张文博 宋彦 邓玲 田敏

Zhang Wenbo, Song Yan, Deng Ling, Tian Min

关键词：生态城市；务实演进；评价体系；目标—行动路线

Keywords：Eco-city; Pragmatic Evolution; Evaluation System; Objective-Action Route

摘要：

从1970 年代提出以来，生态城市经历了从构想和概念到目标体系，再到具体行动的演进过程，是美国城市规划理念应用和务实演进的典型代表，研究其演进规律和发展趋势对总结美国城市发展规律具有重要的理论价值和现实意义。从发展阶段来看，生态城市可细分为理念探索，目标设定和应用，指标评价体系构建和广泛实践、完善和务实推进四个阶段。在城市规模扩大、资源环境约束趋紧，以及各类主体对城市治理诉求增加的背景下，美国的生态城市理念也产生了新的内涵和特点，在目标体系方面，更加注重经济的生态化转型、社会进步和以人为本，更加突出目标体系对行动的指导性和政策有效性的评价，强调基于“目标—行动路线”的建设模式，在建设行动方面，更加强调行动的针对性和系统性、参与主体的多元化，以及管理手段的信息化。总结美国生态城市理念的务实演进规律和发展趋势，有利于推动中国生态城市建设，实现城市发展与资源环境相协调。

Abstract：

Since 1970s, Eco-cities have experienced the evolution process from concept to evaluation system to action, which is also the epitome of the pragmatic evolution of American urban planning. The paper takes eco-city as an example to study the evolution of urban lanning in the USA. Eco-cities have experienced four stages: concept exploration, goal setting, evaluation, perfect and pragmatic promotion. Now the concept of eco-city in the USA has also produced new features and trends: the objective is more focused on ecological transformation, innovation, social communication and affordable housing; the action is more targeted and systematic, and encourages more diverse groups to participate. Learning from these experiences is conducive to promoting China’s eco-city construction. By summarizing the rules of pragmatic evolution of eco-city and following the development trend, the cities in China will achieve the goal of sustainable development.

张文博，上海社会科学院生态与可持续发展研究所，助理研究员；北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校联合培养博士。wenboz00@163.com
宋彦（通信作者），深圳大学城市规划系，教授；北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校城市与区域规划系，终身教授。ys@email.unc.edu
邓玲，四川大学经济学院，教授，博士生导师。denglingprof@163.com
田敏，西华大学工商管理学院，教授；北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校中国城市项目，访问学者。mint@mail.xhu.edu.cn

• [1] RICHARD R. Eco-cities: Making cities sustainable is a crucial challenge[C] //A quarterly for human sustainable culture. Oakland: Context Institute, 1984.
  [2] ROSEIAND M. Dimensions of the future: an eco-city overview. eco-city dimensions[M]. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 1997.
  [3] SKAA A P, ZAWADZK I, et al. Evaluation of the bioindicator suitability of Polygonum aviculare, in urban areas[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2013, 24(1): 552-556.
  [4] KENNEDY S, SGOURIDIS S. Rigorous classification and carbon accounting principles for low and zero carbon cities[J]. Energy Policy, 2011, 39(9): 5259-5268.
  [5] GOTTSCH ALK D, ROUSE D. Sustaining places ：best practices for comprehensive plans[M]. London and New York: Routledge, 2015.
  [6] BARRY C, ROGER W Caves. planning in the USA: policies, issues, and rocesses [M]. 4th ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2014.
  [7] NYC Mayor’s Office of Sust ainability. Local Governments for ustainability(ICLEI). Case study: New York City’s greener, greater buildings lan[EB/OL]. (2014-12-10)[2017-9-10] http://www.nyc.gov/html/gbee/downloads/pdf/greener_greater_buildings_plan. pdf.
  [8] BERKE P, GSDSCHALK D. Searching for the good plan: a meta-analysis of lan quality studies[J]. Journal of Planning Literature, 2009, 23(3): 227-240.
  [9] Oregon Metro Government. Metro’s Regional Framework Plan(RFP)-summary of 2040 growth concept[EB/OL]. (2014-12-19)[2017-09-10]. ttp://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/ files/01132011_regional_framework_plan_2011_update_summary_of_2040_growth_concept.pdf.
  [10] The City of New York. One New York - the plan for a strong and just ity[EB/OL]. (2015-12-13)[2017-09-10]. http://www.nyc.gov/html/onenyc/downloads/pdf/publications/OneNYC.pdf.
  [11] 宋彦, 唐瑜, 丁国胜, 等. 规划文本评估内容与方法探讨——以美国城市总体规划文本评估为例[J]. 国际城市规划, 2015(S1): 71-76.
  [12] 章征涛, 宋彦, 阿纳博· 查克拉博蒂. 公众参与式情景规划的组织和实践——基于美国公众参与规划的经验及对我国规划参与的启示[J]. 国际城市规划, 2015(5): 47-51.

  [13] 黄肇义, 杨东援. 国内外生态城市理论研究综述[J]. 城市规划,2001(25): 59-66.

  [14] 罗震东, 何鹤鸣, 张京祥. 改革开放以来中国城乡规划学科知识的演进[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2015(5): 30-38.
  

  [15] 杨保军, 张菁, 董珂. 空间规划体系下城市总体规划作用的再认识[J]. 市规划, 2016, 40(3): 9-14.
  [16] 中国城市科学研究会. 中国生态城市发展现状与态势[EB/OL]. (2013-06-25)[2017-09-10]. http://www.docin.com/p-1700830649.html..
  [17] 张文博, 邓玲. 基于目标——行动路线的生态城市实现路径研究[J]. 经济问题, 2017(8): 105-110.
  [18] 田敏, 宋彦. 宜居社区评价指标比较研究[J]. 经济体制改革, 2016(3): 82-188.

• 收起