| 摘要: |
| 自党的十九大提出乡村振兴的战略
后，城乡规划学科迫切需要拓展对乡村的研
究。本文通过对相关文献的梳理，指出目前
国内乡村规划领域的研究，还缺乏在法律支
撑、治理机制和规划技术表达手段三方面进
行探索和积累。其一，规划界未厘清宪法、物
权法、村组法、自治条例、土地法、环保法等
对乡村规划行为的影响和赋权关系，导致乡
村规划法律依据存在盲点。其二，规划界未
重视乡村社区的自治特征，对自治权力与行
政干预权力之间的冲突与矛盾普遍忽视。其
三，规划界在乡村地区采用城市规划的调研、
编制和沟通方式，还未针对性地探索适用于
乡村地区的规划调研、空间表达手法和沟通
模式。这些都从根本上决定了乡村空间规划
的理论、体系与内容，以及乡村规划的实践效
果。指出，综合考虑上述三个方面，才能形成
一套逻辑自洽、适应国情的乡村规划方法。 |
| 关键词: 乡村规划 乡村治理 实施主体 规
划体系 城乡统筹 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20190507 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金面上项目（51778436） |
|
| Formation of Integrated Cognition on Rural Planning from the Perspectives of Law，Institution and SpaceImplementation |
|
YANG Fan
|
| Abstract: |
| The rural revitalization strategy, which was announced during the 19th CPC National
Congress, tasked scholars in urban and rural studies to increase their focus on the development
of rural regions. This paper identifies gaps in existing research on China’s rural planning in three
areas, namely the relevant legislation, governance mechanisms, and technological means. It
argues from three aspects.
First, planning field failed to clarify how different levels of legislation impact development
in rural areas, resulting in a lack of clarity concerning the legal foundations of rural planning.
Based on different ideas, scholars have adopted two approaches to the position of rural planning.
One approach follows the path of entrusted agency relationships, which starts by describing the
social and historical causes of rural social autonomy and the rule of law. This approach gives full
respect to the autonomy of village-level self-governance organizations with villagers’ interests in
mind, emphasizing the sense of service and responsibility to villagers, and reconstructs planning
power in rural areas through two-way interactions so that it can become an important mechanism
of rural community governance. The other approach follows the logic of the urban-rural planning
system by treating rural planning as a technical and governing tool adopted by local governments
that allows them to consider the overall considerations of jurisdictions. And this approach aims to
improve planning methods, and to look deeper into village-township system planning and village
master planning.
Second, planning field fails to highlight the self-governing characteristics of rural
communities. Consequently, conf licts and contradictions between local autonomy and
administrative interventions are neglected. As a result, rural planning from the perspective of
urban-rural planning serves as an “assistant” to basic-level governments in promoting rural
construction, often led by the requirements of external agents, and it usually overlooks the spatial,
social, and cultural needs of the villagers. Practitioners simply extend the spatial construction
methods adopted in urban areas to rural planning. Furthermore, and due to a lack of familiarity
with rural issues, planning fails to take the following into full consideration: the rural social
order, spatial relationships in the neighborhood, and rural socio-economic development paths.
This produces various contradictions in the implementation process. Relevant research studies,
however, tend to remain confined to a discussion of rural planning systems, formulation methods
and planning modes, and often neglect the fundamental problems related to rural practices, such
as the unique political context of rural life, the incompatibility between urban planning methods
and rural areas, and the short-term and long-term visions of different stakeholders in rural areas. This neglect may lead to difficulties in implementing most rural planning projects.
Third, current rural planning generally adopts the urban planning methods of investigation, study design and formulation; however, it disregards
the attributes specific to rural planning, especially where the two factors mentioned above are concerned. With the professional knowledge and
the technical means at their disposal, planners should have been able to grasp local realities and folk characteristics and generate rural plans that
meet local needs; however, the current situation is very different. Current rural planning methods make it difficult to avoid the mispositioning of
thinking modes, concept guidance, and value judgments, which generally results in impoverished local intellectual energies. Planners are not ready
to communicate effectively with the villagers; the proposed plans are either not recognized and understood by the villagers, are not intended to
be discussed by the villagers at all, or, are just for the praise of experts and local government officials. If the goal of rural revitalization is really
established through the implementation of rural planning, then the theoretical method of modern urban planning based on the western cultural
system should be creatively redirected and the method should be tailored to eastern systems.
This paper identifies that coherent and reasonable rural planning methodologies can only be developed through a joint consideration of the
legislation, governance mechanisms and planning technologies. Therefore, the following issues are needed to be answered by scholars: Should
rural planning be completely dependent on the self-development vision of rural self-government communities? How can the coordination and
interaction mechanisms between rural self-government and urban governance be effectively translated to rural planning and urban planning? What
is the significance of rural revitalization for cities and villages? How are they achieved? How are they discussed, planned, and formed in order to be
realized in shared programs of action through urban planning and rural planning? This type of approach can accommodate the current condition of
urban-rural relations in China and lay a foundation for rural development through the integration of planning research and practice. |
| Key words: Rural Planning Rural Governance Implementing Entities Planning System Co-Ordination of Urban and Rural Area |
