Feng Xu, Zhang Zhanxin, Pan Chuanyang, Wang Wenzhong

Keywords： Population Shrinkage; Rural Vitality; International Comparison; Villiage Classification; Rural Vitalization; Spatial Planning

Abstract：

Industrial globalization has promoted the process of urbanization all over the world, but it also makes most countries and regions face the decline of rural vitality caused by the shrinkage of population. In this context, many countries tried to establish rural vitality evaluation and monitoring methods based on quantitative analysis, so as to accurately grasp the weak links of rural development and guide the promotion of rural vitality and differentiated revitalization. This paper selects the United States, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, which are regionally representative and at different stages of rural population shrinkage, as the research objects. Through combing the representative research and practice of rural vitality in the above countries, this paper makes a horizontal comparison of vitality evaluation ideas and indicator systems. Among them, the United States pays attention to the problem of brain drain in rural shrinkage, attracts young people to settle by ensuring rural education and prospering community culture; Germany focuses on the utilization efficiency of space and facilities at the village scale, and improves the spatial vitality through rural renewal; Japan pays attention to the sustainable development of rural areas at the level of municipality, and solves the survival crisis of rural areas by optimizing settlement structure; the United Kingdom solves the damage of rural tourism to the rural environment by monitoring and protecting environmental resources and regional landscape and ensuring the quality of rural environment. In the context of China’s national policy of rationally arranging rural space according to regional characteristics and revitalizing villages by classification, this paper could help to establish a rural vitality evaluation method that meets the development stage of China’s rural and areas with different characteristics under the context of population shrinkage, and then play an enlightening role in rural spatial layout and classified revitalization.

Funds：

• [1] LI Y H, WESTLUND H, LIU Y S. Why some rural areas decline while some others not: an overview of rural evolution in the world[J]. Journal of rural studies, 2019, 68: 135-143. 

  [2] 小田切德美 . 農山村再生——「限界集落」問題を超えて [M]. 岩波书 局 , 2009: 10. 

  [3] WOMACH J. Agriculture: a glossary of terms, programs, and laws[R]. Washington DC: CRS report for congress, 2005. 

  [4] United States Joint Economic Committee. Losing our minds: brain drain across the United States[R]. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, 2019. 

  [5] ETUK L. 2000 Baseline assessment of rural community vitality[R]. Oregon: Ford Institute, 2012. 

  [6] Purdue University, Indiana Office of Community & Rural Affairs. Community vitality indicators[EB/OL]. (2019)[2021-11-18]. https:// pcrd.purdue.edu/ruralindianastats/socio-economic/community-vitalityindicators.php?variable=cvi-overview&county=Adams&year=2019. 

  [7] Statistisches Bundesamt. Bev?lkerungsdichte in Deutschland nach Kreisen[EB/OL]. (2019)[2021-08-29]. https://www.bib.bund.de/DE/Fakten/ Fakt/B77-Bevoelkerungsdichte-Kreise.html. 

  [8] 邢来顺 . 德国乡村重振运动的历史考察 [N]. 光明日报 , 2018-02-12: 14. 

  [9] GUENTHER S. Land consolidation in Bavaria: support given to rural areas[J]. Irrigation engineering and rural planning, 1986(9): 53-59. 

  [10] 李玉恒 , 阎佳玉 , 宋传垚 . 乡村振兴与可持续发展——国际典型案例剖析及其启示 [J]. 地理研究 , 2019, 38(3): 595-604. 

  [11] 钱玲燕 , 干靓 , 张立 , 等 . 德国乡村的功能重构与内生型发展 [J]. 国际城市规划 , 2020, 35(5): 6-13. DOI: 10.19830/j.upi.2020.341. 

  [12] Bayerische Verwaltung für L?ndliche Entwicklung. Vitalit?ts-Check zur Innenentwicklung für D?rfer und Gemeinden Leitfaden[EB/OL]. (2018-09-28)[2020-08-29]. http://www.stmelf.bayern.de/mam/cms01/ landentwicklung/dokumentationen/bilder/2019_04_03_vc_leitfaden.pdf. 

  [13] 干靓 , 钱玲燕 , 杨秀 . 乡村内生型发展活力测评——德国巴伐利亚州的实践与启示 [J]. 国际城市规划 , 2020, 35(5): 23-34. DOI: 10.19830/ j.upi.2020.286. 

  [14] Bayerische Verwaltung für L?ndliche Entwicklung. Evaluierung zur Innentwicklung im Oberen Werntal[EB/OL]. (2019-08-27)[2020-08-29]. https://www.landentwicklung.bayern.de/mam/cms01/landentwicklung/ dokumentationen/dateien/le_evaluierung_innenentwicklung_werntal.pdf.

  [15] 冯旭 , 王凯 , 毛其智 . 基于国土利用视角的二战后日本农村地区建设法规与规划制度演变研究 [J]. 国际城市规划 , 2016(1): 71-80. 

  [16] OKAMOTO C. データ出典 : データ出典 : 平成 27 年国勢調査市区町村別人口密度 [EB/OL]. (2015-10-05)[2021-08-29]. http://www.crepe.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/material/maptile.html. 

  [17] 光洋二 , 津田渉 , 雜賀幸哉 . 農村地域活性化の定量的評価報告 [R]. 東京 : 農林水産省, 農村振興局, 2011. 

  [18] 橋詰登 . 農村活性化の指標と地域資源の活用 [J]. 農林水産政策研究所レっビュー , 2014(8): 10-17. 

  [19] BIBBY P, BRINDLEY P. Urban and rural area definitions for policy purposes in England and Wales: methodology(V1.0)[R]. DEFRA, DCLG, ONS, Welsh Government, 2013. 

  [20] HALFACREE K. A new space or spatial effacement? alternative futures for the post-productivist countryside[M] // WALFORD N, EVERITT J, NAPTON D. Reshaping the countryside: perceptions and processes of rural change. Wallingford: CAB International, 1999: 67-76. 

  [21] Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. National planning policy framework[Z]. 2012-03-27. 

  [22] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. National design guide[Z]. 2019-10-01. 

  [23] Natural England. An approach to landscape character assessment[Z]. 2014. 

  [24] Natural England. National character areas (England)[EB/OL]. (2016-11-29) [2021-12-10]. https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com. 

  [25] Staffordshire County Council. Planning for landscape change–supplementary planning guidance to the Staffordshire and stoke-on-trent structure plan (1996-2011)[R]. London: Development Services Department, 2011. 

  [26] Countryside Quality Counts: tracking change in the English countryside, final report[R]. 2004.