The Classical Gardens of Suzhou (CGS), alongside West Asian and European gardens, constitute the world’s three major gardening systems. Notably, Chinese classical gardens are revered as the “The Primogenitor of Horticultural Civilization”1 and hold a pivotal position in global garden heritage.
The history of CGS can be traced back to the royal gardens of the Wu Kingdom during the Spring and Autumn Period (514 BCE), boasting a history of over 2500 years. Examples include Xiajia Lake, Changzhou Garden, and Hualin Garden, though regrettably, these have long since vanished. Documented records of extensive garden construction began in the Han Dynasty. On one hand, influenced by imperial palace gardens, local officials in Suzhou built gardens within their government offices, giving rise to the unique culture of “agency official gardens.” On the other hand, with the economic development of Suzhou, private gardens gradually emerged, laying the foundation for the later flourishing of CGS. For instance, the early Pijiang Garden2 pioneered techniques such as “gathering stones to store water, planting trees to create streams,” setting a precedent for private gardens in the Jiangnan region. With the introduction of Buddhism in the late Eastern Han Dynasty, Buddhist architecture flourished during the Three Kingdoms and Jin Dynasties. It merged with Suzhou’s local hermit culture, forming a distinctive temple garden system. Consequently, temple gardens thrived in Suzhou, among which Tongxuan Temple, built during the Three Kingdoms period (later renamed Kaiyuan Temple in the Tang Dynasty), still stands today within Panmen, Suzhou(https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%BC%80%E5%85%83%E5%AF%BA/2253245).
On the long timeline of history, CGS reached one peak period after another. As noted in Wu Feng Lu (Records of Wu Customs) by Huang Shengzeng, “even common households adorned small artificial hills and miniature islands for enjoyment,” reflecting the widespread popularity of garden-making. Consequently, the number of CGS surged, and their craftsmanship became increasingly refined. Thus, the famous saying, “Gardens in Jiangnan are the finest under heaven, and Suzhou gardens are the finest in Jiangnan,” is by no means an exaggeration.
To this day, Suzhou still boasts an exceptionally rich heritage of classical gardens, earning its reputation as the “City of Gardens.” According to official records from the Suzhou Municipal Bureau of Landscape and Forestry, 108 gardens are currently listed in the Suzhou Garden Inventory (https://ylj.suzhou.gov.cn/szsylj/ylml/nav_list.shtml). In February 2018, the Suzhou Municipal Government further institutionalized this status through the “Implementation Opinions on Accelerating the ‘Heavenly Suzhou: City of Hundred Gardens’ Project” (Document No. Su Fu [2018] 12), formally establishing the “City of Hundred Gardens” initiative(https://ylj.suzhou.gov.cn/szsylj/ylml/nav_list.shtml). The CGS achieved UNESCO World Heritage status in 1997 and 2000, with nine exemplary sites including the Humble Administrator’s Garden, the Lingering Garden, and the Lion Grove Garden being inscribed on the World Heritage List. This recognition has drawn international attention to Suzhou’s garden heritage, fostering globally oriented academic research1. The World Heritage Committee reported that the CGS are exemplary representations of the design philosophy of “creating a microcosm within a limited space”, with their characteristic of “being made by humans, as if created by nature” fully demonstrating the harmonious unity between artificiality and nature3.
In addition, Suzhou’s historic urban district is globally celebrated for its unique “double-chessboard” water-land spatial configuration—a remarkable urban pattern (Fig. 1) that has endured since antiquity. This distinctive urban structure has fostered a highly synergistic relationship between Suzhou’s urban fabric and its CGS. Like strategically placed chess pieces on a board, these gardens occupy key nodes within the crisscrossing transportation network, creating an ideal integration of streets, waterways, and gardens. The poet Chaochu Shen (1649–1702) of the Qing Dynasty vividly captured in his poem “Recalling Jiangnan: Spring Outing”: “Lovely Suzhou – half the city becomes a garden”, perfectly encapsulating the city’s characteristic garden-urban integration4. This intrinsic “city-garden fusion” DNA has persisted throughout Suzhou’s historical development and urban evolution5. Moreover, Suzhou’s abundant heritage resources render the city itself a vast “garden.” Although some waterways and alleys have disappeared due to urban expansion, the ancient city’s fundamental layout, maintained since antiquity, still preserves its essential transportation framework.
Fig. 1
Urban pattern (1915) and garden distribution in Suzhou. Photos from “List of Suzhou Gardens”(https://ylj.suzhou.gov.cn/szsylj/ylml/nav_list.shtml), the base map from “Historical maps” (http://www.txlzp.com/ditu/696.html), redrawn by the author.
Although Suzhou boasts numerous classical gardens, both local residents and tourists typically focus only on a few renowned gardens within and around the ancient city, while lesser-known, smaller gardens receive little attention. This phenomenon stems from multiple factors. First, differences in historical significance and fame among the gardens lead to varying levels of publicity, facility maintenance, and activity offerings. Second, disparities in spatial distribution—both in terms of macro-level location and micro-level accessibility—play a role. Gardens situated within Suzhou’s ancient urban core naturally attract more attention than those in peripheral areas. Furthermore, urban road hierarchy adjustments have inadvertently reduced accessibility to some gardens. As a result, the inherent urban characteristic of “city-garden integration” has not been fully utilized. A key challenge lies in coordinating with Suzhou’s existing urban layout to establish stronger spatial connections between famous gardens and lesser-known ones, thereby reinforcing the interdependent relationship between the city and its gardens. As previously mentioned, the causes of this issue are multifaceted. This study, grounded in the historical principle of “city-garden integration,” adopts a holistic perspective to explore ways of enhancing the relationship between the city and its gardens, as well as among the gardens themselves, treating them as an interconnected system for comprehensive research.
The existing research on CGS can be categorized into four categories: historical studies on garden-related figures and literature, studies on garden ontology, research on garden elements, and interpretive studies on garden design techniques. Historical studies focus on prominent figures and works, such as theoretical research on Yuan Ye (The Craft of Gardens)6,7 and investigations into the garden design philosophy of Chen Congzhou (a renowned landscape architect)8,9. Studies on garden ontology encompass both collective analyses of garden groups and individual case studies. Representative works include Classical Gardens of Suzhou10 and The Art of Suzhou Classical Gardens11, which provide comprehensive introductions and analyses of multiple garden cases, along with numerous articles dedicated to individual gardens such as the Net Master’s Garden12,13,14, Humble Administrator’s Garden15,16,17, and Mountain Villa with Embracing Beauty18,19. Research on garden elements involves spatial analysis, landscape assessment, and philosophical interpretations. For example, Liu et al. employed space syntax and statistical methods to examine the spatial organization and socio-spatial logic of CGS20. Sun, Z. investigated the cultural characteristics of classical garden architecture through building layouts and spatial configurations21, whereas Zhou et al. analyzed the humanistic concepts underlying plant landscape design in CGS22. Interpretive studies on garden techniques has focused mainly on applying traditional design approaches to modern architecture. Researchers such as Liu23 and Lu24 have adapted classical garden design principles and spatial strategies in contemporary architectural design. Additionally, some studies integrate garden design philosophy with other disciplines, such as film and television25, classical poetry26, ceramic painting27, and calligraphy art28,29.
Research on CGS tends to emphasize the cultural significance and value of individual gardens, largely in an isolated manner, with few studies adopting a holistic approach. The article “Research on the Brand Value of Suzhou Gardens”30 represents an exception by examining the relationship between CGS and the city itself, proposing the concept of “Suzhou Gardens’ brand value” through an integrated perspective. However, operational methodologies for such holistic research remain underdeveloped. Since the 2005 Xi’an Declaration expanded the connotation of holistic conservation to include the interrelationships between cultural heritage sites, and subsequently the 2008 ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes introduced “cultural routes” as a new category of large-scale heritage into the World Heritage List, regional heritage conservation has gradually become a consensus in holistic heritage protection. This approach emphasizes the relationship between heritage and its natural environment as well as its integration with the urban context31.
In terms of holistic heritage conservation approaches, the Historic Urban Landscape theory focuses on the stratigraphic nature and dynamic development of urban heritage. The Cultural Routes concept emerging in Europe connects heritage sites through linear spaces, such as the case study of Via Francigena in Europe32, Case Study of Selected Cultural Routes in Poland33, Cultural Routes of Symi Island in Greece34. Derived from Cultural Routes, the Heritage Corridor approach developed in the United States emphasizes both regional historical-cultural preservation and natural environmental conservation. Cultural Geographic Zoning divides geographical units based on cultural characteristics, typically using dialect regions or cultural spheres as research units for macro-regional pattern analysis.
This study attempts to strengthen the relationships between various gardens and between gardens and the city within Suzhou’s administrative area. Therefore, we propose constructing a CGS Heritage Corridor to integrate lesser-known gardens with classical gardens into a unified heritage corridor system. By connecting these gardens, heritage resources can be collectively protected, ensuring that obscure gardens receive adequate attention. Furthermore, through coordination between the corridor and Suzhou’s urban geographical and spatial patterns, this approach aims to reinforce the city’s inherent characteristic of “city-garden integration.”
The concept of the Heritage Corridor emerged as a product of the concurrent development and interaction among the American Greenway Movement, scenic byway construction, and regional heritage conservation philosophies35. The integration of green corridors and heritage areas not only emphasizes the preservation of regional history and culture along with community economic development, but also maintains the balance of natural ecosystems35. In 1984, U.S. President Ronald Reagan designated the first National Heritage Area—the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritageareas/index.htm). Recognized as America’s first National Heritage Corridor, it exemplifies the corridor’s historical significance (https://www.nps.gov/places/illinois-and-michigan-canal-national-heritage-area.htm), marking the formal establishment of the Heritage Corridor concept.
Most heritage corridor studies follow a top-down macro perspective, focusing on constructing water- and land-based corridors grounded in geographical features, including tangible linear landscapes such as rivers, canyons, mountains, and railways. Representative examples include: the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor (https://www.nps.gov/places/blackstone-river-valley-national-heritage-corridor.htm) along the Blackstone River, Ireland’s Westmeath Royal Canal Greenway along the Royal Canal(http://www.westmeathcoco.ie/en/ourservices/artsandrecreation/greenways/royalcanalgreenwaywestmeath/), as well as waterway corridor constructions along Italy’s Lambro River Valley36, the Muzz Canal37 and Lombardy’s historic canals38, China’s Yellow River and Yangtze River basins, Portugal’s Tagus River39, and Germany’s Saale-Unstrut River40. For instance, Tianxin Zhang et al. employed ArcGIS spatial analysis and Minimum Cumulative Resistance (MCR) models to investigate the distribution characteristics of intangible cultural heritage and the suitability of corridor construction in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, proposing corresponding heritage corridor development strategies41. In India, a corridor was created along the Yamuna River connecting the Taj Mahal with Mahtab Garden while linking historical sites along the riverbank42. There are also numerous studies on land-based heritage corridor constructions, including railway heritage43,44, the Silk Road45,46,47, and the Belt and Road48, such as the green island system established along Paris’ Champs-Élysées axis that interconnects significant squares and buildings49.
In contrast, studies on constructing corridors on the basis of point-distributed heritage remain relatively scarce and are still emerging. Examples include China’s porcelain industry heritage50,51, ancient city wall cultural belts52,53, and cultural heritage spatial networks54,55,56. For instance, Konstantina Ntassiou employed Geographic Information System (GIS) tools to identify historical routes in northern Greece and reconstruct the historical road network57. Li, Y. employed GIS to conduct spatiotemporal analysis of 119 grotto temples in Henan Province, examining their evolutionary patterns in relation to geographical and cultural environments58. Lin et al. utilized the MCR method to establish an intangible cultural heritage corridor along the Ming Great Wall52. Similarly, Wang et al. applied both MCR and the gravity model (GM) to construct and evaluate the suitability of a cultural heritage corridor in Tianjin’s historic urban area55. The conceptual scope of heritage corridors continues to expand, evolving from mere vehicles for cultural preservation to critical factors promoting regional economic and social development.
To date, research on heritage corridors has predominantly focused on linear geographical conditions, emphasizing the connecting role of linear elements in integrating heritage sites, which has resulted in relatively mature theoretical frameworks and practical models. This research paradigm heavily relies on the spatial continuity of physical elements while neglecting the intrinsic connections between discretely distributed cultural heritage sites. In comparison, studies on corridor construction based on cultural heritage nodes remain relatively scarce. As an important component of world cultural heritage, constructing heritage corridors on the basis of garden sites expands the conventional linear geographical foundation of heritage corridors, placing greater emphasis on regional cultural characteristics. Simultaneously, establishing heritage corridors for CGS would contribute additional case studies for integrated garden research and reinforce Suzhou’s urban pattern of “city-garden integration.”
Research on heritage corridors has employed various methods and approaches. Historical map and satellite image analysis59,60 compares historical maps with remote sensing imagery to examine temporal changes in heritage landscapes and analyze the evolution of spatial patterns. The MCR model61,62 calculates the least-cost path between target points based on resistance surfaces, simulating optimal corridor routes, which is applicable for heritage corridor identification, connectivity assessment, and cultural diffusion path analysis. The GM55 evaluates spatial relationships and attraction between heritage nodes through their interaction intensity. Circuit theory63,64, based on electrical circuit principles, simulates random walk paths of ecological flows or cultural information across landscapes, identifying critical corridors and barrier areas. The specific characteristics and limitations of these methods are summarized in the following table (Table 1).
Table 1 Comparison of research methods
This study selects the MCR model for constructing the heritage corridor of CGS based on the following considerations: (1) The research focuses on establishing a corridor system that integrates both natural and cultural elements, rather than merely assessing connection strength between nodes; (2) Compared to circuit theory’s homogeneous diffusion simulation, MCR’s cost-distance path optimization algorithm better reflects optimal connectivity solutions in real environments; (3) The model can integrate multi-source data and incorporate multidimensional factors within a GIS platform. This methodological choice aligns with the spatial characteristics of CGS heritage while meeting practical needs for heritage conservation and management.
This study focuses on CGS as the research object. Based on an understanding of their spatial distribution, this study aims to construct heritage corridors for CGS and conduct hierarchical classification research with the following objectives:
1.
Conduct kernel density analysis on CGS to examine the spatial distribution characteristics of garden locations.
2.
Construct heritage corridors for CGS and develop a hierarchical classification system. Based on garden accessibility indicators, corridor resistance values, and garden heritage values, this study creates a multilevel heritage corridor classification system, constructing a five-tier system ranging from “primary corridors” to “secondary corridors.”
3.
Conduct typological research on the corridors according to garden type distribution, combined with the hierarchical classification system.
4.
Perform spatial overlay analysis of the hierarchical and classification systems, ultimately proposing a systematic framework for heritage corridors of CGS.
This work is divided into four sections (Fig. 2). The first section begins with an introduction that provides a concise overview of the CGS, presenting their ideal state of “ city-garden fusion” and highlighting the pressing issues that currently need to be addressed. It systematically reviews the research contents and methodologies of heritage corridors as well as relevant literature on CGS, while presenting this study’s innovations and objectives. The following section details the study area and methodology. The third section presents the final results and findings, offering a comprehensive analysis of gardens’ spatial distribution. It constructs a hierarchical classification system for heritage corridors, proposes a systematic corridor framework, and formulates strategies at macro-, meso-, and micro-levels, while examining the outcomes of forging the “City of Hundred Gardens.” Finally, the key achievements in corridor construction and the study’s novel contributions are summarized, reflects on current methodological approaches, and suggests directions for future research.
Fig. 2
The structure of the paper.
Comments are closed.