邊境城市戰略性空間規劃的批判性論述分析：金門與廈門的比較研究

Abstract

近年來，全球許多邊境城市因其獨特的地緣政治關係，積極透過戰略性空間規劃來探索區域層面的城市與空間發展策略。本研究採用批判性論述分析方法，比較分析了2013年完成的《金門縣概念性總體規劃》和《美麗廈門戰略規劃》這兩份邊境城市戰略性空間規劃文本，深入探討了它們在地域發展、形象塑造和空間規劃等方面的論述異同。研究發現，金門與廈門的空間治理邏輯反映了國家戰略與地方訴求的張力。在地域發展論述方面，金門強調其邊境特性，試圖重塑其在兩岸關係中的戰略地位；而廈門則逐漸淡化邊境角色，更注重提升城市整體競爭力。在形象塑造上，金門利用邊境城市的外部性展現多元尺度的發展願景，透過與廈門的對比來建構理想化的自我形象；廈門則重新建構「美麗」的中國故事，制定出一種以政治與城市風貌奇觀化的治理覆誦，以呼應國家「美麗中國」倡議。在空間規劃層面，金門的規劃反映了邊境城市積累資本的需求，體現地方政府試圖重新分配開發權的意圖；廈門的多中心空間結構作為空間政策粘合劑的機制，折射出制度化過程中權力關係的持續重構，其所呈現結構性無效的解釋空間，突顯了各種尺度政治間的角力。本研究揭示了邊境城市戰略性空間規劃的三個關鍵特徵：首先，它作為協調國家戰略和地方利益的中介機制；其次，它體現了地方政府運用論述政治進行自主外交的嘗試；最後，它利用模糊概念作為政策工具，以平衡多方利益訴求。本研究通過比較分析，揭示了邊境城市在全球化與地方性交織下的複雜權力關係，為理解邊境城市的空間治理提供了新的分析視角，同時也為相關政策制定提供了參考依據。In recent years, many border cities worldwide have actively explored urban and spatial development strategies through strategic spatial planning, leveraging their unique geopolitical relationships. This study employs critical discourse analysis to compare two strategic spatial planning documents completed in 2013: the"Kinmen Conceptual Master Plan" and the "Beautiful Xiamen Strategic Plan," analyzing their discursive differences in regional development, image shaping, and spatial planning. The research reveals that spatial governance logic in Kinmen and Xiamen reflects tensions between national strategies and local demands. In regional development discourse, Kinmen emphasizes its border characteristics to reshape its cross-strait strategic position, while Xiamen downplays its border role to enhance overall urban competitiveness. In image shaping, Kinmen constructs an idealized self-image through comparison with Xiamen, while Xiamen reconstructs the"beautiful" China narrative, creating a governance recitation that spectacularizes politics and urban landscapes. In spatial planning, Kinmen's plan reflects border cities' capital accumulation needs, while Xiamen's polycentric structure serves as a spatial policy adhesive, reflecting ongoing power relationship reconstructions in the institutionalization process. The study identifies three key characteristics of strategic spatial planning in border cities: a mediating mechanism between nationalstrategies and local interests; local governments' attempts at autonomous diplomacy through discursive politics; and the use of ambiguous concepts as policy tools to balance diverse stakeholder interests. This comparative analysis reveals the complex power relations in border cities amid globalization and localization, offering new perspectives on understanding spatial governance in border cities and providing references for related policy-making.