IS THERE A NEW ‘TRUST’ IN INNER SCANDINAVIA? EVIDENCE FROM CROSS‐BORDER PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE

Inner Scandinavia is one of the Swedish‐Norwegian INTERREG‐A three sub‐programmes, and has been working in operationalizing cross‐border projects in the border area since 1994. To date, several cross‐border strategies have been implemented, one for each programming period of the INTERREG‐A programme. This article investigates whether these strategies can be regarded as a type of cross‐border planning mechanism in promoting territorial development of the border region. It does so by developing a typology, which captures the essentials of spatial planning, against the background of which the article also analyses Inner Scandinavia governance structures, which involves a whole set of interconnected territorial partnerships between five border counties: Hedmark, Østfold, Akershus (Norway), Värmland and Dalarna (Sweden). Here, the main goal is to see if the Inner Scandinavia governance structure, which was recently altered by the inclusion of the Hedmark–Dalarna cross‐border committee, also known as TRUST, is favourable to the implementation of a genuine and long‐term cross‐border spatial plan, with the ultimate goal of reducing the barrier effect and improving the territorial capital along the cross‐border region. Project dokuments and interviews indicate that the existing cross‐border governance model in Inner Scandinavia, led by the INTERREG‐A Steering Committee, produced substantial progresses in reducing the barrier effect, in all its dimensions, and in supporting the territorial development across the border area. Consequently, the role of other cross‐border governance structures should be confined to promoting the active involvement and mobilization of local and regional actors in the cross‐border cooperation process, and in implementing several cross‐border projects with local/regional significance.     

边境区位、边境区经济合作的理论与实践--以辽宁省-朝鲜边境地区经济合作为例

欧洲和北美的实践表明,边境地区经济合作具有推动经济全球化和区域经济一体化的作用,同时,经济全球化和区域经济一体化又促进了边境地区经济合作的发展。本文从边境区位的理论分析入手,探讨了边境区位再创造问题,并分析边境区位再创造与边境区经济合作的内在联系。最后,对辽宁省和朝鲜之间边境区经济合作做了实证研究。     

深港边界地区的尺度重组研究——以前海地区为例

借助政治经济学中常用的尺度理论,对香港与深圳之间逐渐成为热点的边界地区进行研究。首先分析在香港与珠三角地区跨界互动的不同阶段中得到显著发展的边界地区的历史演变特征,再以深港边界间的前海地区为例,探讨其地域重构与尺度重组的形成机制和演变动力。改革开放以来珠三角地区基于进入国家战略或世界体系的目的进行了多轮尺度重组,影响了不同时期、不同类型边界地区的发展特征。目前一些边界地区已成为地方政府进行资本与空间修复的主要载体,其根本动力是巨大的制度红利以及政府的主导推动。这与欧盟国家通过尺度上移和下放逐渐弱化政府力量的手段有较大区别,而边界地区推动区域协调以及尺度重组的能力也需进一步论证。     

省际边缘区城市空间辐射范围研究——以陕甘宁蒙晋五省交界地区为例

合理的确定区域中城市的空间影响范围,是制定区域整体发展策略的重要依据,是协调区域中城市之间相互关系的前提。在总结国内外划分城市空间辐射范围指标研究的基础上,建立了陕甘宁蒙晋五省交界区域中九个城空间辐射范围能力的评价指标体系;运用主成分分析法测度榆林等九个城市的指标辐射能力分值;结合康弗斯模型和OVD、WVD方法,将城市的各项辐射力强度值作为每个城市点的权重,构建九个城市点集的加权Voronoi图,合理的划分出九个城市在理论上的空间辐射范围,并在图上表现出城市之间分界线的轨迹,以利于对城市空间辐射范围进一步的识别。     

Working Towards Regional Agreements: Recent Developments in Co‐operative Resource Management in Canada's British Columbia

Canada's experience with ‘regional agreements’ has attracted considerable attention in Australia as a means by which Indigenous people can secure their native title rights to land and sea and ensure they can participate in the development and management of their homeland territories. However, regional agreements implemented in Canada thus far have often taken years to negotiate. To provide a degree of certainty for resource management and decision‐making while the native title claims process is underway, Canadian governments have proceeded to establish interim resource use and management agreements with Indigenous communities. While both governments and Indigenous people stress that interim arrangements do not replace or limit the scope for future claim settlements, it is recognised that the development of such co‐operative relationships will make long‐lasting formal agreements easier to achieve. This paper draws on several recent examples of interim agreements that have been negotiated for the salmon fishery resource in the Skeena River catchment, and considers how these local experiences offer useful approaches for resource management and native title issues in Australia. These examples demonstrate the importance of building shared understandings of resource values and management approaches prior to cementing co‐management partnerships in formal settlements. They also show some of the problems and prospects facing Indigenous peoples in their efforts to benefit from such co‐management agreements.