地理科学进展 ›› 2013, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (10): 1490-1500.doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.10.007

• 城市与区域发展 • 上一篇    下一篇

现代土地利用规划的理论演变

王向东1, 刘卫东2   

  1. 1. 兰州大学管理学院, 兰州 730000;
    2. 浙江大学公共管理学院, 杭州 310029
  • 收稿日期:2013-05-01 修回日期:2013-08-01 出版日期:2013-10-25 发布日期:2013-10-24
  • 作者简介:王向东(1986- ),男,河南登封人,博士,讲师,主要从事土地利用与规划、土地制度与政策等方面研究。E-mail: xiangdongwang86@qq.com

Theoretical evolution of modern land use planning

WANG Xiangdong1, LIU Weidong2   

  1. 1. College of Management, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
    2. College of Public Administration, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310029, China
  • Received:2013-05-01 Revised:2013-08-01 Online:2013-10-25 Published:2013-10-24

摘要: 从19 世纪末、20 世纪初诞生以来,现代土地利用规划(简称规划)涌现出很多理论流派,充分理解和掌握代表性理论的主要特征及其流变,对于开展规划研究和实践有重要的指导意义。本文在文献综述的基础上,对国内外现代规划理论的演变历程进行梳理和探究,以期有助于促进对现代规划理论的理解和应用。按时间顺序将现代规划理论演变分为4个阶段,阐述了每一阶段不同规划理论流派的产生背景、主要观点和实践影响,具体包括20世纪50 年代前的"物质形态规划论"、"马克思主义规划论",60 年代的"综合理性规划论"、"渐进规划论"、"人本主义规划论"、"自由主义规划论",70-80 年代的"新马克思主义规划论"和"新自由主义规划论",以及90 年代以来的"沟通规划论"、"可持续规划论"、"新制度主义规划论"和"公共政策规划论"等。这些理论派别有着不同的视角和侧重点,相互之间存在着或创新、或继承、或反叛、或补充的复杂关系。最后指出,现代规划理论深受多学科知识和规划实践的影响,具有深刻的时代烙印,并伴随产生了丰富的文献成果;尽管中国学者在现代规划理论构建中作出了一定贡献,但与欧美学者相比仍有较大差距,未来尚需付出更大努力。

关键词: 理论演变, 土地利用规划, 文献综述

Abstract: Since the birth of modern planning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, numerous planning theories have emerged. Despite that they have fundamental and guiding significance for planning research and practice, it is very difficult to understand and master these planning theories perfectly, due to the diversity and complexity of related theories in the literature. Though related papers already exit, there are serious shortcomings and deficiencies in the studies on this issue. For example, few researches have given comprehensive review of modern planning theories both domestically and internationally. This paper is an effective effort to overcome the obstacles and shortfalls, to help understand and master modern planning theories. In order to do this, by thoroughly combing through both domestic and foreign literature, modern planning theories are explored and analyzed precisely and sequentially. The history of modern planning theories can be divided into four periods, as discussed in four parts of this paper, involving many theoretical factions. The background, ideas, and influences of each theoretical faction are inspected carefully. Physical planning theory and Marxist planning theory before 1950s are discussed at first. Then, in the second part, the 1960s' comprehensive rational planning theory, incremental planning theory, humanist planning theory, and neoliberalism planning theory are reviewed. After that, Neo-Marxist planning theory and neoliberalism planning theory between 1970s and 1980s are commented briefly. At last, in the fourth part, the new emerging theories after 1990s, including communicational planning theory, sustainable planning theory, neo-institutional planning theory, and public policy planning theory are analyzed. Thus, basically all major theoretical factions of modern planning are covered. In addition, some low-impact theories are also discussed, such as mixed scanning methods, action planning theory, and negative planning theory, et al. As the theories emerged one after another, at the same time a wealth of literature has been published. Through the above review of modern planning theories, we can see that these emerging theoretical factions have different perspectives and concerns, such as substantive, procedural, or essential. There are also complex relations between them. For example, Marxist or neo-institutional planning theory is innovational, communicational planning theory is the inheritance of humanist planning theory, incremental planning theory is rebellious against comprehensive rational planning theory, and humanist planning theory is supplemental to comprehensive rational planning theory. We know that modern planning theories have absorbed multi-disciplinary knowledge, involving architectonics, politics, economics, geography, systematics, environmental science, urban studies, and so on. Above that, modern planning theories are impacted greatly by their own practice and the time, showing significant stage-specific characteristics. We also see that, compared to the U.S. and Europe, the Chinese scholars are lagged behind in terms of the contributions to modern planning theories. Greater efforts should be made by Chinese scholars to catch up in the future.

Key words: land use planning, review, theoretical evolution