东京湾区和粤港澳大湾区规划体系比较研究——基于“发展”与“空间”的视角

Planning Systems of Tokyo Bay Area and Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area:Perspectives of Development and Space

以中日两国规划体系发展历程为背景,基于“发展”和“空间”两大视角,对东京湾区和粤港澳大湾区的规划体系进行对比分析,得出以下6点异同:1)中日两大湾区在近代工业化、城市制度构建和城市群规划体系建设等方面皆发挥了引领作用,但所处的历史背景和面临的关联制度存在差异;2)地方分权下,东京湾区的部门机构设置及命名相对灵活,且通过“协议会”的形式进行综合性规划编制;除港澳外,粤港澳大湾区规划体系由发展类规划、国土空间类规划、城乡建设类规划三大板块构成,且主管部门的设置在形式上是整顿、明晰、上下一致的;3)纵向传导体系方面,东京湾区的中央级规划自成体系、一脉相承,但都县级规划比较自由,且上位规划不具有绝对强制性;粤港澳大湾区相关规划的上下位关系相对明晰,但区域级规划在执行时又具有一定弹性;4)横向协同体系上,东京湾区建立了两大联席会议制度,负责区域治理及规划编制的协调,规划对城市职能的定位弱化;粤港澳大湾区针对各类问题也建立了强度各异的合作机制,同时规划对城市功能进行定位的特征依旧明显;5)规划性质上,东京湾区的发展规划与空间规划已合并为综合规划,且空间规划部分具有明显的存量规划特征;粤港澳大湾区则仍具有发展、空间、城乡的三维特征,处于增量规划向存量规划过渡阶段;6)公众参与上,东京湾区已突破传统规划范式,开始涉及个人价值等微观领域,公众参与程度高;粤港澳大湾区近年不断丰富规划内容,在公众参与的机制建设和意识培养上也取得进步,但仍有提升空间。

Domestic research on the planning of the Tokyo metropolitan area of Japan mainly includes evaluation and comparative research.The former involves the perspectives of planning interpretation,experience summarization,and history evolution;the latter compares and analyzes the three major urban agglomerations in China against the Tokyo metropolitan area.On the whole,most evaluation studies focus on the metropolitan area planning itself,and rarely focus on that of each prefecture and county under the metropolitan area.The relationship between these lower-level and metropolitan area planning has received relatively little attention.Comparative studies mostly cover various fields such as economy,industry,environmental protection,and so on,but the discussion paradigm is generally based on"introduction to the current situation→inspiration and reference,"with rare objective comparison made under a reasonable benchmark and appropriate framework.At the same time,comparative research on urban agglomeration planning itself is also uncommon.As important spatial representations of the economic development in China and Japan,with what important planning has the Tokyo Bay Area(TBA)and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area(GBA)developed to date?How do these plans relate to each other?What are the characteristics and differences?What results did these similarities and differences ultimately lead to?Answering these questions is not only related to the construction effectiveness of the GBA itself,but also has certain significance for other urban agglomerations in China.In this context,we adopt"development"and"space"as the two perspectives to analyze the planning system of the two major bay areas from the aspects of planning property,background,target area,goal,regional positioning,and main measures.On this basis,the similarities and differences between the two are summarized in six aspects:historical background and relevant system,departmental and institutional system,vertical transmission mechanism,horizontal coordination mechanism,planning system characteristics and public participation.This study argues that the following:(1)The two bay areas have played leading roles in industrialization,urban system construction,and urban agglomeration planning system construction in each country,but there are differences in the historical backgrounds and relevant social systems.(2)Under the decentralization of powers,the setting and naming of departments and institutions of TBA are relatively flexible,and they participate in the preparation process of comprehensive planning in the form of"Council."Except for Hong Kong and Macao,the departmental settings of GBA are orderly,clear,and consistent in form.(3)In terms of vertical transmission system,the centrallevel planning of TBA is self-contained and continuous but that at the county-level is relatively free,and the upper-level planning is not absolutely mandatory;the relationship between the upper and lower levels of GBArelated planning is relatively clear but that at the regional-level has some flexibility in execution.(4)In the horizontal coordination system,the TBA has established two major joint meeting systems to coordinate regional governance and planning formulation,while planning has weakened the positioning to each city's functions.Furthermore,GBA has also established cooperation mechanisms with different levels of cooperation for various issues,and the characteristics of planning for the positioning of urban functions are still obvious.(5)In terms of planning nature,the developmental and spatial planning of TBA have been combined into comprehensive planning,and the spatial aspect has obvious characteristics of stock planning.GBA still formulates planning from three aspects of development,space,and urban and rural areas and is in the transition from incremental to stock planning.(6)In terms of public participation,TBA has broken through the traditional planning paradigm and has begun to involve micro-fields such as personal value,with a high degree of public participation.In recent years,GBA has continuously enriched the planning content and has also made progress in the construction of public participation mechanisms and awareness training,but there is still room for improvement.