 活用地域文化資源開展社區發展Community development which utilized local resources

《景觀法》出臺的背景之一，是從20世紀70年代起，日本各地的自治體制定了諸多關于景觀的行政條例，并開始尋求上位法層面的支持。日本在城市地區、農村地區、自然地區都分別有涉及景觀、環境的相關法律，但卻互不相關，所屬的政府部門亦各不相同，各部門之間缺少充分的協同合作。此外，城市地域中的景觀問題被縮小在“風致地區”“美觀地區”等城市中的個別街道，僅從表面上對其進行美化而缺乏深層次的、綜合性的風景整頓措施及相關法律條例。因此，各個自治體不得不根據當地的地域特征與社會情況獨自制定適用的景觀條例。20世紀90年代，自治體獨自制定景觀條例已成慣例，在《景觀法》出臺之時，已經有500余個、約占總體30%的自治體制定了自己的景觀條例[1]。

從該過程以及2000年左右的法律變動中不難理解，“景觀”已不單單是目之所及的實景（視覺像），更是人們生產生活與土地的自然環境之間相互作用、日積月累而形成的特色，同時也是反映其形成過程的媒介[2]。1992年，“人類與自然的共同作品”文化景觀遺產被納入《世界文化遺產名錄》，體現出這種景觀概念的變化符合國際趨勢。

日本的法律制度調整中體現出的景觀概念的變化，可以總結為以下2點：1）景觀不單單是人眼看到的實景，更是人們生產生活與土地的自然環境相互作用的媒介。2）景觀的保全、管理、整備等不能單純由公共機關主導，需要當地的居民從多角度參與其中，共同維持并發展景觀。

1.2 地域景觀與社區發展

如果能夠理解景觀是人們生產生活與土地的自然環境之間相互作用、日積月累的產物，那么便能夠理解景觀是地域個性的重要體現，是一種“地域資源”。以此為前提，可以認為景觀是一種能夠促進居民之間溝通交流的基礎設施，在城鄉規劃中起著重要的作用。

對于當地居民而言，地域獨有的個性景觀與日常生活密不可分，承載著童年的美好回憶，也容易引發人們的鄉愁。景觀記錄了人們共同經歷過的歷史變遷，發揮著維系當地居民交流活動的紐帶作用。通過交流，重新思考、審視集體共有的地域景觀，能夠使當地居民重新認識身邊習以為常的風景，加深對所在地域的理解。維持、管理地域獨有的個性景觀，能夠提高居民對地域的歸屬感，發揮重構地域交流的功能。

對于地域外的來訪者（游客）而言，地域獨有的個性景觀是重要的旅游資源。在日本，主流的旅游方式已經從馬不停蹄、短時間游覽多個地區的周游型旅游，轉變為在一個地區停留數日、體驗當地生活的滯留型旅游。因此地域獨有的生活方式，包括當地美食、慶典活動等，作為旅游資源的地位不斷提升，日益受到重視。景觀是地域獨有的生活方式的視覺表達，不僅其本身可以作為開展旅游活動的舞臺，講解景觀的形成、與生活方式的相互關系也是游客理解當地的一個重要途徑。

綜上所述，地域生產生活形成了獨具個性的地域景觀。對地域景觀進行的維護管理，在以地域外來訪者的交流和支持作為基礎的、新型城鄉規劃的整個進程中，占據著核心地位，起著重要的支柱作用（圖1）。

2 景觀的多樣與均一

2.1 日本的景觀多樣性

與幅員遼闊的中國相比，日本國土面積狹小，但在日本各地卻不乏個性各異的地域景觀。日本國土東西窄、南北長，自北向南跨越亞寒帶、溫帶、亞熱帶等多種氣候帶，地形變化十分豐富。復雜多樣的自然環境，與人們多樣的生產生活方式相結合，形成了極其豐富的人地關系，孕育了各地域獨具個性的景觀。從日本全國范圍來看，景觀的類型十分豐富多樣。

以日本常見的造林樹種日本柳杉（Cryptomeria japonica）所形成的森林景觀為例，各個地域的森林景觀之間有顯著的差異（圖2）。日本柳杉在日本各地被廣泛種植，杉樹林景觀隨處可見，但絕不是千篇一律的，而是呈現出了各個地區的獨特個性[3-4]。

日本大分縣日田（圖2-1），奈良縣吉野（圖2-2）都是歷史悠久的杉樹林場，兩地的杉樹景觀截然不同。日田林場采用行列種植的方式，構成森林質感的樹冠排列整齊，給人井井有條的印象。而吉野林場的林木并沒有嚴格按照行列方式種植，景觀的質感較為柔和。那么為何同是杉樹林場，森林景觀卻有如此的差異？這是由于兩個林場的生產目的、下游產業不同，苗木的種植與管理方式也各不相同，使得兩者的森林景觀有顯著的差異。

2 多種多樣的日本柳杉（Cryptomeria japonica）森林景觀Various landscapes of Japanese cedar forests2-1 大分縣，日田林場Hita, ōita Prefecture2-2 奈良縣，吉野林場Yoshino, Nara Prefecture2-3 京都府，北山林場Kitayama, Kyoto Prefecture2-4 宮崎縣，綾林場Morotsuka, Miyazaki Prefecture

日田林場主要為建筑物提供建材，以高效率地生產良材為目標，采用插條種植，種植密度相對較低，采伐周期短（30～35年）。而吉野林場是著名的生產酒桶、醬油桶的林場，以培育出圓滿無節、樹干粗大的木材為目標，采用實生苗高密度種植，經過長期的間伐管理，60～80年方可成材。就種植初期階段的苗木密度而言，日田林場約3 000棵/hm2，吉野約10 000棵/hm2,達3倍差距；就樹種構成而言，日田林場中80%以上都是杉樹，而吉野林場則順應地形、小氣候等條件，采取杉樹與側柏等常綠樹混植的種植方式。地區產業和林業管理方式的不同，是各具特色的森林景觀得以形成的基礎。

再如專為京都的建筑和庭園提供木材，支撐著“京文化”的北山林場，其杉樹的干細長、分枝點高，森林景觀獨具特色（圖2-3）；為九州縣宮崎提供建材的綾林場，杉樹的冠形細長，組成了特別的風景（圖2-4）。可以說，各個地區林業發展的歷史進程不同，必然導致林木的形態和林場管理方式不同，由此各地的杉樹林景觀就有了地域特色，有了地域差異。

綜上所述，同一種杉樹，不同地區的森林景觀也可以各具特色，從日本全國范圍來看，杉樹的森林景觀十分多樣。特別是混交林的森林景觀受到所在地區的風土人情、歷史和現代的社會狀況的影響，各地區之間存在巨大的差異。同時，構成各地區的景觀除了山體、森林，還有田野、草地、民居、墻垣等多種要素。每一個要素都如同上述的杉樹林一樣，帶有當地歷史文化的深刻烙印，能夠形成當地絕無僅有、無法復制的獨特景觀。這些景觀要素相結合，就組成了完整的、無可替代的地域景觀。從日本全國范圍來看，景觀的類型就十分豐富多樣了。

2.2 景觀的均一化

如上文所述，景觀是在人們順應自然、改造自然的歷史進程中逐漸形成的。人們不斷克服自然環境中的不利因素，就會不斷改寫或強化一個地區的景觀，今日的景觀也能夠體現出生產生活方式轉變的過程[5]。

然而近代以來，人與自然環境、土地的關系發生了巨大的變化。由于科學技術的發展，人們改造自然的能力被極大地拓展。能夠建造超過人類身體尺度和基準的大型營造，如無視地形等制約條件建造大規模、高品質的建筑和構筑物。這樣的項目在日本也是屢見不鮮。同時，生活必需品，如家具、燃料、肥料等，也越來越多地用人工素材來代替自然材料。在生產生活逐漸脫離土地制約的現在，人們的生產生活方式中已經看不到與所在地區自然環境（土地）之間的聯系。從土地的制約中解放，意味著人們可以將土地看作均質的空間，把自由地設計、改造自然空間作為新的目標。科學技術的迅猛發展，已經基本實現了這一目標，同時隨著“人、物、金錢、信息”在更廣泛的范圍內以更快的速度流動，追求功能合理性和經濟合理性的生活空間被接二連三地設計建造而成。因此，景觀出現了均質化、同一化的趨勢，日本各地出現了大同小異的風景（圖3）。這種現象十分普遍，已經引發了對景觀均質化的批判。雖然有批判的聲音，但在日本各個地區，失去原本的自然、文化獨特性，引發景觀獨特性丟失的情況還在愈演愈烈。

3 景觀管理的新方向

3.1 景觀的地域特性

開篇所述，日本在21世紀前10年新增、修訂了一系列景觀政策，這一系列變動的根本原因在于日本社會對于景觀的理解和價值觀發生了變化。人們對于一味追求功能合理性、經濟合理性而導致的景觀均質化產生了反感，因此萌發阻止均質化、重現地域自然和人文特色，即恢復地域景觀特色的愿望，這就是景觀價值觀變化的原因。

那么，景觀的地域特色到底是什么？舉例而言，巖手縣宮古市是2011年東日本大地震的受災地區之一，宮古市濱海地區的歷史漁村聚落調查研究結果明確了該地區景觀的獨特性。在海面上沿網格設置多個視點（距海岸線3 km，間距200 m，網格狀設置了視點，圖4），使用GIS計算各個視點的可視領域，然后將可視領域的陸地部分疊加，用顏色深淺表示被視頻度，圖上藍色越深的地方表示被視頻度越高。于是陸地上顏色最深的地方，就是視野最好、能夠看到最多海面的地方。再將聚落、道路等地物信息疊加在可視領域圖上，就不難發現村落和道路都位于可視領域高的地方。這個地區經常受到海嘯的侵襲，因此人們將生活休息的村莊建設在遠離海岸的高地上；在海邊低地建設名為“番屋”小漁屋，供漁民放置工具兼做短暫休息。自古以來這里的人們一直過著這種生活—工作（漁業） 各在一處的分離型生活。但正如分析結果所示，當地人是想要保持和大海的緊密聯系。雖然為了躲避海嘯，當地人不得不居住在臺地，在空間上遠離了大海，但視覺上與大海的距離其實非常近，因此可以體會到這里的人們希望能夠在日常生活中時刻看到大海、時刻感受大海的壯美和殘酷。

4 可視領域分析圖Visible analysis from the sea to the land

與之形成鮮明對比的是京都府伊根町的景觀。得益于周邊的地形優勢，伊根町不僅沒有海嘯隱患，潮水漲落對該聚落的影響也很小。當地的民居是一種將立柱打到海底、能夠收納漁船的建筑，被稱作“舟屋”。從空間和視覺的距離而言，伊根町的人們選擇了十分貼近大海的生活方式。這2個地區的人們順應當地的海洋和地形條件，分別形成了合理的生活方式，決定了居所、聚落與海面的空間位置關系，生活方式的不同體現在地域獨特的風景之中（圖5）。

除了聚落的空間位置，日本各地的海岸防災林和房屋周邊的防護林景觀也反映著當地人對自然災害的應對方式。沖繩縣備瀨地區經常受到臺風的侵襲，居民采用茂密的菲島福木（Garcinia subelliptica）做防護林保護房屋，同時防護林與防護林相連，組成綠墻，發揮著沿海防風林的作用，保護內部的農田（圖6）。在山形縣莊內地區，強風常伴隨飛沙，因此人們在海邊的沙丘上種植了長達數百米的黑松（Pinns thunbergi）防沙林，農地設置在兩片防沙林之中。經過長期的經營和管理，形成了防沙林之中夾雜著農地的獨具個性的景觀。

適應每個地區的氣候、地形等自然條件，保護住宅和農田，維持日常生活，各個地區形成了各自獨特的林地形態和結構，形成了具有地域特色的獨特風景。

簡而言之，景觀的地域特性是指人們根據各地自然環境條件（自然合理性）形成的生活方式，這種生活方式經過漫長的時間在地域空間上留下了不可磨滅的烙印，由此形成地域獨有的個性風景（圖7）。

圖8是關于維持、發展地域特色風景的方法圖。為了構筑這種良性循環，就要將景觀置于地域資源的位置上，使其發揮出社區發展的中軸、核心作用。

3.2 構筑新型風景管理制度

日本的政策變化象征著景觀價值觀的轉變，反映出人們生活與地域、土地的關系開始發生變化。在這樣的社會轉型期，景觀規劃和管理需要新的思維方式和新的方法論[6]。新思維、方法論需要能解決以下現實問題：政府該如何實現與以當地居民為首的民間組織的交流合作？如何保護和發展地域特色景觀？與民間組織協力保護和發展地域特色景觀的過程又該如何促進社區發展？筆者提出，構筑這種方法論的關鍵在于以下2個相互關系的要點。

1）主體層面：景觀管理（保全、整備、發展等）需要政府與以當地居民為首的民間組織協作進行（“民”），而不能全權委托給政府專家等公共機關（“公”）；2）資金層面：除了依靠公共資金提供景觀管理費用以外，還需要構建“調查研究—普及宣傳—保全管理—有效利用”循環（圖9），構建確保自主資金（當地政府可以自由支配的財政收入）和新參與者的合理形態和相關政策方法。

為實現政府與居民協作來共同管理景觀，雙方必須充分理解且重視地域景觀的獨特性，并達成共識。為此需要通過“調查研究”來明確當地景觀與其他地區的區別，并挖掘風景與自然、歷史條件之間的關系。通過“普及宣傳”將這類研究的成果公之于眾。在此基礎上，人們才能理解地域景觀這一管理對象，明確保護地域景觀的立場，順利地開展官民協作，對地域景觀進行可持續的“保全管理”。通過“有效利用”來保障資金，繼續開展下一輪的調查研究、普及宣傳、保全管理，這一景觀管理的新循環就是本文筆者提供的新思路。

此外，每一個環節都需要單獨討論其具體方法，構筑相應的方法論。在“調查研究”環節，需要深入探討提煉地域景觀特性的研究方法，思考挖掘地域景觀與自然、歷史、社會環境之間關系的方法論。在“普及宣傳”環節，需要思考如何激發居民與行政機關協同合作的意愿，如何通過教育等途徑提高居民對當地景觀的理解程度。在“保全管理”環節，在提高居民和來訪者參與程度的同時，必須要解決保障自發性資金的艱巨任務。

5 聚落與海面的位置關系分析圖Positional relation between houses and the sea

6 聚落與農田、防風林之間多樣的形態關系The form of forests which protect homesteads and farmlands

筆者提出新型“循環型風景管理”的方法論之所以不可或缺，一個重要原因是日本政府降低了 “生活環境整備”在行政中的優先性。一直以來，日本的景觀和生活環境的整備管理大多依靠政府資金，以項目的形式進行。然而隨著景觀和生活環境的變化，依賴“公”資金變得越來越困難，同時由于政府資金使用時有著諸多限制，難以適應各地不同的景觀所需要的多樣化管理，往往顧及不到管理的細節之處。

因此近年來，日本各地在設法補充政府資金不足的同時，紛紛開始采取措施獲取自主資金。其主要途徑是以稅費、贊助金、購物花費等形式，爭取游客等外部人員的支援[7]。此外，2014年日本環境省和文化廳共同制定《促進地域自然資產區域中的自然環境保全及可持續利用的相關法律》，明確闡明國立公園、名勝景區所在地的政府可以成立相關協會（專門管理某一國立公園或景區的組織）以收取入境費用。除國立公園之外，日本各地都展開了向來訪者征收“贊助金”的嘗試。此外，福岡縣太宰府市向使用收費停車場的游客征收“歷史及文化環境稅”，以稅收的形式保障資金來源，這筆資金被運用在環境管理、設施整備、宣傳推廣等歷史文化資源、觀光資源管理的相關環節。再如通過提高當地商品價格獲取資金，或通過設置環境保護基金來進行收支管理的方式也十分常見。

之所以出現這種依靠游客和外來者獲取自主資金、進行景觀管理的趨勢，原因之一在于越來越多的人認識到地域特色景觀需要人力、物力來維護管理。我們分別在東京都奧多摩地區、沖繩縣西表島地區、大分縣由布院地區進行調查，詢問游客“是否愿意為保護和管理當地風景提供資金支持”，結果顯示，3地都有約80%的來訪者愿意提供資金支持，由于每個地區的魅力度和旅游成本不同，圖10展示了由布院地區的調查結果，游客表示愿意提供的金額上限也不同。但即使是自愿支付金額較低的地方，其金額也足以為當地景觀管理提供強大的助力。

綜上所述，通過增進來訪者對地域特色經濟價值的認識，獲取管理地域特色景觀所需要的資金（自主資金），這一過程需要理論支持。將資金以景觀保護基金或其他形式進行管理，然后聯合政府、居民和來訪者，進一步深入挖掘地域景觀的特色，這一系列的過程都需要相應的人力和組織的支援，更加需要理論體系和方法論的構筑。

4 風景園林師的職責轉變

隨著景觀概念的變化，日本社會需要新的規劃設計理論，造園家的職責和所需的素養自然也與之前不同。由于景觀形成相關的地域自然與文化特性得到重視，在景觀規劃和城鄉規劃中，繼承地域的歷史成了首要目標。進行景觀保護和設計之時，首先需要解讀場所的性格和地域特色，在充分理解場地、地區景觀形成的歷史背景之后再進行討論和實踐。

原本風景園林師需要同時具備2種基本能力，一是從風景中讀取土地性格特征的能力，二是設計景觀、豐富生活環境的能力。近代社會對于后者的需求量極大，積累下大量與設計、工程等實操方面的知識，景觀設計成為重中之重。但在今后，對于讀取地域風景特色的風景解讀的能力和技術的需求量將會大量增加。隨著重視地域個性的景觀管理新方法的確立，風景園林師將從主導空間設計的設計師，轉變為幕后人員，為當地居民布置能夠保持和土地良好的關系的“生活舞臺”，支持他們營造居民主導的地域特色景觀。換言之，造園家將不再是依靠公款的政府建設項目的執行者，不再直接進行空間規劃和景觀設計，而是以支援者的姿態參與到居民培養地區特色景觀的工作中，幫助當地居民建立景觀的管理組織，并協助組織進行資金募集和管理。

從近代到現代，“人、物、金錢、信息”的流動愈加快速和廣泛，單純追求功能和經濟合理性的思想，導致各個地區之間生活方式、景觀等出現均一化的趨勢。在景觀設計領域，強調商業化和形式感的設計切斷了景觀與土地、地區的聯系，這雖然使其與設計、造型相關的技術得到了發展，卻可能造成喪失自然和文化獨特性的惡果，導致人們喪失對土地的眷戀，歸屬感越來越淡。在本應重視繼承場所記憶的園林領域，也出現了類似的情況，比如某些設計中無視土地的實際情況、硬要設計出“綠與水”的形態美的做法。在景觀設計的工作中，風景園林師最重要的職責是傳達、繼承土地的記憶，而非單純地創造出新的風景。如果不能充分理解土地的記憶和場所的性格就倉促進行設計，那么就會混亂場所的固有個性。

今后，社會需要的風景園林師將不單單是花費大量時間精力去創造新的景觀的人，更是愿意付出充足的時間和精力進行設計的前一個階段——讀取地域的特色景觀和其中蘊含深刻的人與自然關系的人。

5 小結

日本在21世紀前幾年對景觀相關的法律制度進行了大量的更改和補充，反映了日本社會對于景觀問題日益重視，對景觀的概念有了新的認知。景觀能夠反映出各個地區居民日常生活與自然的相互作用，體現當地的歷史，其發展和管理與城鄉規劃緊密結合在一起。而風景園林師在進行設計工作時，當務之急是要鍛煉從景觀中讀取地區歷史文化的技術和能力。

7 地域風景個性的形成過程，尊重地域的自然環境和社會歷史，形成合理的人地關系，從而產生了地域獨有的生活方式和獨具個性的地域風景Formation process of unique local landscapes. Rationality in relation with local nature makes unique character.(not economic rationality, functional rationality)

8 地域風景的管理循環圖Circulation to manage the unique local landscape

9 將地域風景作為資源、進行利用管理的“循環型管理” 概念圖An image of the cyclical management that incorporated the conservation and utilization of local resources

今后，理想的景觀管理方式應該是：明確各地景觀的獨特性，在此基礎上政府官方與民間形成共同的景觀認知，官民協作。在有效利用景觀資源的同時，對其進行可持續的維護管理。

（本文以作者在2018世界風景園林師高峰講壇上的發言稿為基礎進行補充。）

圖表來源：

圖1、5、7～10由作者自繪；圖2、3、6由作者攝；圖4基于日本國土地理院地圖，由共同研究者小野良平繪制；表1由作者自繪。

1 Recent Changes in the Concept of“Landscape”

1.1 Recent Changes in the Concept of “Landscape”as Seen in Trends in Government Policy

Japan established a series of landscape-related legislative systems in the 2000s. It enacted theLandscape Act, which deals directly with landscapes, and revised theLaw for the Protection of Cultural Propertiesto establish cultural landscapes as a class of cultural properties.In addition, it revised the basic law on tourism and developed policies promoting eco-tourism (Tab. 1).

Relevant to this series of actions is the key phrase chiiki no kosei (the unique characteristics of an area),which can also be found explicitly in theLandscape Act. Although the object is different by contents that each law deals with, this phrase basically suggests that the natural or cultural uniqueness of a place is important and that the local citizens and government should work together to develop it.

In the background of the establishment of theLandscape Act, many local governments have established the regulations about landscape until 2000,and have needed support of higher “law”. In Japan,legislative systems about landscape and environment was established separately according to urban area,rural area, natural area, and competent authority of each legal system was different, so mutual cooperation was not enough. In addition, the landscape was limited as an issue of the special district such as an aesthetic area or scenic districts in the urban area. So legislative systems about landscape were not be able to deal with landscape comprehensively. Therefore each local government developed landscape policies such as landscape ordinance according to each local character and social situation, and it became the big flow in the 1990s. When theLandscape Actwas established, more than 500 local governments which is 30% of the whole had the original regulations about landscape[1].

What these trends in legislative systems in the 2000s indicate is the idea that rather than being simply forms (visual images) that people see, landscapes are what developed as the historical accumulation of relationships between human activity and the natural environment, as well as the media that tell the story of that development[2]. This trend can also be considered an international one; in 1992, cultural landscapes were defined as the “combined works of nature and of man” by the World Heritage Convention.

Trends in Japan’s legislative systems in the 2000s indicate the following changes in landscape-related concepts: 1) Landscapes are not simply forms (visual images) that people see, and they are the historical accumulation of relationships between human activity and the natural environment in a given area, as well as the media that communicate this accumulation;2) Therefore, landscapes should not be preserved,managed, and maintained in a top-down manner by public organizations, but rather be developed with various kinds of participation from members of the local community.

10 由布院溫泉景區游客資源支付金額（WTP）調查成果（是否愿意為風景管理基金提供資金支持）An interview survey on the “willingness to pay” of visitors

1.2 Formation of Landscapes and Machizukuri(Community Development)

If we interpret a landscape as the historical accumulation of relationships between the natural environment of an area and the people who live there,then we can understand it as a unique element that is exclusive to that area and thus a kind of local resource.Further, interpreting landscapes as local resources gives them an important role in a type of community development that is based on interaction with people from outside of the area.

From the perspective of what community development means for local residents, the unique and characteristic landscape of an area is tied to the daily life of the people who live there and their childhood memories; it can evoke fond memories of their hometown. It can also be considered to play an important role as a bond that ties the local community together, as it is something that the people in that area have historically shared. Re-examining and reconceptualizing this shared unique and characteristic landscape can help others learn about the area better and see it in a new light. Preserving and managing unique and characteristic landscapes are thought to strengthen people’s sense of belonging to the local community and have an important function in rebuilding the local community as well.

Unique and characteristic landscapes are also an important touristic resource for visitors from outside the area. Tourism has shifted from moving between regions (excursion-style) to staying within a single region. This trend makes the lifestyles unique of each regions (including cuisine and festivals) an increasingly important resource. Landscapes are nothing other than visual representations of these unique local lifestyles. They function as the stage for unique tourist activities. More importantly, educating visitors about the relationship between the landscape and the local lifestyle depends on the understanding of the latter.

The mentality of conserving and managing unique landscapes formed by human activity can be considered as an important pillar, or even the core, of promoting a new kind of community development based on interaction with people from outside the community (Fig. 1).

2 Diversity and Homogenization of Landscapes

2.1 Diversity of Landscapes in Japan

Japan may be a small country compared with the vast expanse of China, but its various regions nevertheless contain their own unique landscapes.The narrow and long country stretches from north to south, spanning climate classifications from subarctic to subtropical. The topography is just as rich in variation,with a remarkably diverse collection of relationships between these natural environments and the activity of the people who live in them. This condition has led to the formation of unique landscapes in each region and thus a diversity of landscapes across Japan as a whole. While there are no great differences in the natural environment itself, as in China, there is diversity in human activity and the way people have adapted to their environment. These adaptations vary in subtle ways from one region to the next. This variation, in turn, makes Japan’s landscapes diverse.

For example, Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) is an important reforestation tree species in Japan, there are variations in cedar forest landscapes depending on the region (Fig. 2). Cedar trees have been planted across Japan, so although cedar forest landscapes can be found anywhere in the country, and they are not all alike; they exhibit unique aspects from place to place[3-4].

Fig. 2-1 shows cedar forest landscapes in Hita,ōita Prefecture and Yoshino, Nara Prefecture (Fig. 2-2),which have been woodlands since long ago. In the Hita landscape, the tree crowns, which are elements that make up the landscape’s texture (surface appearance), all have a uniform shape and even the arrangement, creating a systematic and orderly impression overall. Meanwhile, in the Yoshino landscape, the tree crowns are less uniformly shaped and evenly arranged, which results in a softer impression. What is the reason for such variations? They are the result of differences in forest management goals and approaches between the two regions (with regard to initial planting and subsequent management).

The goal of forest management in Hita has mainly been to produce structural materials for buildings efficiently. As such, the trees are grown from good cedar cuttings, planted relatively sparsely for short-term cutting. In contrast, the goal of forest management in Yoshino, which has become famous for the production of timber for sake and soy sauce barrels, has been to produce large-diameter timber with straight grain and no knots. Thus, the trees are grown at high density from seedlings, and commercial thinning is repeated over a long cutting period. Planting density in the initial stages is 3,000 trees/hm2in Hita and 10,000 trees/hm2in Yoshino — a threefold difference. In addition, over 80% of trees in Hita are cedar, whereas in Yoshino, cedar and hinoki (Japanese cypress) are mixed together and planted according to optimal conditions for each. Such historically formed differences in forest management between the two areas contribute to the features of each forest landscape.

Some landscapes feature trees with conspicuous trunks, such as Kitayama cedar, a tree that has played a part in upholding Kyōtō culture through its use in the city’s architecture and gardens. There are other landscapes in which the tree canopy is arranged in long and narrow rows, such as the one that supports the production of materials in Morotsuka, Miyazaki Prefecture (Fig. 2-3, 2-4). Differences in the historical development of cedar forestry from region to region led to variations in the form of the cedar trees and in forest management. These differences have ultimately led to regional differences in the resulting forest landscapes.

Thus, even in the case of only one particular species of tree, namely, Japanese cedar, there are a variety of regional landscapes. This case is all the more true for landscapes of forests where cedar is planted together with many other species. Such landscapes vary greatly depending on the local topography,history, or contemporary social situation. Further,landscapes do not merely consist of trees, forests,and mountains; they also consist of components like rice fields, meadows, buildings, and building exteriors.These elements, too, have stories similar to that of cedar and are deeply embedded into the landscape as uniquely local features. It is clear from all of these factors that there is an extremely diverse range of landscapes, with characteristic landscapes that are unique to each region, in Japan.

2.2 Homogenization of Landscapes

As stated above, landscapes are originally formed from the historical accumulation of human activity undertaken as people in an area adapt to their natural environment. By using the available technology over the course of centuries to overcome unfavorable constraints in the local environment, inhabitants have shaped and re-accumulated these landscapes to become the landscapes that exist today[5].

However, the way that people have related to the land and environment in modern times differs greatly from that of past eras. Modern science and technology has expanded our potential and allowed human activity to surpass the human scale. For example, it has enabled us to build large-scale, high-quality buildings and structures without heeding the conditions of the land;or to overcome the constraints of the land and thus use it more freely and effectively. We have also gradually shifted from using natural tools, fuels, and fertilizers in our daily lives to using artificial ones. Human activity has now diverged widely from the peculiar characteristics of the land and natural environment.

Since the Industrial Revolution, we have aimed to manufacture goods of a certain quality regardless of the state or constraints of the land or of a particular region; that is, to free ourselves from the constraints of the land and geography, and to view land as a homogenous and freely shapeable space.This goal was largely achieved by modern science and technology, which developed rapidly through the Industrial Revolution. It is arguable that this element,coupled with the expansion and acceleration of flows of “people, goods, money, and information,”has steadily created an artificial living space based on functional and economic rationality.

Thus started a trend toward the homogenization of landscapes in different places (Fig. 3). At present,the same landscapes are being developed everywhere in Japan. With the loss of the natural and cultural uniqueness of places, the unique and characteristic local landscapes are disappearing.

3 Promoting a New Kind of Landscape Management

3.1 Uniquely Local Features of Landscapes

The beginning of this paper presented a discussion of the significant changes in values and perspectives on landscapes that underlay policy trends in the 2000s. These changes put the brakes on the homogenization of landscapes, which had been brought about by a continuing shift toward an easy functional and economic rationality, and can be understood as a movement to restore the natural and cultural identity of different areas, as well as the uniquely local features of landscapes.

The above brings us to the following question:What are the uniquely local features of landscapes? For example, Fig. 4 shows survey results from an old fishing village on the coast of Miyako, Iwate Prefecture, which was struck by the Great East Japan Earthquake.

The survey examined the visibility frequency of the land from points laid out on the surface of the sea in a wide grid, with darker portions representing a higher visibility frequency, or to put it in the perspective of someone on land, locations from which the sea appears more vast. Given the gently sloping conditions,it is clear that the sea appeared vast when seen from roads and high-elevation settlements that had existed for centuries. As the area is prone to tsunamis, the villagers separated their life and work (fishing) by building their dwellings on high ground to avoid tsunamis and putting work sheds called ban’yaon low ground near the shore. However, the survey results clearly show that they maintained their close visual connection with the sea. Thus, although villagers lived away from the sea on high ground to avoid tsunamis,they were still able to look out over it. This arguably means that they developed a close visual connection to the sea in their everyday lives, as they could perceive its conditions, beauty, and ferocity from day to day.

Meanwhile, the town of Ine in Kyōtō Prefecture has gentle waves, a small tide difference, and an even lesser risk of tsunamis owing to the relationship between its location and its topography. Ine is known for its funaya, or houses built over the water whose lower level is used for storing boats, as shown in Fig. 3.The residents of Ineclearly live in close spatial relation to the sea. Thus, the spatial relationship between dwellings or settlements and the sea arises out of a rational lifestyle adapted to the natural conditions of the sea in that area, and that lifestyle is expressed in the area’s unique characteristic landscape (Fig. 5).

Ways of adapting to local natural threats and disasters are expressed in various coastal disasterprevention forest and homestead forest landscapes as well (Fig. 6). For example, in Bise, Okinawa Prefecture,which is a typhoon-prone area, there are homestead woods of fukugi (Garcinia subelliptica) trees such as the dense forest around a village, which together serve to prevent coastal disasters and protect agricultural land in inland areas. In the Shonai region of Yamagata Prefecture, which sometimes sees high winds and massive sand drifts, there is a coastal disaster-prevention forest consisting of black pine (Pinus thunbergii) trees reaching hundreds of meters above the coastal sand dunes. In addition, the way that forests have developed around agricultural land in multiple layers has been ceaselessly maintained and managed throughout history,developing a distinctive landscape.

Thus, it is clear that uniquely local ways of cultivating and shaping forests to achieve a harmonious relationship with the environment while protecting the local lifestyle, including dwellings and agricultural land,emerge in accordance with local natural conditions, such as the landform and climate, and create the characteristic landscape of a given area. In other words, a uniquely local way of living (lifestyle) emerges from people adapting rationally to the various conditions imposed by the natural environment of an area (natural rationality),and the uniquely local feature of a landscape is arguably developed when this lifestyle is etched into the local space over the course of history (Fig. 7).

Fig. 8 illustrates the way of thinking behind continually refining uniquely local landscapes. If this cycle can be constructed, then the landscape can be treated as a local resource, as stated previously, and can play an important role as the core of interaction-oriented community development.

3.2 Building a New Landscape Management System

As symbolized by the administrative movements discussed in the beginning, there have been significant changes in how landscapes are interpreted and in the ideal relationship between human activity and the land.Japanese society is in the turning point for a new era,and the ideal planning and management of landscapes calls for new ways of thinking and methodologies[6]. It is urgently necessary to build new ways of thinking and methodologies, related to planning and management that continually preserve and cultivate unique local landscapes, and to utilize them in the interactionoriented community development, with the cooperation of residents and local governments. The main points are the following two mutually connected points.

1) Collaborate on landscape management (e.g.,preservation, management, and cultivation) with local residents and local governments, rather than leaving it to specialists, the government, and other public institutions; 2) Rather than relying on public capital for landscape management funds, it is necessary to construct landscape management as a cycle of “survey and research — public awareness — conservation and management — effective utilization” (Fig. 9) and construct ideal image and policies regarding new actors(organizations) for implementation and in securing voluntary funds (independent revenue sources).

It is necessary to share unique characteristics of the local landscape and the importance of keeping it in good condition to manage the landscape on collaboration between local governments and residents.To do this, “survey and research” is necessary about unique characteristics of local landscape and differences with the landscape of other areas and history of relations between the local nature and people’ s activity. And the “public awareness” of results of such researches to inside and outside of the region is important too. And the sharing of the unique landscape image as the management target leads to“conservation and management” of local landscape sustainably by the collaboration between public and private sectors. But expenses are necessary to push forward such survey and research, public awareness,conservation and management. And a series of diagrams to find the financial resources through“effective utilization” of the landscape are ways of thinking of new cyclical landscape management.

And examinations and constructions of methodology are required on each stage. At the stage of “survey and research”, we need to examine the methodology to extract unique characteristics of landscape, which is mentioned earlier, and to clarify the background of how unique characteristics has been established by defining the relation between regional history, natural features and social situation. Meanwhile,at the stage of “public awareness”, we need to examine decision-making method through the collaboration between public and private sectors and public awareness method on landscape through education. Also, the stage of “conservation and management”, we need to construct methodology about adaptive management by promoting participation of residents or visitors. Lastly,at the stage of “effective utilization”, it is necessary to tackle the difficulties in ensuring the autonomous financial resources such as described below.

The necessity of new landscape management methodologies is also related to the decline of excellence in public administration regarding the maintenance of living environments. Thus far, Japan has often relied on administrative public funds in project form to maintain and manage landscapes and living environments. However, amid developments and changes in landscapes and the environment,it has gradually become difficult to rely on public funds in many cases. Thus, it is difficult to preserve,manage, and shape the unique local features of landscapes in a detailed manner, which differ from place to place, by using public funds which are limited in how they can be used.

For this reason, many regions have recently seen an emergence of movements to supplement the lack of funds by securing voluntary funds (independent revenue sources ) which are freely usable capital. They take various forms, such as taxes, assistance funds, and increases to merchandise prices. In many cases, these arrangements are supported by tourists and other people from outside the area[7]. In addition, the Ministry of the Environment and the Agency for Cultural Affairs enacted theAct on the Promotion of Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Natural Environment in Local Natural Asset Areasin 2014, which allowed conferences formed by relevant local governments to collect admission fees at National Parks and Places of Scenic Beauty. In this format, “assistance funds” are collected from visitors when they enter the area, an approach that has been attempted even in areas other than National Parks and Places of Scenic Beauty. To give another example, Dazaifu in Fukuoka Prefecture has implemented a “Historical and Cultural Environment Tax” to secure funds. This is a “tax” collected from users of paid parking garages and is being used to manage the environment, to maintain facilities, to raise public awareness, and to fund many other initiatives related to historical, cultural, and touristic resources.There are also cases involving increases to merchandise prices in a system that often establishes a foundation to manage income and expenditure.

One factor in the emergence of this trend of relying on tourists and other people from outside the area for voluntary funds to be used in landscape management in Japan is the growing awareness that conservation and management of unique local landscapes and environments requires some expense.Fig. 10 shows the results of an interview survey of visitors to the towns of Okutama, Tōkyō Metropolis;Iriomote, Okinawa Prefecture; and Yūfuin, ōita Prefecture, regarding whether or not they agreed with financially supporting the local landscape and environment, and if they did, the amount they would be willing to pay. Roughly 80% of visitors agreed, and while the amount varied depending on location and the attractiveness of the area, the combined sum was one that would contribute greatly to landscape management in each region.

It is thus necessary to systematically build methodologies for increasing the ratio of voluntary funds in the management costs of unique local landscapes by encouraging visitors to recognize the economic value of local uniqueness; and methodologies for the cultivation and organization of actors who will work to refine the unique local features of landscapes through managing income and expenditure of funds and through other ways of cooperating with local residents and visitors.

4 Changes in the Role of Landscape Architects

If the concept of landscape has changed and prompted demand for new methodologies, as discussed thus far, it is only natural that the role expected of landscape architects and the qualities sought in them would also change. Now that there is more emphasis on the natural/cultural identity of an area as it relates to creating landscapes, the first principle in landscape and community development is to preserve and pass on the memory of the area. This principle consequently entails the following process: first, read and understand the personality of the place and its unique local characteristics; second, use those findings to design landscape, preservation and creation.

Landscape architects need both the ability to read the personality and features of the landscape and the ability to plan and design a landscape to enrich the living environment. Starting in the modern period,there was great demand for the latter; emphasis was placed on landscape design — the creation of landscapes — with findings being accumulated mainly related to image manipulation. However, landscape literacy — the ability (or technique) to read landscapes and uniquely local features — is arguably what has come to be demanded of landscape architects at present. Meanwhile, if a new system for a type of landscape management that emphasizes uniquely local features is to become important, it will be crucial for landscape architects not to take the leading role in designing spaces but rather adopt an approach of creating platforms where people can build favorable relationships with the land and supporting residents’efforts to cultivate rich and unique landscapes.

In other words, rather than using public capital invested in projects to maintain landscapes and to design spaces and landscapes directly, it will be important for landscape architects to contribute from the perspective of building and mobilizing systems whereby people can continually cultivate unique local landscapes — that is,organizations and resource-securing mechanisms.

In the modern and contemporary periods,areas (e.g. lifestyles and landscapes) have tended to become homogenous amid the expansion and acceleration of flows of “people, goods, money,and information” and the pursuit of easy functional and economic rationality. The same was true of landscape development, where commercialism and emphasis on form severed the relationship between landscape and the special features of the land and area. These increased usability and refined techniques for image manipulation and formation,but have also arguably led to a weakening of the sense of community (belonging), by eliminating the foundation for natural/cultural uniqueness and for local communities. Certainly, the field of landscape architecture, which is supposed to pass down the memory of places primarily, took the same approach of maintaining “green and water” in an aesthetically pleasing way without regard for the potential of the land. The important part of landscape architects’ role in landscape development is not simply to create a landscape but arguably to pass down the memory of the land. Creating a landscape without sufficiently reading the memory of the land and the personality of the place will bring confusion in the character of the place.

5 Conclusion

In the future, rather than devoting their efforts to creating new landscapes (design), landscape architects will be required to first invest sufficient time and effort into literacy — reading the relationship between human activity and nature that is etched into a uniquely local landscape.

In Japan, legislative systems about landscape have been rapidly established in the 2000s. This movement shows the significant changes in values and perspectives on landscapes in Japanese society.Landscape is a reflection of history of the relation between local nature and people’s lifestyle, so the construction and management of the landscape have a close relation with “community development”.In future, it is required to build methodologies on the sustainable conservation and management of landscape which define unique characteristics of local landscape, and use effectively by the collaboration between public and private sectors.Landscape architects need to develop their skills and abilities to read characteristics of region through the landscape for landscape design.

(This paper is revised on the basis of the speech delivered by the author at the International Landscape Architecture Symposium in 2018.)

Sources of Figures and Table:

Fig. 1, 2-3, 5, 6-10 ? the author; Fig.4 is based on a map from Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI), drawn by Ono Ryohei (Collaborator of the research); Tab. 1 ? the author.