点击排行
 
正文
全文下载次数:122
2023年第5期   DOI:
欧盟跨边界合作倡议对波罗的海地区环境治理空间尺度重构的影响
The Influence of European Transnational Cooperation Initiatives on the Spatial Rescaling of Environmental Governance in the Baltic Sea Region

王碧玥 孟梦 孟延春 多米尼克·斯特德

Wang Biyue, Meng Meng, Meng Yanchun, Dominic Stead

关键词:空间尺度重构;柔性空间;环境治理;跨边界治理;欧盟

Keywords:Spatial Rescaling; Soft Space; Environmental Governance; Transnational Governance; European Union

摘要:

空间尺度重构是欧洲规划近期最重要的关注点之一。因为许多空间规划的问题和发展机遇越来越具有跨边界属性,尤其是环境问题,促使解决问题和实施规划的空间尺度发生了变化,并引发了一系列的权力转移,出现新的地理范围、新的行动者组合和新的决策治理方式等。本文以波罗的海地区的环境治理为例,深入研究了欧盟跨边界合作倡议如何重构该地区的空间尺度,期望能为我国的跨边界地区区域协调发展和治理提供参考与借鉴。

Abstract:

Spatial rescaling is arguably one of the most significant focuses in European planning. The increasingly transboundary nature of many spatial planning issues and development opportunities, particularly environmental issues, has led to changes in the spatial scales at which problems are solved and planning is implemented. Spatial rescaling often gives rise to a combination of changes, including shifts in powers to other layers of decisionmaking, the emergence of new geographical scales, the appearance of new actor constellations, and new forms of governance. This paper focuses on the environmental governance of the Baltic Sea region as the case study and examines the influence of the European transnational cooperation initiative on the spatial rescaling of the region. The research findings provide experience and lessons for China’s coordinated development and governance of crossborder regions.

版权信息:
基金项目:中国博士后国(境)外交流项目引进项目(337939),清华大学“水木学者”计划(2023660091),国家自然科学基金青年项目(52108050),中国博士后科学基金面上项目(2021M701238),广东省基础与应用基础研究基金项目(2023A1515011653),广州市基础与应用基础研究项目(202201010503),粤港澳大湾区发展广州智库2022年度课题(2022GGBT09),气象促进国家区域协调发展相关重大问题研究(20202662083)
作者简介:

王碧玥,博士,清华大学公共管理学院,助理研究员
孟梦(通信作者),博士,华南理工大学建筑学院,助理研究员。mmeng@scut.edu.cn
孟延春,博士,清华大学公共管理学院,副教授
多米尼克·斯特德,博士,阿尔瓦阿尔托大学建成环境学院,教授

译者简介:

参考文献:
  • [1] KEATING M. Rescaling Europe[J]. Perspectives on European politics and society, 2009, 10(1): 34-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15705850802699995.
    [2] GUALINI E. The rescaling of governance in Europe: New spatial and institutional rationales[J]. European planning studies, 2006, 14(7): 881-904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500496255.
    [3] BRENNER N. Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union[J]. Urban studies, 1999, 36(3): 431-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993466.
    [4] JESSOP B. Time and space in the globalization of capital and their implications for state power[J]. Rethinking Marxism, 2002, 14(1): 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/089356902101242071.
    [5] MCCANN E J. Framing space and time in the city: urban policy and the politics of spatial and temporal scale[J]. Journal of urban affairs, 2003, 25(2): 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9906.t01-1-00004.
    [6] FILTENBORG M S, G?NZLE S, JOHANSSON E. An alternative theoretical approach to EU foreign policy: ‘network governance’ and the case of the Northern Dimension Initiative[J]. Cooperation and conflict, 2002, 37(4): 387-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/001083602762574478.
    [7] DEAS L, LORD A. From a new regionalism to an unusual regionalism? the emergence of non-standard regional spaces and lessons for the territorial reorganisation of the state[J]. Urban studies, 2006, 43(10): 1847-1877. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600838143.
    [8] SIELKER F, STEAD D. Scaling and rescaling of EU spatial governance[M] // Regional governance in the EU. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019: 124-139.
    [9] FALUDI A. A turning point in the development of European spatial planning? the ‘Territorial Agenda of the European Union’ and the ‘First Action Programme’[J]. Progress in planning, 2009, 71(1): 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2008.09.001.
    [10] ALLMENDINGER P, HAUGHTON G. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway[J]. Environment and planning a: economy and space, 2009, 41(3): 617-633. https://doi.org/10.1068/a40208.
    [11] HAUGHTON G, ALLMENDINGER P, COUNSELL D, et al. The new spatial planning[M/OL]. Routledge, 2009[2022-12-19]. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781135210793.
    [12] GALLAND D. Is regional planning dead or just coping? the transformation of a state sociospatial project into growth-oriented strategies[J]. Environment and planning c: government and policy, 2012, 30(3): 536-552. https://doi.org/10.1068/c11150.
    [13] COHEN A. Rescaling Environmental governance: watersheds as boundary objects at the intersection of science, neoliberalism, and participation[J]. Environment and planning a: economy and space, 2012, 44(9): 2207-2224. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44265.
    [14] REED M G, BRUYNEEL S. Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: a three-dimensional review[J]. Progress in human geography, 2010, 34(5): 646-653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509354836.
    [15] KERN K. Governance for sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region[J]. Journal of Baltic studies, 2011, 42(1): 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2011.538517.
    [16] European Commission. Regional government matters: a study on regional variation in quality of government within the EU[M]. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Directorate-General for Regional Policy, 2012.
    [17] METZGER J, SCHMITT P. When soft spaces harden: The EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region[J]. Environment and planning a: economy and space, 2012, 44(2): 263-280. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44188.
    [18] European Commission. Interreg B–Trans national cooperation[EB/OL]. [2023-04-16]. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/trans-national_en#:~:text=Transnational%20cooperation%2C%20known%20as%20Interreg,territories%20or%20around%20sea%20basins.
    [19] Territorial cooperation in Europe: a historical perspective[R]. Luxermbourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015.
    [20] WATERHOUT B, STEAD D. Mixed messages: how the ESDP’s concepts have been applied in INTERREG IIIB programmes, priorities and projects[J]. Planning practice and research, 2007, 22(3): 395-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701775216.
    [21] VANDEVEER S D. Networked Baltic environmental cooperation[J]. Journal of Baltic studies, 2011, 42(1): 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2011.538516.
    [22] STEAD D. Rescaling environmental governance–the influence of European transnational cooperation initiatives: rescaling environmental governance[J]. Environmental policy and governance, 2014, 24(5): 324-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1649.
    [23] CLARK J, JONES A. The spatialities of Europeanisation: territory, government and power in ‘Europe’[J]. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2008, 33(3): 300-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00309.x.
    [24] European Union. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region[EB/OL]. [2023-04-16]. https://interreg-baltic.eu/about/eusbsr/.
    [25] 张京祥. 国家—区域治理的尺度重构:基于“国家战略区域规划”视角的剖析[J]. 城市发展研究, 2013, 20(5): 45-50.
    [26] 黄银波. 超越边界:尺度重组中的跨境区域空间演化与治理转型——基于粤港澳大湾区的案例研究[J]. 城乡规划, 2020(1): 9-19.
    [27] SCOTT J. Cross-border governance in the Baltic Sea Region[J]. Regional & federal studies, 2002, 12(4): 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/714004777.

《国际城市规划》编辑部    北京市车公庄西路10号东楼E305/320    100037
邮箱:upi@vip.163.com  电话:010-58323806  传真:010-58323825
京ICP备13011701号-6  京公网安备11010802014223

7855475