自然资源学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (10): 2299-2310.doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20201001

• 面向国土空间规划的"双评价":理论与实践 •    下一篇

面向国土空间规划的“双评价”:挑战与应对

岳文泽, 吴桐, 王田雨, 夏皓轩   

  1. 浙江大学土地管理系,杭州 310058
  • 收稿日期:2020-02-20 修回日期:2020-07-30 出版日期:2020-10-28 发布日期:2020-12-28
  • 作者简介:岳文泽(1977- ),男,安徽凤台人,博士,教授,博士生导师,研究方向为国土空间规划。E-mail: wzyue@zju.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(41671533,41871169)

"Double evaluations" for territorial spatial planning: Challenges and responses

YUE Wen-ze, WU Tong, WANG Tian-yu, XIA Hao-xuan   

  1. Department of Land Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
  • Received:2020-02-20 Revised:2020-07-30 Online:2020-10-28 Published:2020-12-28

摘要: 面向国土空间规划的科学性、可操作性、层级性等内涵,探讨了资源环境承载能力评价和国土空间开发适宜性评价(“双评价”)与国土空间规划之间的基本逻辑问题、应用挑战与应对方法。通过系统梳理“双评价”的理论发展和相关政策响应,剖析了“双评价”在应用探索、内涵扩充、系统支撑三个阶段的研究重点和服务目标,阐明了承载力评价与适宜性评价之间关联逻辑的演进历程。总结了当前“双评价”在应用上的几个关键挑战:一是“双评价”应用于“三区三线”划定的逻辑尚未明确;二是当前承载能力评价与未来规划决策之间存在逻辑悖论;三是“双评价”在不同层级国土空间规划中传导失灵;四是两个评价之间的关联逻辑仍存在争议。为此,提出了应对“双评价”挑战的四点建议:深化理论认知、拓展评价维度、建立传导机制、厘清内在关系,以提升“双评价”对国土空间规划决策的支撑能力。

关键词: "双评价", 国土空间规划, 挑战, 应对策略

Abstract: In response to the needs of hierarchy, diversity and difference in territorial spatial planning, this paper discusses the basic logic problems, application challenges and responses between resource and environment carrying capacity, territorial development suitability ("double evaluations") and territorial spatial planning. By systematically combing the theoretical development and policy response of "double evaluations", this paper summarizes the research focus and service objectives of "double evaluations" in the three stages of application exploration, connotation expansion and system support, and expounds the evolution process of the logic of capacity and suitability. Several key challenges in the application of the current "double evaluations" are sorted out. First, the logic of the application of "double evaluations" in the delineation of "three types of spatial zones and alert lines" is not yet clear. Second, there is a logical paradox between the current carrying capacity evaluation and future planning decision-making. Third, the "double evaluations" method fails to pass in the territorial spatial planning at different levels. Finally, there are still controversies on the relationship logic between the two evaluations. Therefore, this paper puts forward four suggestions to improve the "double evaluations": deepen the theoretical cognition, expand the evaluation dimensions, establish the transmission mechanism, and clarify the internal relationship, so as to enhance the support of the "double evaluations" to the territorial spatial planning decision-making.

Key words: "double evaluations", territorial spatial planning, challenges, coping strategies