点击排行
 
正文
全文下载次数:132
2023年第5期   DOI:10.19830/j.upi.2023.399
空间的“柔性”重构——欧盟的跨边界合作与规划实践
“Soft” Reconfiguration of Space: Practice of Cross-border Cooperation and Planning in the EU

贺璟寰 罗斌 戚冬瑾

He Jinghuan, Luo Bin, Qi Dongjin

关键词:柔性空间;柔性治理;非正式工具;绿心南翼地区;西隆洛林河谷地区;欧盟

Keywords:Soft Spaces; Soft Governance; Informal Instruments; South-wing of Green Heart; Sillon Lorrain Valley; EU

摘要:

当新空间挑战或新的发展机遇与传统行政管理层级出现错配,柔性空间往往可以成为一种新的空间治理工具。欧盟在过去20 年的空间规划中,运用柔性空间理念在城市群、跨边界合作实践中取得了较为丰富的理论成果,也积累了跨边界、跨部门、跨层级的规划实践经验以及相应的柔性治理创新经验。本文介绍柔性空间、柔性治理概念的出现与发展;通过荷兰绿心南翼地区和法国西隆洛林河谷地区的柔性空间实践,分析欧盟为“柔性”重构提供的政策支持,并总结柔性治理区别于传统区域规划的特征,以及作为新的空间治理形式在规划实践中的主要特征,为我国跨边界空间发展与治理提供新的解题思路。

Abstract:

When new spatial challenges or new development opportunities are mismatched with traditional administrative levels, soft space has become a new spatial governance tool. Under the discourse of spatial planning in the past 20 years, the European Union has made rich theoretical achievements in urban agglomeration and cross-border cooperation practice with the perspective of soft space. It has also accumulated experience of planning practices that span across borders, sectors and administrative levels, as well as the corresponding soft governance innovation experience. This paper first introduces the concept of soft space, spatial governance and its evolvement. Then, the policy support provided by the European Union for “soft” restructuring and the soft planning practice in the Metropolitan Region Rotterdam the Hague and the Sillon Lorrain Valley are analyzed. At last, the paper summarizes how its characteristics are different from traditional regional planning, and the main characteristics of soft spaces/governance as a new form of spatial governance in planning practice and sheds light on the development and governance of cross-boundary spaces in China.

版权信息:
基金项目:国家自然科学基金青年基金(51908221),广东省哲学社会规划一般项目(GD23CWL01),华南理工大学基本科研业务费项目“粤港澳大湾区跨界地区‘柔性’治理研究”
作者简介:

贺璟寰,华南理工大学建筑学院,讲师。arhjh@scut.edu.cn
罗斌,广州市城市规划勘测设计研究院,助理规划师。849191079@qq.com
戚冬瑾(通信作者),华南理工大学建筑学院,教授。djqi@scut.edu.cn

译者简介:

参考文献:
  • [1] ALLMENDINGER P, HAUGHTON G, KNIELING J, et al. Soft Spaces in Europe: re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders[M]. Oxon: Routledge, 2015.
    [2] 中共中央国务院. 关于建立更加有效的区域协调发展新机制的意见[R]. (2018)[2022-12-21]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-11/29/content_5344537.htm.
    [3] 广东省发展改革委. 广东省开发区总体发展规划(2020—2035 年)[R]. (2020)[2022-12-21]. http://www.gd.gov.cn/gdywdt/bmdt/content/post_3011094.html.
    [4] 郭磊贤, 吴唯佳. 基于空间治理过程的特大城市外围跨界地区空间规划机制研究[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2019(6): 8-14. DOI: 10.16361/j.upf.201906001.
    [5] 陈宏胜, 李志刚, 肖扬, 等. 基于区域功能视角的边界新区发展研究——对深圳前海合作区与珠海横琴合作区的比较[J]. 城市规划, 2022, 46(4): 21-29.
    [6] 周凌. 特大城市边缘区空间演化机制与对策的实例剖析——以上海为例[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2017, 235(3): 85-94.
    [7] 廖开怀, 符蓝, Breitung Werner. 边界融合理论视角下的同城化研究——以广佛为例[J]. 城市发展研究, 2021, 28(7): 115-123.
    [8] 田莉, 吕传廷, 沈体雁. 城市总体规划实施评价的理论与实证研究——以广州市总体规划(2001-2010 年)为例[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2008(5): 90-96.
    [9] 贺璟寰. Evaluation of plan implementation: peri-urban development and the Shanghai master plan 1999-2020[M]. Amsterdam: Architecture and the Built Environment Press, 2015.
    [10] 孙施文, 冷方兴. 上海城市边缘区空间形态演变研究——以闵行区莘庄镇为例[J]. 城市规划学刊, 2017, 238(6): 16-24.
    [11] 林雄斌, 杨家文. 新区域主义下跨市空间规划与多层级治理研究——以珠三角为例[J]. 中国公共政策评论, 2015(001): 131-149.
    [12] 任思儒, 杨箐丛. 基于治理模式转变的跨界地区协同发展研究——以深港、深惠边界为例[C] // 面向高质量发展的空间治理——2020中国城市规划年会论文集(11 城乡治理与政策研究). 2021: 974-983. DOI: 10.26914/c.cnkihy.2021.037748.
    [13] FALUDI A. Territorial cohesion and subsidiarity under the European Union treatyies: a critique of the ‘territorialism’ underlying[J]. Regional studies, 2013, 47: 1594-1606.
    [14] 陈德宁, 吴康敏, 吴家瑜, 等. 欧盟跨边界合作研究对粤港澳大湾区协同治理的启示[J]. 热带地理, 2022, 42(2): 283-292. DOI: 10.13284/j.cnki.rddl.003435.
    [15] 马里奥· 赖默, 帕纳约蒂斯·格蒂米斯, 汉斯·布洛特福格尔. 欧洲空间规划体系与实践:比较视角下的延续与变革[M]. 贺璟寰, 译. 北京: 中国建筑工业出版社, 2022.
    [16] 罗德里克·邓肯·麦肯齐. 大都市社区[M]. 叶涯剑, 张汉娇, 译. 上海: 上海三联书店, 2017.
    [17] 殷为华, 沈玉芳, 杨万钟. 基于新区域主义的我国区域规划转型研究[J]. 地域研究与开发, 2007(5): 12-15, 47.
    [18] 叶林. 新区域主义的兴起与发展:一个综述[J]. 公共行政评论, 2010, 3(3): 175-189, 206.
    [19] 于立, 姚瑞, 曹曦东, 等. 区域规划的必要性与困境:从英格兰废止“区域空间战略”所引发的思考[J]. 城市发展研究, 2021, 28(4): 14-21, 28.
    [20] NEWMAN J. Modernising governance: new labour, policy and society[M]. London: Sage Publications, 2001.
    [21] 叶裕民, 王晨跃. 城市治理研究范式转移与一般分析框架创新[J]. 城市规划, 2022, 46(2): 42-52, 99.
    [22] ALLMENDINGER P, HAUGHTON G. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway[J]. Environment and planning a, 2009, 41(3): 617-633.
    [23] MAGGETTI M. Hard and soft governance[M] // LYNGGAARD K, MANNERS I, L?FGREN K. Research methods in European Union Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015: 252-265.
    [24] OLIVEIRA E. Editorial for virtual special issue: the emergence of new forms of flexible governance arrangements in and for urban regions: an European perspective[J]. Regional studies, regional science, 2017, 4(1): 1-6.
    [25] THOMAS K, LITTLEWOOD S. From green belts to green infrastructure? the evolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatial strategies[J]. Planning practice & research, 2010, 25: 2, 203-222. DOI: 10.1080/02697451003740213.
    [26] METZGER J, SCHMITT P. When soft spaces harden: the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region[J]. Environment and planning a, 2012, 44(2): 263-280.
    [27] EVERS D, TENNEKES J. The Europeanisation of Spatial Planning in the Netherlands[R]. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2016.
    [28] EDUARDO M, ed. European territorial cooperation: theoretical and empirical approaches to the process and impacts of cross-border and transnational cooperation in Europe[M]. London: Springer, 2018: 111-113.
    [29] 熊灵, 覃操, 龚晨. 跨境经济合作的运行机制与管理模式——欧盟INTERREG的经验及对中国的启示[J]. 边界与海洋研究, 2017, 2(3): 41-58.
    [30] SIELKER F. The European Commission’s proposal for a cross-border mechanism (ECBM): potential implications and perspectives[J]. Journal of property, planning and environmental law, 2018, 10(3): 219-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPPEL-08-2018-0024.
    [31] NADIN V, MALDONADO F, ZONNEVELD W, et al. Comparative analysis of territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe[R/OL]. (2018)[2022-12-11]. https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/1.%20COMPASS_Final_Report.pdf.
    [32] GLOERSEN E, WERGLES N, CORBINEAU C, et al. ESPON ACTAREA: Thinking and planning in areas of territorial cooperation[R]. Luxembourg: ESPON EGTC, 2017.
    [33] ALTES W. Rules versus ideas in landscape protection: is a Green Heart attack imminent?[J]. International planning studies, 2018, 23: 1, 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2017.1321479.
    [34] 周静, 沈迟. 荷兰空间规划体系的改革及启示[J]. 国际城市规划, 2017, 32(3): 113-121. DOI: 10.22217/upi.2016.233.
    [35] OECD. Territorial reviews: Randstad Holland, Netherlands[M]. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2007.
    [36] BALZ V E, ZONNEVELD W A M. Regional design in the context of fragmented territorial governance: South Wing Studio[J]. European planning studies, 2015, 23: 5, 871-891. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2014.889662.
    [37] BALZ V E. Regional design: discretionary approaches to planning in the Netherlands[M]. Delft: Architecture and the built environment, 2019.
    [38] COLLINGE C, BENTLEY G, DAMSGAARD O. RISE; Regional Integrated Strategies in Europe[R/OL]. (2013)[2022-12-30]. https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/RISE_Final_Report_Main_Report.pdf.
    [39] 刘健. 法国国土开发政策框架及其空间规划体系——特点与启发[J]. 城市规划, 2011, 35(8): 60-65.
    [40] 范冬阳, 李雯骐. 地方治理目标的呈现与实现——法国市镇联合体空间规划的传导与实施[J]. 国际城市规划, 2022, 37(5): 37-46. DOI: 10.19830/j.upi.2022.322.
    [41] PATRICIA G, JULIEN S, PASCAL T, et al. Trajectories du Sillon Lorrain: éléments de Réflexion pour un Projet Stratégique[R]. (2020)[2023-04-11]. https://www.aguram.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-01-Portrait-Sillon-Lorrain_HD.pdf.
    [42] 张衔春, 栾晓帆, 李志刚.“ 城市区域”主义下的中国区域治理模式重构——珠三角城际轨道的实证[J]. 地理研究, 2020, 39(3): 483-494.

《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

7855350