Redai dili (May 2023)
Planning Systems of Tokyo Bay Area and Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area: Perspectives of Development and Space
Abstract
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 central-level 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 GBA-related 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.
Keywords
