腹地科學(xué)的研究倡導(dǎo)

摘 要 本文倡導(dǎo)建立一種腹地科學(xué)，將城市中心與鄉(xiāng)村景觀之間的過渡區(qū)域視為充滿活力且復(fù)雜的區(qū)域，值得建筑與城市規(guī)劃學(xué)科給予特別關(guān)注。作者從“hinterland”的中文譯名“腹地”中汲取靈感，提出了腹地概念的定義，以表達(dá)這種中間區(qū)域的多面性特征。該定義構(gòu)成了分形理論的基礎(chǔ)，始終能夠在不同尺度上應(yīng)用，大到全球視角，小到單個(gè)建筑的定義。本文對(duì)城鄉(xiāng)分類進(jìn)行了文獻(xiàn)綜述和歷史回顧，包含弗蘭科潘（Frankopan）等歷史學(xué)家的見解，多希阿迪斯（Doxiadis）的人類住區(qū)與生態(tài)學(xué)理論、吳良鏞的人居環(huán)境科學(xué)導(dǎo)論，以及庫哈斯（Koolhaas）對(duì)鄉(xiāng)村的最新觀察等。本文通過方案研究和案例應(yīng)用，進(jìn)一步展示了腹地地區(qū)所面臨的獨(dú)特挑戰(zhàn)及其可能的應(yīng)對(duì)策略，強(qiáng)調(diào)了傳統(tǒng)城市策略的不足。另外，文章通過描述腹地的需求和特征，旨在為全面的腹地科學(xué)提供道路，以解決當(dāng)代城市化的復(fù)雜問題。本文旨在簡要概述這一新理論的定義、需求和可能的特性，并舉例說明其實(shí)際應(yīng)用情況，目的是提出一種策略，該策略試圖為一個(gè)在學(xué)科中經(jīng)常被忽視的領(lǐng)域建立一個(gè)定義，無論是在物理層面還是在思維層面。

關(guān)鍵詞：腹地；科學(xué)；新理論；國家戰(zhàn)略腹地

1 什么是腹地？

在實(shí)踐和學(xué)術(shù)研究過程中，筆者意識(shí)到在建筑和城市規(guī)劃的論述中，城市與鄉(xiāng)村之間存在明顯的對(duì)立，這往往使非城市地區(qū)被邊緣化。在筆者就讀于代爾夫特理工大學(xué)（TU Delft）時(shí)，城市密度和城市發(fā)展被視為最終的目標(biāo)，這種理念在庫哈斯（Koolhaas）的《瘋狂的紐約》（Delirious New York） 中得以表現(xiàn)和贊美，以及他工作室在大都市建筑上的成功，并且MVRDV 的《KM3：密度探險(xiǎn)》等書籍中也是如此[1]。盡管在過去的20 年中，一些建筑師也觀察到一種漸變的范式，例如在《鄉(xiāng)村：一份報(bào)告》（Countryside： A report）中[2]，開始更多地關(guān)注“城市”的對(duì)立面。然而仔細(xì)觀察，可發(fā)現(xiàn)這種對(duì)立似乎仍然存在。在筆者看來，這種范式的轉(zhuǎn)變?nèi)匀徊蛔?，且不完整。筆者來自荷蘭，一個(gè)典型的在全球定義中城市和鄉(xiāng)村之間缺乏明顯邊界的國家，并且廣泛探索了中國和其他各種地區(qū)，筆者觀察到一種介于兩者之間的領(lǐng)域，打破了這種嚴(yán)格的對(duì)立，即大量人口居住在主要城市區(qū)域之外，但并非嚴(yán)格的傳統(tǒng)鄉(xiāng)村環(huán)境。在中國，僅這種地區(qū)就占約30% 的人口和較大比例的GDP。除了“大都會(huì)建筑事務(wù)所（OMA）”，人們還有各種“鄉(xiāng)村實(shí)踐”，但目前為止，似乎還沒有“事務(wù)所”或“理論”專門針對(duì)這類“中間區(qū)域”。

這一腹地科學(xué)的研究計(jì)劃源于對(duì)建筑和城市規(guī)劃學(xué)科中一個(gè)關(guān)鍵但常被忽視的領(lǐng)域的認(rèn)識(shí)，即存在于城市中心和鄉(xiāng)村景觀之間的過渡空間。隨著城市化進(jìn)程持續(xù)重塑人們的生活環(huán)境，對(duì)這一專業(yè)理論的需求日益增長，該理論能夠描述這些中間區(qū)域的復(fù)雜性。這也符合理論定義和社會(huì)文化領(lǐng)域日益增長的趨勢，即為追求 “更多城市化 ”提供另一種選擇。無論是如“泡沫經(jīng)濟(jì)”中那樣[3]，反對(duì)城市持續(xù)增長的追求，還是像中國的鄉(xiāng)村振興實(shí)踐那樣，關(guān)注中國欠發(fā)達(dá)鄉(xiāng)村的發(fā)展，都對(duì)“超越城市”的問題有越來越多的關(guān)注，旨在以廣泛的視角將人類發(fā)展和周圍環(huán)境聯(lián)系起來。本文旨在為建筑和城市設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)科中的這一具有可替代性的綜合理論奠定基礎(chǔ)，從“hinterland”的中文譯名 “腹地”中得到啟發(fā)，提出基于分形理論的概念，可在不同尺度上廣泛應(yīng)用，從而便于對(duì)之前被忽視的腹地的整體理解。

1.1 定義

關(guān)于“腹地”的定義，最初是一個(gè)德語詞，字面翻譯成英語為“the land behind”。地理學(xué)家喬治·奇澤姆（George Chisholm）在其《商業(yè)地理手冊》中首次記載了該詞的用法[4]。在英語中，美式和英式的定義略有不同。依據(jù)本文的目的，采用美式定義，將其描述為“一個(gè)位于可見或已知范圍之外的區(qū)域”，并附加了“基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施欠發(fā)達(dá)的人口稀少區(qū)域”的定義。翻譯成中文為“腹地”，字面意思是“位于中間地帶的土地”。因此，它描述了一種“隱藏且重要”的土地，就像身體的器官（腹部）一樣，有幾個(gè)特征，其中最重要的是人們無法離開它而生存。例如，與缺失肢體相比，人類無法在缺失心臟、大腦或腹部的情況下生存。此外，在中醫(yī)理論中，腹部具有恢復(fù)功能。人體，以及類似的一個(gè)地區(qū)或國家，被認(rèn)為利用“腹”來儲(chǔ)存能量，并從腹部進(jìn)行（物理上的）恢復(fù)。

在這個(gè)倡導(dǎo)中，本文將腹地定義為“后方的土地”，即通常被忽視的、超出人們主要關(guān)注和興趣范圍外的土地，并承認(rèn)腹地作為更大系統(tǒng)中的一個(gè)重要器官的特征。

1.2 建筑和城市設(shè)計(jì)背景下的腹地

將“腹地”應(yīng)用于建筑、城市設(shè)計(jì)和規(guī)劃學(xué)科，需要對(duì)城市和鄉(xiāng)村的定義，以及這些領(lǐng)域的關(guān)鍵理論進(jìn)行背景探索，旨在建立一個(gè)細(xì)致入微的框架，以應(yīng)對(duì)中部空間的獨(dú)特特征和挑戰(zhàn)。該框架將作為描述“腹地科學(xué)的理論與實(shí)踐”的基本條件。

首先，必須承認(rèn)的是，對(duì)城鄉(xiāng)分類的研究缺乏全球公認(rèn)的定義，這阻礙了國際比較，并且凸顯了建立一個(gè)更準(zhǔn)確框架的必要性。例如，目前聯(lián)合國報(bào)告的數(shù)據(jù)是基于各國定義的城市化比例。問題在于，各國對(duì)城市化的定義顯著不同。不僅城鄉(xiāng)的劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不同，而且使用的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也不同。一些國家使用最低人口數(shù)量作為衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，而另一些國家則使用人口密度、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施發(fā)展、就業(yè)類型或簡單使用預(yù)定義的城市人口作為衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這意味著，丹麥認(rèn)為一個(gè)定居點(diǎn)有200 名居民即為城市[5]，這與中國大不相同，中國認(rèn)為一個(gè)地區(qū)有超過2 萬名居民即為城市[6]，而日本認(rèn)為一個(gè)城市至少需要5 萬人[5]。如果將中國的定義用于丹麥，那么丹麥可能只有極少數(shù)地區(qū)可以稱為“城市”；反之，將丹麥的定義用于中國，幾乎所有的地區(qū)都可以稱為“城市”（圖1）。近期的一些高級(jí)別歐洲政策研究，試圖通過強(qiáng)調(diào)定義的差距來思考這些問題，并旨在為未來發(fā)展提供一個(gè)學(xué)術(shù)性、跨學(xué)科和以設(shè)計(jì)為基礎(chǔ)的框架。2020 年，在歐洲委員會(huì)（EC）區(qū)域和城市政策總局協(xié)調(diào)下，6 家國際組織：歐盟（EU）、聯(lián)合國糧食及農(nóng)業(yè)組織（FAO）、國際勞工局（ILO）、經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織（OECD）、聯(lián)合國人類住區(qū)規(guī)劃署（UN-Habitat）和世界銀行，聯(lián)合多名學(xué)者，關(guān)于國際統(tǒng)計(jì)比較中城市、城鄉(xiāng)區(qū)域的劃分方法提出了建議[7]，本文的提議基于其中一些建議。歐洲委員會(huì)提出了一種新的方法，稱為城市化程度，將一個(gè)國家的整個(gè)領(lǐng)土分為3 類：①城市；②城鎮(zhèn)和半密集區(qū)；③農(nóng)村地區(qū)。在本文提議中，將第2 類地區(qū)即中間區(qū)域，稱為“腹地”。這與歐洲委員會(huì)提出的觀點(diǎn)基本吻合，但又更進(jìn)一步，承認(rèn)其為一個(gè)特定的領(lǐng)域。腹地框架解決了全球缺乏城市和農(nóng)村地區(qū)通用定義的問題，為國際比較和規(guī)劃提供了一個(gè)有價(jià)值的工具，而無需對(duì)城市、農(nóng)村分類進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格的通用定義。事實(shí)上，腹地框架旨在打破傳統(tǒng)的農(nóng)村與城市之間的二元對(duì)立立場。當(dāng)代城市化不斷發(fā)展的演變動(dòng)態(tài)及其與周邊生態(tài)環(huán)境的關(guān)系，要求人們對(duì)繁華的城市中心與寧靜的鄉(xiāng)村景觀之間的過渡區(qū)域有一個(gè)更細(xì)致的理解。對(duì)“腹地”的重新定義，體現(xiàn)了這些中部空間的多面性。這種概念轉(zhuǎn)變促進(jìn)了一種更具包容性和整體性的建筑與城市規(guī)劃方法，有助于人們理解在塑造環(huán)境的過程中，城鄉(xiāng)元素之間的復(fù)雜作用。

其次，盡管腹地科學(xué)本身是一個(gè)新的理論框架，在建筑和城市設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域，現(xiàn)有理論源自對(duì)當(dāng)代發(fā)展的同類觀察，可以為在建筑和城市設(shè)計(jì)背景下，框定腹地的發(fā)展?jié)摿μ峁┝己玫幕A(chǔ)。例如，多希阿迪斯在1968 年提出的人居學(xué)和人類居住環(huán)境理論[8]，提供了人類住區(qū)與其環(huán)境相互作用的寶貴視角。吳良鏞的著作《人居環(huán)境科學(xué)導(dǎo)論》提供了進(jìn)一步的見解[9]，全面闡述了人居發(fā)展的內(nèi)在復(fù)雜性。這些成熟的理論為腹地的概念化奠定了基礎(chǔ)，不僅將其視為地理空間，更視為城鄉(xiāng)元素交匯的動(dòng)態(tài)過渡領(lǐng)域。將這些理論基礎(chǔ)與實(shí)證研究相結(jié)合，對(duì)形成當(dāng)代城市化的綜合性和適應(yīng)性方法至關(guān)重要。此外，有證據(jù)表明，某些腹地正在振興。例如，馮描述了中國鄉(xiāng)村如何通過市場、圖書館和酒店得以振興[10]，其他重要的觀察包括德爾加多·維納斯（DelgadoVinas）對(duì)城鄉(xiāng)互動(dòng)的探索[11]，盧對(duì)中國城市化戰(zhàn)略的評(píng)估[12]，卡森對(duì)城鄉(xiāng)發(fā)展脫節(jié)的研究[13]，以及約翰·韋爾什（John Welsh）的批判理論[14]。這些研究顯示出腹地動(dòng)態(tài)變化的性質(zhì)及其創(chuàng)新和再生的潛力。

最后，腹地的戰(zhàn)略重要性在近期的政策討論中得到了認(rèn)可。2023 年12 月，中國中央經(jīng)濟(jì)工作會(huì)議上提出了“建設(shè)國家戰(zhàn)略腹地”的概念。根據(jù)蒲和馬在2024 年的說法，這一概念旨在通過劃定腹地的關(guān)鍵地理屬性和戰(zhàn)略特征，優(yōu)化生產(chǎn)力布局，并保障國家安全[15]。國家戰(zhàn)略腹地具有一些基本特征，如關(guān)鍵的地理位置、強(qiáng)大的經(jīng)濟(jì)韌性及其對(duì)創(chuàng)新和發(fā)展引擎的作用。腹地促進(jìn)了城市文化的凝聚，代表了經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的新增長極和動(dòng)力源。要將戰(zhàn)略決策轉(zhuǎn)化為實(shí)際成果，系統(tǒng)推進(jìn)國家戰(zhàn)略腹地的建設(shè)是必不可少的，包括加強(qiáng)高層戰(zhàn)略規(guī)劃，協(xié)調(diào)建立戰(zhàn)略物資儲(chǔ)備，支持戰(zhàn)略科技能力建設(shè)，以及發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略運(yùn)輸能力網(wǎng)絡(luò)。通過這些做法，腹地就能在新時(shí)代持續(xù)推動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)高質(zhì)量發(fā)展和先進(jìn)的安全基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)。

通過在建筑和城市設(shè)計(jì)的背景下重新定義腹地，人們認(rèn)識(shí)到腹地在塑造可持續(xù)和有韌性的居住區(qū)方面的獨(dú)特作用和潛力。這個(gè)框架為理解和解決中部空間的復(fù)雜性提供了一個(gè)全面的方法，促進(jìn)了城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃中的創(chuàng)新性和適應(yīng)性。

1.3 被忽視的領(lǐng)域

以 CNKI 中國知網(wǎng)數(shù)據(jù)庫為參考，分析對(duì)“腹地 ”的現(xiàn)有研究可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，在經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、農(nóng)業(yè)、政治學(xué)等學(xué)科中，這一領(lǐng)域的研究非常廣泛，出版物穩(wěn)步增長，在 2008 年前后迅速上升，并達(dá)到頂峰。在此之后，對(duì)這一領(lǐng)域的研究持續(xù)得到關(guān)注，特別是由于2023 年中央經(jīng)濟(jì)工作會(huì)議的相關(guān)發(fā)言，未來幾年內(nèi)對(duì)腹地的研究數(shù)量預(yù)計(jì)會(huì)有所增加（圖2）。然而，盡管這一領(lǐng)域在總體上和政治上都引起了廣泛的關(guān)注，但在建筑科學(xué)、建筑工程、建筑與規(guī)劃等領(lǐng)域卻依然被忽視，對(duì)腹地的研究占該領(lǐng)域論文總數(shù)的比例不足1.5%（圖3）。建筑學(xué)科可能被期待在這一領(lǐng)域的研究和發(fā)展中扮演重要角色，因?yàn)槠渚哂兴茉旖ㄖh(huán)境、連接人類與居住環(huán)境的能力。但事實(shí)并非如此，建筑師庫哈斯在其2020 年出版的《鄉(xiāng)村：一份報(bào)告》（Countryside： A report）中指出了這一不足，并將腹地描述為“被忽視的領(lǐng)域”[2]。庫哈斯描述了人類歷史上各國政治領(lǐng)袖和社會(huì)如何關(guān)注腹地，而在當(dāng)代（受西方影響下）城市社會(huì)中，這一關(guān)注已被遺忘和忽視[2]。

庫哈斯將他的注意力從繁榮的城市生活轉(zhuǎn)移到這些非城市地區(qū)隱秘的過渡空間上，挑戰(zhàn)傳統(tǒng)觀念，并認(rèn)識(shí)到過渡空間重要性。庫哈斯強(qiáng)調(diào)，城市生活方式在前所未有的規(guī)模上深刻影響了非城市地區(qū)（庫哈斯所稱的“鄉(xiāng)村”）的組織、抽象和自動(dòng)化。這種轉(zhuǎn)變引發(fā)了由雄心、愿景和政治意志驅(qū)動(dòng)的重大政治和社會(huì)重組。以他在書中提出的全球鄉(xiāng)村為背景，該領(lǐng)域不僅僅是城市中心的被動(dòng)背景，而是一個(gè)由復(fù)雜力量塑造的動(dòng)態(tài)化領(lǐng)域。庫哈斯的工作揭示了這一領(lǐng)域是試驗(yàn)研究的前沿，各國和各種背景下的新社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)和創(chuàng)新實(shí)踐在這里涌現(xiàn)。本文提出的腹地概念框架與庫哈斯定義的“被忽視的領(lǐng)域”不謀而合，事實(shí)上，這可能是一個(gè)更為恰當(dāng)?shù)亩x，因?yàn)椤班l(xiāng)村”具有與農(nóng)村生活相關(guān)的特定含義。相反，腹地代表充滿潛力和轉(zhuǎn)型的空間，對(duì)傳統(tǒng)的鄉(xiāng)村生活概念提出了挑戰(zhàn)。“被忽視的領(lǐng)域”對(duì)“腹地”的多層次定義，進(jìn)一步確認(rèn)了這一被忽視領(lǐng)域的潛力和重要性。因此，通過記錄和分析這一領(lǐng)域正在發(fā)生的變化，庫哈斯對(duì)腹地不斷變化的狀態(tài)提出了重要見解。他的觀察表明，腹地并非靜態(tài)，而是在新的社會(huì)組織形式和技術(shù)進(jìn)步的推動(dòng)下，正在發(fā)生重大變化的動(dòng)態(tài)區(qū)域。

庫哈斯的作品是城市以外生活的重要記錄，為這些地區(qū)正在進(jìn)行的轉(zhuǎn)變進(jìn)程提供了寶貴的證據(jù)。他的研究對(duì)于人們理解全球腹地狀況具有重要意義，為評(píng)估和創(chuàng)新這些常被忽視且充滿活力的景觀提供了基礎(chǔ)。實(shí)際上，庫哈斯邀請人們重新審視對(duì)這一被忽視領(lǐng)域的早期觀念。他強(qiáng)調(diào)其變革、適應(yīng)和創(chuàng)新的能力，提示建筑師、城市規(guī)劃者和政策制定者將腹地視為一個(gè)充滿潛力和無限可能的領(lǐng)域，而非一成不變的農(nóng)村區(qū)域。這種觀點(diǎn)對(duì)于在可持續(xù)發(fā)展和城鄉(xiāng)動(dòng)態(tài)的背景下應(yīng)對(duì)腹地帶來的挑戰(zhàn)和機(jī)遇至關(guān)重要。庫哈斯的見解突破了人們對(duì)腹地的認(rèn)識(shí)和參與方式，倡導(dǎo)以更加細(xì)致入微、更具前瞻性的方式來研究和發(fā)展腹地。他的研究不僅強(qiáng)調(diào)了對(duì)這一非城市領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行定義的需求，還展示了當(dāng)前討論中尚未覆蓋的該領(lǐng)域的廣泛主題。

1.4 腹地的歷史背景

如今，人們常常認(rèn)為城市化是典型的現(xiàn)代現(xiàn)象。然而，事實(shí)并非如此。為了更好地理解“城市——非城市”關(guān)系在過去幾千年中的變化，以及這如何導(dǎo)致了非城市地區(qū)成為一個(gè)相對(duì)“被忽視的領(lǐng)域”，并通常帶有負(fù)面含義，人們需要探討這種動(dòng)態(tài)的歷史演變。牛津大學(xué)全球史教授弗蘭科潘（Frankopan）在《地球的轉(zhuǎn)變》一書中描述了“財(cái)富差距成為最早和最密集城市化人口的特征”，這一現(xiàn)象創(chuàng)造了將城市視為寄生體的模式，在這種模式中，城市增長的動(dòng)力來自勞動(dòng)力，而收益則被精英階級(jí)攫取，并設(shè)立壁壘，以鞏固自身地位，并同時(shí)限制他人的進(jìn)入[16]。弗蘭科潘描述了城市、鄉(xiāng)村和腹地之間的關(guān)系在歷史上經(jīng)歷了顯著的轉(zhuǎn)變，這些轉(zhuǎn)變受經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)和環(huán)境動(dòng)態(tài)的影響[16]。例如，在古代中國，他描述了秦朝期間，當(dāng)權(quán)者如何努力將勞動(dòng)力與土地捆綁在一起，以確保高農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)。這是通過維持戶籍來防止農(nóng)民流動(dòng)，從而有效地將農(nóng)民綁定在他們的農(nóng)業(yè)角色上（圖4）。這種方法強(qiáng)調(diào)了歷史上對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)勞動(dòng)力的依賴，以支持城市中心和國家更廣泛的經(jīng)濟(jì)穩(wěn)定。古希臘和古羅馬的哲學(xué)視角進(jìn)一步說明了城鄉(xiāng)對(duì)立。蘇格拉底在柏拉圖的記述中說道：“從樹木、自然和鄉(xiāng)村中學(xué)不到什么；唯一能獲得知識(shí)的地方是城市，從其他人那里?！碧K格拉底否定了鄉(xiāng)村作為知識(shí)來源的重要性，強(qiáng)調(diào)城市是唯一的知識(shí)增長之地。相比之下，西塞羅將農(nóng)業(yè)浪漫化，將其視為一種理想的追求，但他忽視了那些以務(wù)農(nóng)為生的人所面臨的嚴(yán)酷現(xiàn)實(shí)。這種對(duì)農(nóng)村生活的理想化，往往掩蓋了農(nóng)業(yè)工人所遭受的剝削和艱苦的勞動(dòng)。

在歷史上，城鄉(xiāng)區(qū)域不僅通過勞動(dòng)和經(jīng)濟(jì)依賴相互聯(lián)系，而且通過環(huán)境重構(gòu)緊密相連。動(dòng)植物和農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)在各地區(qū)之間的傳播是由人類的需求和愿望驅(qū)動(dòng)的，這種傳播重塑了環(huán)境，以適應(yīng)城市和農(nóng)村的需求。例如，中國在漢朝期間，當(dāng)權(quán)者引入土地開墾技術(shù)和新工具來提高農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)力，這與世界其他地區(qū)（如羅馬）發(fā)展相似。城市化在歷史上也帶來了嚴(yán)重的生態(tài)和健康挑戰(zhàn)。老普林尼哀嘆人類為了自我富裕而過度開發(fā)自然資源，警告人們環(huán)境將以自然災(zāi)害的形式對(duì)人類進(jìn)行報(bào)復(fù)。全球的城市地區(qū)，因人口密度和不衛(wèi)生的條件，成為病菌滋生地，使城市生活的健康和可持續(xù)性變得更加復(fù)雜。歷史敘述還強(qiáng)調(diào)了不同地區(qū)在應(yīng)對(duì)環(huán)境和社會(huì)政治壓力方面的復(fù)原力和適應(yīng)能力。在歐洲部分地區(qū)，農(nóng)業(yè)實(shí)踐的創(chuàng)新和向牧業(yè)的轉(zhuǎn)變，幫助人們適應(yīng)氣候的變化和抵抗外部的威脅，如野蠻人的入侵。這些適應(yīng)性措施促進(jìn)了地方的自給自足，為應(yīng)對(duì)食物短缺和城市的脆弱性提供了緩沖。阿拉伯學(xué)者借鑒希臘思想，研究環(huán)境條件如何影響人類特征和社會(huì)發(fā)展。這些觀點(diǎn)強(qiáng)調(diào)了氣候不僅塑造了人們的身體特征，還塑造了其文化和智力特征，反映了學(xué)者們對(duì)環(huán)境與人類社會(huì)之間相互聯(lián)系的廣泛理解。

總體而言，城市、鄉(xiāng)村和腹地之間關(guān)系的歷史演變，揭示了經(jīng)濟(jì)開發(fā)、哲學(xué)理論、環(huán)境管理和適應(yīng)性復(fù)原之間復(fù)雜的相互作用。這些歷史見解對(duì)于理解在建筑和城市規(guī)劃中定義和駕馭腹地的當(dāng)代挑戰(zhàn)和機(jī)遇至關(guān)重要。研究被廣泛認(rèn)為是最重要的中國畫作《清明上河圖》，可以直觀地體現(xiàn)這種視角的變化，及其與建筑和城市規(guī)劃定義的關(guān)系。圖4 展示了《清明上河圖》中重點(diǎn)內(nèi)容的平面圖，強(qiáng)調(diào)了城市與鄉(xiāng)村之間的“中間地帶”，即腹地。這幅畫的不同版本跨越了數(shù)百年的歷史，進(jìn)一步展示了城市、農(nóng)村區(qū)域，及其對(duì)中間地帶定義的演變。

1.5 分形理論

在構(gòu)建腹地定義的基礎(chǔ)上，作者發(fā)現(xiàn)該對(duì)概念的應(yīng)用不僅限于“非城市”領(lǐng)域。本文旨在將這一原則作為一種分形理論加以介紹，并適用于各種尺度。腹地作為“腹部”區(qū)域，代表了人們所關(guān)注和隱藏在視線之外的，但對(duì)系統(tǒng)整體運(yùn)行至關(guān)重要的部分之間的關(guān)系，這一現(xiàn)象可以在各種尺度上觀察到。這不僅適用于腹地的字面“土地”定義，還適用于全球區(qū)域、國家、城市、校園，甚至建筑尺度。新的腹地關(guān)系和結(jié)構(gòu)正在形成，這將引起人們對(duì)各種尺度“腹地”的關(guān)注，例如，大尺度（國際、國家、區(qū)域等）和小尺度（社區(qū)、校園、服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)等）見圖5。

在全球?qū)用妫沟乇欢x為主要城市中心與偏遠(yuǎn)農(nóng)村地區(qū)之間的過渡區(qū)域。這一定義延伸至區(qū)域和地方尺度，則涵蓋了城市邊緣區(qū)和其他中間區(qū)域。分形理論進(jìn)一步滲透至微觀尺度，影響腹地內(nèi)個(gè)體建筑的設(shè)計(jì)和定義。甚至在建筑層面，這一概念也可以描述為類似于路易斯·康（Louis Kahn）定義的“服務(wù)與被服務(wù)空間”[17]。通過采用分形理論的方法，腹地科學(xué)承認(rèn)了這一原則在不同尺度上的相互關(guān)聯(lián)性，從而促進(jìn)了學(xué)者們對(duì)過渡區(qū)、隱藏區(qū)域和被忽視區(qū)域的全面性和適應(yīng)性理解，這些區(qū)域?qū)τ谡w功能至關(guān)重要。本文重點(diǎn)關(guān)注城市、區(qū)域及其周邊地區(qū)的中間尺度，以解釋腹地這一概念的核心原則。

2 它為什么重要？

根據(jù)聯(lián)合國《世界城市化前景：2018 年修訂版》（World Urbanization Prospects： The 2018Revision），世界人口在2007 年首次出現(xiàn)城市人口超過農(nóng)村人口的現(xiàn)象[5]。如今，全球超過一半的人口居住在城市，而這些城市僅占全球土地面積的2%?，F(xiàn)有學(xué)科中大部分研究和實(shí)踐都集中在這2% 的土地上。然而，剩余的98%的世界領(lǐng)土正是本文所提出理論的重點(diǎn)。這98% 的土地包括廣袤的鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)、重要基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、工業(yè)、縣城和未被城市化影響的野生景觀（見圖6 和圖7）。代爾夫特理工大學(xué)教授斯特芬·尼豪斯（Steffen Nijhuis）在其就職演講中展示的圖像（圖7）生動(dòng)地說明了這一對(duì)比[18]。腹地作為城市中心和鄉(xiāng)村廣袤地帶之間的動(dòng)態(tài)領(lǐng)域，提供了獨(dú)特的挑戰(zhàn)和機(jī)遇。

如前文所述，歷史上城市與農(nóng)村之間一直存在著顯著的分界。許多社會(huì)優(yōu)先發(fā)展城市，視城市為社會(huì)中更高級(jí)、更文明的象征，而鄉(xiāng)村則往往被忽視。根據(jù)弗蘭科潘的觀點(diǎn)，這種分化甚至是導(dǎo)致等級(jí)社會(huì)形成的最重要原因[16]。至今，城市化率仍被視為某一國家或地區(qū)發(fā)展程度的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，聯(lián)合國指出，一個(gè)國家的財(cái)富與其城市化率之間存在相關(guān)性。然而，這種對(duì)城市化及其所謂積極方面的單一視角已經(jīng)受到質(zhì)疑。曾為城市化的強(qiáng)烈倡導(dǎo)者的庫哈斯在2020 年指出，今天城市與非城市之間并沒有真正的、相互的關(guān)系[2]。事實(shí)上，長期以來人們對(duì)城市化、城市和城市生活方式重要性的關(guān)注，導(dǎo)致了一些不必要和不理想的影響，這突顯了建立特定框架以應(yīng)對(duì)這些問題的重要性。當(dāng)前的問題包括但不限于以下幾類。

2.1 腹地的挑戰(zhàn)

2.1.1 城市居民與非城市居民的分化

這種分化現(xiàn)象表現(xiàn)在人們對(duì)社會(huì)文化、資源分配和農(nóng)村地區(qū)的普遍不滿中。這種不滿也體現(xiàn)在民主主義政黨的興起，以及陰謀論的傳播，這種陰謀論基于人們擔(dān)心歐洲或美國等西方國家被“遺忘”或“被城市精英控制”。這種分化加劇了社會(huì)分裂，阻礙了國家的綜合發(fā)展。

2.1.2 非可持續(xù)的城市化

全面城市化引發(fā)了關(guān)于可持續(xù)發(fā)展和生活質(zhì)量的問題。雖然高密度城市區(qū)域的平均財(cái)富可能較高，但它們往往面臨過度擁擠、污染和疾病易發(fā)等問題。此外，城市基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的壓力可能導(dǎo)致生活條件惡化、持續(xù)高水平的壓力和抑郁癥發(fā)病率增加，以及生育率急劇下降。因此，必須考慮全面城市化是否應(yīng)該是最終目標(biāo)，哪些替代模式可以更好地平衡人類進(jìn)步與生活質(zhì)量，從而造福整個(gè)社會(huì)。李曉東提出的“城鎮(zhèn)化”概念為這一問題提供了一個(gè)有趣的嘗試（圖8），即一種適用于腹地地區(qū)的具體發(fā)展模式，其最終目標(biāo)并不是使原來的農(nóng)村地區(qū)完全城市化。

2.1.3 環(huán)境退化

對(duì)城市發(fā)展的高度關(guān)注，往往導(dǎo)致對(duì)農(nóng)村地區(qū)和自然環(huán)境的忽視、剝削和退化。這可能導(dǎo)致森林被砍伐、生物多樣性喪失和土壤退化。腹地地區(qū)有時(shí)僅作為支持城市增長的資源基地，而未采取足夠的措施來維持其生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。城市地區(qū)及其居民自身在很大程度上免受這種環(huán)境退化的直接影響。2020 年2 月，庫哈斯在接受《中國日報(bào)》采訪時(shí)準(zhǔn)確指出，環(huán)境退化和隨之而來的氣候變化在腹地地區(qū)更為明顯。他說：“如果你在城市中，幾乎感覺不到全球變暖。但一旦你走出城市，就會(huì)意識(shí)到天氣變得奇怪，或者預(yù)期上出現(xiàn)了異常。[19]”最近的全球研究表明，超過70% 的農(nóng)民已經(jīng)看到了氣候變化對(duì)其農(nóng)場的重大影響[20]。在中國最大的農(nóng)業(yè)省份——河南省，70.3% 的農(nóng)民（約5，100 萬人）認(rèn)為氣候變化對(duì)他們的生計(jì)構(gòu)成了威脅[21]。

2.1.4 經(jīng)濟(jì)差距

對(duì)城市經(jīng)濟(jì)的關(guān)注可能加劇城鄉(xiāng)之間的差距。農(nóng)村地區(qū)可能會(huì)面臨投資不足，導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展機(jī)會(huì)有限和貧困率較高。這種經(jīng)濟(jì)不平衡問題可能加劇人口向城市的遷移，進(jìn)一步加重城市基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的負(fù)擔(dān)，導(dǎo)致農(nóng)村人口減少，并加劇上述問題的嚴(yán)重性。這種差距還體現(xiàn)在服務(wù)和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的可獲得性方面，腹地地區(qū)通常難以獲得醫(yī)療保健、教育和交通設(shè)施等方面的服務(wù)。這些差距可能導(dǎo)致生活質(zhì)量下降，阻礙農(nóng)村發(fā)展的潛力和其融入更廣泛國家發(fā)展進(jìn)程的可能性。

2.1.5 文化侵蝕

98% 的非城市地區(qū)往往擁有豐富的文化遺產(chǎn)和傳統(tǒng)。對(duì)城市化的強(qiáng)調(diào)可能導(dǎo)致這些文化識(shí)別性受到侵蝕，因?yàn)槟贻p一代為了尋求更好的發(fā)展機(jī)會(huì)而遷往城市，這可能會(huì)影響通常在這一較大的非城市腹地發(fā)現(xiàn)的文化多樣性。移民的涌入可能導(dǎo)致幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來一直保持的獨(dú)特文化習(xí)俗和社區(qū)結(jié)構(gòu)的消失，現(xiàn)在，這些文化遺產(chǎn)和傳統(tǒng)都融入了統(tǒng)一的城市化熔爐，失去了其獨(dú)特的傳承。

2.1.6 城市自信

將城市原則應(yīng)用于非城市環(huán)境確實(shí)存在危險(xiǎn)。并非所有地方都是城市；并非所有地方都需要成為城市；并非每個(gè)城鎮(zhèn)都需要一個(gè)博物館；并非每個(gè)村莊都需要一個(gè)高鐵站和高層辦公樓；并非每個(gè)空曠的水域都必須建造一個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)中心。規(guī)劃師、建筑師和政府工作人員試圖利用和實(shí)施城市戰(zhàn)略來發(fā)展或解決非城市地區(qū)的問題。相反，人們需要根據(jù)準(zhǔn)確的情況了解和分析非城市地區(qū)存在的問題，結(jié)合當(dāng)?shù)氐男枨蟆⒘?xí)俗和要求，制定具體的實(shí)施策略。令人震驚的是，就中國而言，大部分重要的建筑物、資源、大學(xué)，以及建筑師都集中在一線城市（特大城市、超大城市和大城市），而這些城市僅占據(jù)總行政單位的不到5%（圖9）。而成千上萬的其他行政實(shí)體卻受到較少的關(guān)注，但它們通常是以排名靠前的“成功”城市為模型構(gòu)建而成。盡管行政定義并不一定能明確界定“城市”與“非城市”區(qū)域的固定邊界（圖10）。

2.2 研究背景

上述內(nèi)容為腹地理論的提出提供了背景。然而，關(guān)注腹地不僅僅是為了解決這些非城市地區(qū)面臨的問題，還要認(rèn)識(shí)到它們對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的潛在貢獻(xiàn)。將腹地納入更廣泛的城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃框架，可以促進(jìn)更加平衡和包容的發(fā)展方式。這包括認(rèn)識(shí)到城市與農(nóng)村地區(qū)之間的相互依存關(guān)系，并制定支持腹地振興和可持續(xù)發(fā)展的策略。這種關(guān)注的轉(zhuǎn)變鼓勵(lì)人們重新思考定義進(jìn)步和成功的方式。不應(yīng)將城市化視為發(fā)展的唯一指標(biāo)，而應(yīng)考慮所有地區(qū)的健康、可持續(xù)性發(fā)展和文化豐富性。這樣可以創(chuàng)建一個(gè)更加公平和具有韌性的社會(huì)，既重視和發(fā)展城市中心，也重視和發(fā)展腹地。

綜上所述，腹地地區(qū)具有以下特征。

（1）對(duì)社會(huì)運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)至關(guān)重要，但往往在理論、政策和研究中被忽視。

（2）產(chǎn)生重大影響，并直接影響大部分人口。

（3）影響地表現(xiàn)象的力量越來越大。

（4）是一個(gè)具有適應(yīng)性和可擴(kuò)展性，與各種超出城市中心以外規(guī)模都有關(guān)聯(lián)的概念。

（5）面臨著獨(dú)一無二的發(fā)展挑戰(zhàn)，不同于嚴(yán)格意義上的農(nóng)村或完全城市地區(qū)。

（6）旨在從起點(diǎn)了解和重新發(fā)展的現(xiàn)有結(jié)構(gòu)。

（7）可以成為更大規(guī)模綜合發(fā)展的修復(fù)地、營養(yǎng)地和資源地。

3 腹地理論

2012 年，由于過度關(guān)注城市地區(qū)而忽略了全球范圍內(nèi)的大量領(lǐng)土，作者試圖提出另一種聲音，于是組織了一場跨四大洲的、5 所大學(xué)參與的、為期24h 的研討會(huì)，主題為“城市之外”。這個(gè)研討會(huì)基于這樣一種觀點(diǎn)：以城市為中心的規(guī)劃常常忽視了城市邊界以外的地區(qū)。研討會(huì)在引言中提出了關(guān)于城市增長與自然環(huán)境之間平衡的關(guān)鍵問題，強(qiáng)調(diào)了需要考慮城市之外的地區(qū)，以創(chuàng)造可持續(xù)的發(fā)展。最初這只是一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，但十多年后，它被視為承認(rèn)非城市重要性的起點(diǎn)。借助本文的研究，這一簡單的觀點(diǎn)現(xiàn)在已發(fā)展為一個(gè)研究方向，該方向定義了學(xué)科中目前在客觀和主觀上都被忽視的領(lǐng)域。同時(shí)，它還為解決圍繞城市和鄉(xiāng)村定義的全球模糊性問題提供了一個(gè)有價(jià)值的框架。這一理論提出了一個(gè)梯度定義，而不是嚴(yán)格的二分法，并非固有的“優(yōu)質(zhì) = 城市 、未開發(fā) = 農(nóng)村”框架。這種梯度定義也有助于人們更好地理解國際比較，因?yàn)槌鞘械拇_切定義已不再重要。這個(gè)被忽視的領(lǐng)域目前可以通過它所面臨挑戰(zhàn)的類型、相對(duì)于城市和農(nóng)村地區(qū)的位置等來描述。與嚴(yán)格意義上的城市或農(nóng)村相比，這一介于兩者之間的領(lǐng)域有著明顯不同的需求和發(fā)展特征，無論是中國還是荷蘭，以及世界上許多國家，目前都沒有針對(duì)這一領(lǐng)域的具體政策或發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略。人們稱這一領(lǐng)域?yàn)椤案沟亍保鄳?yīng)的框架涉及“腹地科學(xué)的理論與實(shí)踐”，以下簡稱“腹地”。腹地的概念包括“后方（通常被忽視或超出人們主要關(guān)注范圍之外）”，以及“腹部土地（“腹地”中文定義的直接翻譯）”的概念，承認(rèn)了它在更大系統(tǒng)中不可或缺的作用。

3.1 從觀察到理論和科學(xué)

在建筑、城市設(shè)計(jì)和規(guī)劃領(lǐng)域，新理論框架的建立通常源于對(duì)社會(huì)文化的觀察（圖11）。從勒·柯布西耶（Le Corbusier）、多希阿迪斯到巴克敏斯特· 富勒（BuckminsterFuller）、吳良鏞、庫哈斯等人，有影響力的建筑師和城市規(guī)劃師的一個(gè)共同點(diǎn)是：他們基于對(duì)當(dāng)代社會(huì)的具體觀察來建立綜合理論。這些觀察通常揭示了社會(huì)中隱藏或被忽視的方面，進(jìn)而推動(dòng)了新理論框架的發(fā)展，對(duì)建筑和城市設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)影響。本文旨在延續(xù)這一傳統(tǒng)，提出對(duì)未來理論的基礎(chǔ)性觀察，而腹地可以被視為這些現(xiàn)代綜合理論演進(jìn)的下一步。

為了更好地理解這一點(diǎn)，可以回顧這些理論自現(xiàn)代以來的演變。勒·柯布西耶在其開創(chuàng)性的著作《明日之城及其規(guī)劃》（The Cityof Tomorrow and Its Planning） 中， 提出了一種激進(jìn)的現(xiàn)代城市化概念，以解決歷史城市中不衛(wèi)生、不健康和衰落的狀況[22]。勒·柯布西耶對(duì)20 世紀(jì)初城市中心社會(huì)和環(huán)境問題的觀察，使他設(shè)想了一種全新的城市，這種城市以功能性、效率與和諧為特征，強(qiáng)調(diào)綠地的重要性和與現(xiàn)代技術(shù)的融合。后來，在不同的時(shí)代和背景下，多希阿迪斯發(fā)展了人類聚居學(xué)理論。他通過系統(tǒng)的觀察提出，人類聚落可以進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的研究。他在《人類聚落科學(xué)導(dǎo)論》（Ekistics： An Introduction to the Science ofHuman Settlements）中以概述的方法表明，通過仔細(xì)研究人類居住模式和功能，可以推導(dǎo)出一個(gè)理論，為更好的城市規(guī)劃和聚落發(fā)展提供參考[6]。多希阿迪斯的工作為更科學(xué)的城市設(shè)計(jì)方法奠定了基礎(chǔ)，強(qiáng)調(diào)需要全面分析和系統(tǒng)規(guī)劃。另一個(gè)例子是巴克敏斯特·富勒，他因其創(chuàng)新和前瞻性的設(shè)計(jì)而著名，他同樣也非常依賴于對(duì)社會(huì)問題的觀察。在其著作《關(guān)鍵路徑》（Critical Path）中，研究了他所處時(shí)代的環(huán)境和社會(huì)問題，并提出了旨在解決這些問題的建筑和城市規(guī)劃解決方案[23]。他的系統(tǒng)方法尋求將技術(shù)和可持續(xù)實(shí)踐整合到設(shè)計(jì)中，倡導(dǎo)人類需求與環(huán)境保護(hù)之間的協(xié)同作用。

在20 世紀(jì)70 年代，庫哈斯提出了一種新穎的理論表述方法，即通過追溯過去的觀察結(jié)果來構(gòu)建他所謂的 “逆向宣言”。在《瘋狂的紐約》（Delirious New York）中，庫哈斯利用曼哈頓的歷史和當(dāng)代現(xiàn)象，制定一個(gè)理論框架，這一框架也成為他未來建筑和城市設(shè)計(jì)項(xiàng)目的重要指導(dǎo)[24]。這項(xiàng)工作成為他在OMA 實(shí)踐的基礎(chǔ)，展示了歷史分析如何為當(dāng)代設(shè)計(jì)提供信息。隨后在中國，吳良鏞基于多希阿迪斯的研究，并結(jié)合自己的觀察，提出了一種基于對(duì)社會(huì)快速發(fā)展觀察的各種理論的整合。他提出的人居環(huán)境科學(xué)理論，強(qiáng)調(diào)通過一系列嵌入式尺度來研究人類與其周圍環(huán)境的關(guān)系。吳良鏞的方法結(jié)合了中國傳統(tǒng)規(guī)劃原則和現(xiàn)代城市設(shè)計(jì)，創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)在快速城市化背景下可持續(xù)發(fā)展的綜合框架。最近，庫哈斯的作品《鄉(xiāng)村：一份報(bào)告》（Countryside： A Report）在紐約的古根海姆博物館舉辦了展覽，延續(xù)了基于觀察的發(fā)展理論的傳統(tǒng)[2]。庫哈斯探討了經(jīng)常被忽視的鄉(xiāng)村和非城市區(qū)域，強(qiáng)調(diào)這些地區(qū)正在發(fā)生的重大變革。他的工作突破了傳統(tǒng)的城市中心視角，呼吁人們對(duì)全球景觀進(jìn)行更包容的理解，認(rèn)可城市與鄉(xiāng)村環(huán)境之間的動(dòng)態(tài)互動(dòng)。

綜上所述，這些建筑師和城市規(guī)劃師通過仔細(xì)觀察社會(huì)變化，發(fā)展出指導(dǎo)建筑和城市設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)際應(yīng)用的強(qiáng)大理論。這些理論甚至演變成新的科學(xué)領(lǐng)域，如多希阿迪斯和吳良鏞的案例。他們的工作強(qiáng)調(diào)了不斷重新評(píng)估和調(diào)整人們對(duì)建成環(huán)境的理解，以應(yīng)對(duì)當(dāng)代挑戰(zhàn)和機(jī)遇的重要性。此外，建筑師作為關(guān)鍵社會(huì)現(xiàn)象的觀察者，有能力將這些現(xiàn)象轉(zhuǎn)化為具有明確實(shí)用價(jià)值和應(yīng)用潛力的綜合理論，他們的技能也是如此。這也是本文的靈感和目標(biāo)所在。

3.2 腹地?cái)⑹卤尘?/p>

關(guān)于腹地的具體敘述，前文已確立了城鄉(xiāng)之間長期存在著明顯的分化，這種分化并不局限于現(xiàn)代化或城市化。這種思維方式在大多數(shù)知識(shí)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和文化領(lǐng)域中依然適用。為更好地應(yīng)對(duì)腹地發(fā)展的挑戰(zhàn)，需要考慮2.1 節(jié)中描述的挑戰(zhàn)框架，并將其歸類為幾個(gè)主題。目前，這些主題并非旨在提供一個(gè)完整的概述，而是理論發(fā)展的起點(diǎn)，包括以下內(nèi)容。

3.2.1 社會(huì)文化動(dòng)態(tài)

腹地是一個(gè)非同質(zhì)的、豐富的社會(huì)文化動(dòng)態(tài)拼圖，城鄉(xiāng)文化在這里交織融合。這種融合產(chǎn)生了獨(dú)特的表達(dá)形式，反映了對(duì)比鮮明的生活方式之間的共生關(guān)系。建筑師和規(guī)劃師必須深入研究腹地的社會(huì)文化結(jié)構(gòu)，才能設(shè)計(jì)出滿足這些過渡區(qū)域內(nèi)社區(qū)多樣化需求和愿望的空間。

3.2.2 經(jīng)濟(jì)相互依存

對(duì)腹地的反思包括認(rèn)識(shí)到錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的經(jīng)濟(jì)之間的相互依存關(guān)系。這種關(guān)系體現(xiàn)在不同的層面上，既可能涉及城市中心、周邊腹地和鄉(xiāng)村之間的關(guān)系，也可能涉及城市內(nèi)部相對(duì)欠發(fā)達(dá)的地區(qū)。腹地不僅僅是資料、產(chǎn)品或資源的來源，還在相互依存的經(jīng)濟(jì)體系中發(fā)揮著關(guān)鍵作用。理解和利用這些相互依存關(guān)系對(duì)建筑師和規(guī)劃師制定可持續(xù)性和彈性的開發(fā)策略至關(guān)重要。

3.2.3 生態(tài)綜合

腹地作為一個(gè)未被察覺或未被關(guān)注的區(qū)域，是城市與農(nóng)村生態(tài)系統(tǒng)交匯的樞紐。這些過渡區(qū)的生態(tài)環(huán)境對(duì)于促進(jìn)環(huán)境可持續(xù)性發(fā)展至關(guān)重要。建筑師和城市規(guī)劃師必須考慮其設(shè)計(jì)對(duì)自然環(huán)境的影響，并致力于推廣促進(jìn)生物多樣性、資源保護(hù)和生態(tài)平衡的解決方案。

通過這種方式，本研究旨在確定適用于腹地的特定建筑（和城市）設(shè)計(jì)方法。

4 腹地實(shí)踐

除了理論框架之外，腹地也是建筑師和城市設(shè)計(jì)師可以通過實(shí)踐進(jìn)行干預(yù)的地方。為說明可能的實(shí)際應(yīng)用領(lǐng)域，下文列舉了各種實(shí)例。這些實(shí)例分為兩部分：第一部分是在中國背景下定義的腹地領(lǐng)域，結(jié)合了與前述的社會(huì)文化動(dòng)態(tài)、經(jīng)濟(jì)相互依存、生態(tài)綜合3 點(diǎn)框架相關(guān)的主題領(lǐng)域。第二部分是一小部分經(jīng)驗(yàn)案例，是過去幾年中筆者參與相關(guān)課題的成果，同時(shí)也是理論框架的發(fā)展。它們不是對(duì)研究的完整概述，而只是為了說明可能的研究范圍、領(lǐng)域的潛力和實(shí)際意義。

4.1 該理論的可能研究范圍

考慮本刊作為中國領(lǐng)先的雙語期刊，以下列出了一些可能的腹地研究主題及其在中國的應(yīng)用領(lǐng)域。首先，可以在圖12 中看出國家尺度下的腹地可能涉及的區(qū)域，這是一個(gè)遼闊的土地區(qū)域，沒有確切的邊界，在這個(gè)區(qū)域內(nèi)仍然存在著大量不同的情況，但可以根據(jù)該理論框架進(jìn)行描述，而且在普遍論述范圍之外，也沒有通用的政策或具體方法。這個(gè)區(qū)域通常不包括大型城市群和大多數(shù)收入較高的沿海地帶，而包括許多縣城、衰落的城鎮(zhèn)，以及許多三線及以下城市。

為說明該理論在這一領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的可能性應(yīng)用，下面列舉了一些已經(jīng)或可能適合應(yīng)用研究的具體研究領(lǐng)域及其子課題。

4.1.1 關(guān)于社會(huì)文化動(dòng)態(tài)

子課題：城市周邊問題

案例區(qū)域：上海郊區(qū)

尺度：城市

理論依據(jù)：上海作為一個(gè)快速發(fā)展的城市，擁有廣闊的城市周邊地區(qū)，這些地區(qū)描繪了城市發(fā)展與農(nóng)業(yè)景觀之間的畫面。城市擴(kuò)張與傳統(tǒng)農(nóng)村土地利用之間的沖突在城市周邊地區(qū)隨處可見。

4.1.2 關(guān)于經(jīng)濟(jì)相互依存

子課題：經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型

案例區(qū)域：浙江省寶溪縣

尺度：縣域

有趣的是，正如庫哈斯在2019 年指出的，“中國是目前唯一一個(gè)制定政策，將農(nóng)村作為一個(gè)有活力的環(huán)境，作為一個(gè)創(chuàng)造新機(jī)遇的地方的國家”。在腹地和龍泉國際竹建筑雙年展中（圖13），由當(dāng)?shù)厮囆g(shù)家葛千濤和建筑師國廣喬治（George Kunihiro）策劃的活動(dòng)就是一個(gè)極好的例子。該展覽探索竹子和泥土的使用，以支持原生態(tài)的生活方式，結(jié)合了本地供應(yīng)商、國際策展人以及適合當(dāng)?shù)丨h(huán)境的多功能建筑師。在參觀完項(xiàng)目后，拉扎洛娃（Lazarova）在《建筑評(píng)論》中寫道：“這些設(shè)計(jì)重新將塑造對(duì)世界的文化影響，利用這些知識(shí)為世界帶來了新的東西[25]?！边@是腹地中關(guān)于經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型的一個(gè)很好的例子。

4.1.3 關(guān)于生態(tài)整合

子課題：氣候影響與生態(tài)整合

案例區(qū)域：河北泛洪區(qū)（包括北京和雄安周邊地區(qū)）

尺度：地區(qū)

理由：正如前文所述，如果身處城市，幾乎不會(huì)注意到氣候危機(jī)帶來的嚴(yán)重影響。但是如果身處腹地，就會(huì)意識(shí)到天氣異常，不得不面對(duì)真實(shí)的后果。天氣變得越來越極端，而城市太寶貴不能被犧牲。因此，周圍的腹地被犧牲，用于水源緩沖或洪水防治。這可能挽救了城市中數(shù)百萬人的生命和數(shù)10 億美元的 GDP，但也猛烈地摧毀了不幸的腹地居民的日常生計(jì)。2023 年，河北省的大片區(qū)域被有意淹沒（圖14），以緩解天津、北京、河北地區(qū)城市中心的壓力和潛在災(zāi)難。像這樣使用緩沖區(qū)域的做法當(dāng)然不僅限于中國，事實(shí)上，荷蘭也使用了非常類似的策略，但至關(guān)重要的是，不僅要從城市群自上而下的需求出發(fā)，還要從居住在這些地區(qū)的當(dāng)?shù)鼐用竦慕嵌葋砜紤]，荷蘭在這方面已經(jīng)有了很好的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

4.2 近期實(shí)踐應(yīng)用

第二部分是筆者在過去幾年中親自參與相關(guān)課題的一小部分經(jīng)驗(yàn)應(yīng)用，同時(shí)也是理論框架的發(fā)展過程。

4.2.1 為可持續(xù)發(fā)展重新發(fā)現(xiàn)古老道路

古道聯(lián)合研究與設(shè)計(jì)工作室將可持續(xù)旅游業(yè)發(fā)展與腹地地區(qū)的社區(qū)振興相結(jié)合，體現(xiàn)了腹地理論的實(shí)踐應(yīng)用。這一持續(xù)的合作倡議由北京清華大學(xué)和秘魯利馬的教皇天主教大學(xué)（the Pontifical Catholic University）共同主辦，同時(shí)還有來自瑞士蘇黎世聯(lián)邦理工學(xué)院和西班牙馬德里理工大學(xué)的研究人員參與。該倡議專注于古老的非機(jī)動(dòng)車道系統(tǒng)，將其作為可持續(xù)發(fā)展的模板。旨在展示特定主題如何在世界各地不同的腹地地區(qū)中以類似的條件出現(xiàn)，并采用當(dāng)?shù)貤l件的相似策略。首個(gè)調(diào)查地點(diǎn)是著名的印加古道系統(tǒng)，或稱為Qhapac ?an，橫跨南美多個(gè)國家，總長超過2 萬km2。該項(xiàng)目的目標(biāo)不僅局限于欣賞歷史，還包括了解定居模式、當(dāng)?shù)貤l件和社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)，為在不斷變化的環(huán)境條件下可持續(xù)發(fā)展奠定基礎(chǔ)。

該項(xiàng)研究的目的在于保護(hù)歷史遺產(chǎn)，并展望其演變和適應(yīng)性發(fā)展。通過對(duì)周邊景觀進(jìn)行深入地測繪和探索，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)現(xiàn)了這些古道與塑造它們的社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)之間錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的聯(lián)系。這種理解為創(chuàng)新設(shè)計(jì)方案提供了依據(jù)，將遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)與適應(yīng)性相結(jié)合，確保這些歷史路網(wǎng)在面對(duì)氣候變化和地貌變遷時(shí)，仍具有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。一個(gè)重要的關(guān)注點(diǎn)是與這些景觀相關(guān)社區(qū)的福祉，探討低影響旅游如何作為促進(jìn)積極變革的催化劑，同時(shí)造福環(huán)境和當(dāng)?shù)鼐用瘛＿@些設(shè)計(jì)旨在平衡經(jīng)濟(jì)增長與文化和自然遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)之間的關(guān)系，促進(jìn)社區(qū)福祉。

雖然最初的研究專注于印加古道系統(tǒng)，但該框架是在全球背景下設(shè)定的，認(rèn)識(shí)到古今中外各種文化中都存在類似的系統(tǒng)，最終形成全面的比較戰(zhàn)略分析。調(diào)研的下一階段將集中在中國的古茶馬道上，這是一條歷史悠久的道路，在類似的山區(qū)利用馬匹促進(jìn)茶葉和其他商品的交易，塑造了地區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)，并促進(jìn)了文化間的聯(lián)系。通過研究這些古道，工作室旨在了解它們的全球意義，并探索如何利用它們激發(fā)全球可持續(xù)性發(fā)展實(shí)踐。這項(xiàng)正在進(jìn)行的研究旨在對(duì)抗文化侵蝕，強(qiáng)調(diào)將歷史遺產(chǎn)與可持續(xù)發(fā)展相結(jié)合的重要性，并為全球腹地振興提供寶貴的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

4.2.2 腹地未來的生活方式

在這個(gè)項(xiàng)目中，3 名學(xué)生在筆者的指導(dǎo)下，參加了一個(gè)全國學(xué)生自選地點(diǎn)競賽，并獲得了榮譽(yù)獎(jiǎng)。本項(xiàng)目決定選擇以縣城為主題，盡管縣城經(jīng)常被忽視，但縣城人口卻占中國總?cè)丝诘募s19%。進(jìn)一步的分析顯示，縣城的人口正在減少，它們的發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略和配套設(shè)施相對(duì)落后。另一方面，縣城也有其發(fā)展的優(yōu)勢和潛力。與大城市相比，縣城的生活節(jié)奏較慢，壓力較小，消費(fèi)也更為實(shí)惠；與農(nóng)村地區(qū)相比，它們可以提供相對(duì)更加密集和完善的生活服務(wù)，如教育和醫(yī)療。

因此，縣城為腹地戰(zhàn)略的應(yīng)用提供了一個(gè)絕佳的主題，并通過總結(jié)縣城在城市和農(nóng)村地區(qū)之間的優(yōu)勢來實(shí)現(xiàn)。本項(xiàng)目選取了中國四川省一個(gè)典型的縣級(jí)城鎮(zhèn)，這也是其中一名學(xué)生的家鄉(xiāng)，選擇了一個(gè)具體的地點(diǎn)來設(shè)計(jì)一個(gè)綜合社區(qū)區(qū)塊，以展示腹地生活方式的潛力。設(shè)計(jì)的目標(biāo)是將小規(guī)模農(nóng)業(yè)與復(fù)雜多樣的人口結(jié)合起來。在最終的競賽作品中，學(xué)生們通過農(nóng)業(yè)設(shè)施和生活與工作的融合，設(shè)計(jì)了一個(gè)互動(dòng)、輕松且高品質(zhì)的生活體驗(yàn)，為來自不同背景的人們打造了一個(gè)具有縣城特色的未來社區(qū)。

這個(gè)未來社區(qū)設(shè)想為一個(gè)可以適應(yīng)各種類似條件的原型，在這個(gè)原型中，未來社區(qū)由一系列 U 型庭院組成。這樣的庭院具有很高的適應(yīng)性，可以根據(jù)不同的場地和需求進(jìn)行改造。不同的住宅單元組合形成了庭院的東、西、南、北4 個(gè)方向的建筑。庭院內(nèi)布置有果樹、稻田、菜地和畜牧等農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)，供居民共同使用。這些區(qū)域不僅為居民提供日常生活必需品，還可以成為居民共同勞動(dòng)和交流的紐帶。所有這些都凸顯了“未來社區(qū)設(shè)計(jì)：以集體農(nóng)業(yè)為新生活方式”的雄心（圖15，圖16）。

5 結(jié)語：為腹地綜合科學(xué)鋪路

總之，本文提出建立一個(gè)“腹地科學(xué)”的研究計(jì)劃，提出了一個(gè)概念框架，用以定義、理解和引導(dǎo)建筑與城市規(guī)劃領(lǐng)域的過渡空間。本文通過將理論見解與實(shí)際應(yīng)用相結(jié)合，展示了這一科學(xué)如何在各種背景下建立、關(guān)聯(lián)并適用。

受到“腹地”一詞中文翻譯為“腹部土地”的啟發(fā)，腹地框架強(qiáng)調(diào)了這類空間作為整體中重要但隱蔽的本質(zhì)。這一定義是分形理論的基礎(chǔ)，適用于從全球視角、區(qū)域和城市到鄰里和單個(gè)建筑的多個(gè)尺度。本文通過整合重要的建筑和城市規(guī)劃理論，并借鑒案例研究來說明腹地地區(qū)所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)。本文為綜合的、適應(yīng)性強(qiáng)的 “腹地科學(xué)（包含復(fù)雜的過渡空間）”奠定了基礎(chǔ)，這一科學(xué)計(jì)劃旨在彌合城市與農(nóng)村之間的分化，為當(dāng)代城市化提供一種更加全面和細(xì)致的方法。

腹地通常代表隱藏在容易被看見或感知背后的區(qū)域，為解決全球?qū)Τ鞘泻娃r(nóng)村地區(qū)缺乏統(tǒng)一定義的核心問題（這一問題妨礙了國際比較）提供了一個(gè)有價(jià)值的框架。通過為城市與農(nóng)村空間的銜接提供一個(gè)新的范例，本文主張更深入地理解和認(rèn)識(shí)腹地的潛力。這種方法不僅能應(yīng)對(duì)當(dāng)代城市化的挑戰(zhàn)，還能為可持續(xù)的創(chuàng)新設(shè)計(jì)方案提供可能性，從而提高城市和鄉(xiāng)村居民的生活質(zhì)量。

通過這種方式，腹地科學(xué)為未來充分認(rèn)識(shí)和駕馭這類過渡空間的復(fù)雜性鋪平了道路，促進(jìn)了一種平衡和綜合的發(fā)展方式，造福世界各地的不同環(huán)境和社區(qū)。

參考文獻(xiàn)

[1] MVRDV. KM3：Excursions on capacities [M].Barcelona： Actar，1899.

[2] AMO， KOOLHAAS R. Countryside a report[M].K?ln： Taschen， 2020.

[3] RAWORTH K. Doughnut economics： seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist[M]. London： RandomHouse Business Books， 2017.

[4] CHISHOLM G G. Handbook of commercial geography[M]. London： Longmans， 1911.

[5] Naciones Unidas. World urbanization prospects： the 2018 revision[R]. New York： United Nations，2018.

[6] KOJIMA R. Urbanization in China[J]. The Developing Economies， 1995， 33（2）： 151-154.

[7] DIJKSTRA L， POELMAN H， VENERI P. The EUOECD definition of a functional urban area[EB/OL].（2019-12-11）[2024-05-11]. https：//www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/the-eu-oecddefinition-of-a-functional-urban-area_d58cb34d-en.

[8] DOXIADIS C A. Ekistics： an introduction to the science of human settlements[M]. New York： Oxford University Press， 1968.

[9] 吳良鏞. 人居環(huán)境科學(xué)導(dǎo)論[M]. 北京： 中國建筑工業(yè)出版社， 2001.

[10] SHOP Gestalten E. The rebirth of China’s hinterlands[EB/OL]. （2021-02）[2024-05-07]. https：//gestalten.com/blogs/journal/the-rebirth-of-china-shinterlands.

[11] DELGADO-VI?AS C， GóMEZ-MORENO M L. The interaction between urban and rural areas： an updated paradigmatic， methodological and bibliographic review[J]. Land， 2022， 11（8）： 1298.

[12] GUAN X L， WEI H K， LU S S， et al. Assessment on the urbanization strategy in China： achievements，challenges and reflections[J]. Habitat International，2018（71）： 97-109.

[13] CARSON D A， CARSON D B， ARGENT N. Cities，hinterlands and disconnected urban-rural development：Perspectives from sparsely populated areas[J]. Journal of Rural Studies， 2022（93）： 104-111.

[14] WELSH J. Cities， hinterlands， and critical theory[J].Political Geography， 2018（65）： 161-163.

[15] 蒲清平， 馬睿. 國家戰(zhàn)略腹地建設(shè)的內(nèi)涵特征、重大意義和推進(jìn)策略 [J]. 重慶大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)（ 社會(huì)科學(xué)版），2024， 30 （4）： 37-48.

[16] FRANKOPAN P. The earth transformed： an untold history[M]. New York： Knopf， 2023.

[17] MCKAY G. Architecture myths #33： served and servant spaces[EB/OL]. （2022-11-20）[2024-05-07].https：//misfitsarchitecture.com/2022/11/20/architecturemyths-33-served-and-servant-spaces/.

[18] NIJHUIS S. Home[EB/OL]. （2024-05-03）[2024-05-07]. https：//steffennijhuis.nl/.

[19] XINHUA. ‘Countryside， The Future’ exhibition highlights China’s dramatic rural revitalization[EB/OL].（2020-02-27）[2024-05-07]. https：//www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202002/27/WS5e572f51a31012821727abe9.html.[20] BAYER. Farmer voice survey[EB/OL]. （2023-10-12）[2024-05-07]. https：//www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/FarmerVoiceSurvey2023.pdf.

[21] ZHAI S Y， SONG G X， QIN Y C， et al. Climate change and Chinese farmers： perceptions and determinants of adaptive strategies[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture， 2018， 17（4）： 949-963.

[22] CORBUSIER L. The city of tomorrow and its planning[M]. London： John Rodker， 1929.

[23] BUCKMINSTER F R. Critical path[M]. La Mesa：St. Martin’s Griffin， 1982.

[24] KOOLHAAS R. Delirious New York： A retroactive manifesto for Manhattan[M]. New York： Oxford University Press， 1978.

[25] LAZAROVA J. Bamboo has a fragile form of beauty，but in reality， in terms of tensile capacity， culms arestronger than steel[EB/OL]. （2017-03-01）[2024-05-07].https：//www.architectural-review.com/buildings/bamboohas-a-fragile-form-of-beauty-but-in-reality-in-terms-oftensile-capacity-culms-are-stronger-than-steel.＼

ORIGINAL TEXTS IN ENGLISH

Proposal for a Science of the Hinterland

DE GEUS Martijn

1 What is the Hinterland？

During my time in practice and academia， I haveobserved a significant dichotomy between urban andrural areas within the discourse of architecture andurban planning， which often marginalizes the nonurbanregions. During my formative years at TUDelft， cities， density and urban development werethe ultimate aspiration， expressed and celebratedin Koolhaas’s Delirious New York， the success ofhis Office for Metropolitan Architecture， books likeMVRDV’s ‘KM3： Excursions on Density’， and soforth[1]. Though in the past two decades a waningparadigm shift can be observed， even by some of thesesame individuals， to put more focus on the oppositeof ‘urban’， for instance in ‘Countryside： A Report’ [2]，upon closer inspection this dichotomy still seems toremain intact. In my opinion this waning paradigmshift seems still insufficient， and incomplete. Hailingfrom the Netherlands， a country characterized bythe absence of distinct urban and rural boundaries inthe typical global definition， and having extensivelyexplored various regions in China and other places，I have observed a type of in-between realm， whichdefies the strict dichotomy， where a significantsegment of the population reside outside major urbanareas but not in traditional strictly rural settings. InChina alone， this area accounts for ca. 30% of thepopulation， and a significant share of GDP. And， eventhough besides ‘Metropolitan Offices’， we now alsohave various ‘Rural Practices’， there seem to be no‘Office’ or ‘Theory’ for the ‘In Between Areas’. Yet.

This proposal for a Science of The Hinterlandthus stems from the recognition of a crucial yet oftenoverlooked area in the discipline of architecture andurban planning： the transitional spaces that existbetween urban centers and rural landscapes. Asurbanization continues to reshape our environments，there is a growing need for a specialized theory thatnavigates the complexities of these intermediate zones.This also fits in with a growing tendency in boththe theoretical positioning and in the social culturalsphere to provide an alternative to the pursuit of‘more urbanization’. Whether from the perspective oftheories such as the ‘Doughnut Economy’ [3]that defiesa pursuit of constant （urban） growth or initiativeslike the Rural Revitalization Practice in China，that focuses on the development of China’s lesserdeveloped countrysides， there is an increasing focuson issues ‘Beyond the City’， that aim to tie togethera broader perspective of human development and thesurrounding environment. This paper aims to lay thefoundation for such an alternative， comprehensivetheory in the discipline of architecture and urbandesign， beginning with a proposed definition inspiredby the Chinese translation for Hinterland， 腹地 （fùdì）.This definition serves as a conceptual anchor for afractal theory that can be applied consistently across various scales， providing a holistic understanding ofthis previously hidden Hinterland.

1.1 Definition

As for the definition of this term， originally‘Hinterland’ is a German word， that literally translatesinto English as ‘the land behind’. Its use was firstdocumented by the geographer George Chisholmin his Handbook for Commercial Geography[4].In English the definitions vary slightly betweenAmerican and British English. For our purpose wetake the American definition as the base， describingit as ‘a(chǎn)n area lying beyond what is visible or know’，with the added definition for ‘a(chǎn)ny sparsely populatedarea where the infrastructure is underdeveloped’. Whentranslated to Chinese， Hinterland becomes ‘ 腹地’（fùdì）， literally meaning ‘the abdomen lands’. As such itdescribes a type of land that is ‘hidden and important’，like the organs （abdomen） of a body. This abdomen hasseveral characteristics， of which the most important oneis that we cannot live without it. In contrast to missinga limb for instance， a human cannot survive withouta heart， brain and abdomen. In addition， in Chinesemedicine theory， the abdomen is given a restorativefunction. The body， and likewise a region or country，is thus believed to use the “ 腹” （abdomen） to storeenergy and to （physically） restore from there.

For this proposal， we consider the Hinterlandsimultaneously as defined by ‘the land behind’， i.e.typically ignored， lying beyond our main focus andinterests， as well as through its definition as the‘a(chǎn)bdomen land’， acknowledging the Hinterland’scharacter as an essential organ of a larger system.

1.2 The Hinterland in the Context of Architectureand Urban Design

Applying the term “Hinterland” to the disciplineof architecture， urban design， and planning requires acontextual exploration of urban and rural definitionsand insights from key theories in these fields. Thisexploration aims to establish a nuanced frameworkto address the unique characteristics and challengesof intermediate spaces. This framework will serveto describe the base conditions for the ‘Theory andPractice of a Science of the Hinterland’.

First， its important to acknowledge that researchon urban-rural classifications has revealed a lackof a globally accepted definition， which hindersinternational comparisons and underscores the needfor a refined framework. For instance， currently， theUN reports figures based on nationally defined urbanshares. The problem is that countries adopt verydifferent definitions of urbanization. Not only do thethresholds of urban versus rural vary， but the types ofmetrics used also differ. Some countries use minimumpopulation thresholds， others use population density，infrastructure development， employment type， orsimply the population of pre-defined cities. This meansthat what a country like Denmark considers urban（200 inhabitants in a settlement）[5]， is very differentto a country like China， where an area is urban if ithas more than 20，000 inhabitants [6]， or Japan， whereit starts at 50，000[5]. If using China’s definition inDenmark， there are perhaps only very few ‘urban’areas， vice versa when applying the Danish definitionto China， almost the entire country could be called‘urban’ （figure 1）. Some recent high-level Europeanpolicy studies tried to consider these challenges，by highlighting the definition gaps， and aiming toprovide a scholarly， interdisciplinary and designbasedframework for future development. In 2020， Iteventually led to a recommendation on the method todelineate cities， urban and rural areas for internationalstatistical comparisons， coordinated by LewisDijkstra （European Commission （EC）， Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy） and wasjointly developed by six international organisations：the European Union， The Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations （FAO）， theInternational Labour Office （ILO）， the Organizationfor Economic Co-operation and Development（OECD）， the United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme （UN-Habitat） and the World Bank， bya variety of scholars[7]. The proposal in this paperbuilds on some of these recommendations. The ECcoordinated recommendation proposes a new method，called the Degree of Urbanisation， which classifiesthe entire territory of a country into three classes： 1）cities， 2） towns and semi-dense areas and 3） ruralareas. In this paper proposal I refer to this second， inbetween area， as ‘The Hinterland’. It generally fitswith the observations from the recommendation， buttakes it one step further by acknowledging it as aspecific territory. By addressing the lack of a universalglobal definition of urban and rural areas， theHinterland framework could offers a valuable tool forinternational comparisons and planning without theneed of a strict universal definition on the urban-ruralclassification. The Hinterland framework in fact aimsto challenge the traditional dualistic stance of Ruralvs. Urban. The evolving dynamics of contemporaryurbanization and its relation to surrounding ecologiesdemand a nuanced understanding of the transitionalzones between bustling urban centers and serene rurallandscapes. The proposed redefinition of the term“Hinterland” encapsulates the multifaceted natureof these intermediate spaces. This conceptual shiftfosters a more inclusive and holistic approach toarchitecture and urban planning， acknowledging theintricate interplay between urban and rural elementsin shaping our built environments.

Secondly， though the Hinterland Science in itselfis a new framework， within the realm of architectureand urban design， existing theories that have foundtheir origin in similar observations of contemporarydevelopments can be a good base for framing thedevelopment potential of the hinterland in the contextof architecture and urban design. For instance， thetheories of Ekistics and Human Habitat （1968）proposed by Doxiadis offer valuable perspectiveson the interactions between human settlements andtheir environments[8]. Further insights can be drawnfrom Wu Liangyong’s work on the Sciences ofHuman Settlements in China [9]， which provides acomprehensive understanding of the complexitiesinherent in the development of human habitats.These well-established theories lay the groundworkfor conceptualizing the Hinterland not merely as ageographical space but as a dynamic and transitionalrealm where urban and rural elements converge.Synthesizing these theoretical underpinnings withempirical research is essential for informing a holisticand adaptive approach to contemporary urbanization.In addition， there is evidence of a rebirth in certainHinterlands. For example， Feng describes how theChinese countryside is being revitalized with markets，libraries， and hotels[10]. Other significant observationsof this realm include Delgado-Vinas’s explorationof urban-rural interactions [11]，Lu’s assessment ofChina’s urbanization strategy[12]， Carson’s study ondisconnected urban-rural development[13]， and JohnWelsh’s critical theory approach[14].These studieshighlight the dynamic nature of Hinterlands and theirpotential for innovation and regeneration.

Lastly， the strategic importance of Hinterlandshas gained recognition in recent policy discussions. InDecember 2023， the concept of “building the nationalstrategic hinterland” was introduced at the CentralEconomic Work Conference in China. Accordingto Pu and Ma （2024）， this concept aims to optimizeproductive force distribution and safeguard national security by delineating key geographical attributesand strategic characteristics of Hinterlands[15]. Thenational strategic hinterland possesses fundamentalcharacteristics such as pivotal geographical location，robust economic resilience， and its role as an engine forinnovation and development. It fosters urban culturecohesion and represents a new growth pole and powersource for economic development. To translate strategicdecisions into tangible results， systematic promotionof the national strategic hinterland’s construction isimperative. This includes enhancing top-level strategicplanning， coordinating the establishment of strategicmaterial reserves， supporting strategic scientific andtechnological capabilities， and developing a networkof strategic transportation capacity. By doing so， theHinterland can continuously promote high-qualitydevelopment and advanced security infrastructureconstruction in the new era.

By redefining the Hinterland in the context ofarchitecture and urban design， we acknowledge itsunique role and potential in shaping sustainable andresilient human settlements. This framework offersa comprehensive approach to understanding andaddressing the complexities of these intermediatespaces， fostering innovation and adaptability in urbanand rural planning.

1.3 An Ignored realm

If we look at the existing research into this‘a(chǎn)bdomen land’， when taken the CKNI database ofChinese publications as a reference， we can see that indisciplines like economics， infrastructure， agriculture，political science， etc， this realm is studied quiteextensively， with publications steadily growing， arapid rise and peak around 2008. There’s considerablecontinued interest after that， with an expected risein research for the coming years， given the remarksfrom the 2023 Central Economic Work Conference（ figure 2）. However， despite this significant generaland political interest， in the field of building science，building engineering， architecture and planning itreminds an ignored realm in itself， accounting for lessthan 1，5% of papers in this field （figure 3）. You wouldexpect that our discipline， with its ability to shapethe build environment， its ability to connect humanswith habitats， is heavily involved in the researchand development of this realm. But， it couldn’tbe further from the truth. In his 2020 publication，“Countryside， A Report，” architect Rem Koolhaasacknowledges this deficit， and describes this as “AnIgnored Realm”[2]. He describes how various politicalleaders， and societies through human history havepaid great attention to the hinterlands， but how in ourcontemporary （Western-inspired） urban societies thishas become forgotten and ignored[2].

Shifting his focus away from the freneticenergy of urban life， Koolhaas illuminates thehidden transformations occurring in these non-urbanareas， challenging conventional perceptions andrecognizing their significance. Koolhaas underscoresthat the urban way of life has profoundly influencedthe organization， abstraction， and automation of thenon urban， what he calls ‘the countryside’ on anunprecedented scale. This transformation has resultedin significant political and social redesigns drivenby ambition， vision， and political will. The globalcountryside where he is reporting from in the book，in this context， is not merely a passive backdropto urban centers but a dynamic and evolving realmshaped by complex forces. Koolhaas’s work revealsthis realm as a frontier for experimentation， wherenew social structures and innovative practices emergeacross various countries and contexts. The conceptframework of the Hinterland proposed in this paperfits seamlessly into Koolhaas’s defined territory ofthe “ignored realm”， and in fact， is probably a morefitting definition， since ‘countryside’ has particulardefinitions tied to rural life. Instead， the Hinterlandrepresents a space of potential and transformation，challenging traditional notions of rural life. It’s layereddefinition of the ‘a(chǎn)bdomen land’ further acknowledgesthe restorative potential and the vital importanceof this ignored realm. As such， by documentingand analyzing the on going changes in this realm，Koolhaas provides critical insights into the evolvingnature of this Hinterland. His observations revealthat the Hinterland is not static but a dynamic areaundergoing significant shifts， driven by new forms ofsocial organization and technological advancement.

Koolhaas’s work serves as a crucial record of lifebeyond the cities， offering valuable evidence of thetransformative processes underway in these areas. Hisfindings are instrumental for understanding Hinterlandsituations worldwide and provide a foundation forevaluating and innovating within these often overlookedand dynamic landscapes. In essence， Koolhaas invitesus to reconsider our preconceived notions of thisIgnored Realm. He highlights its capacity for change，adaptability， and innovation， prompting architects，urbanists， and policymakers to view the Hinterland notas a static rural expanse but as a realm rich with potentialand possibilities. This perspective is essential foraddressing the challenges and opportunities presented bythe Hinterland in the context of sustainable developmentand urban-rural dynamics. Koolhaas’s insights push theboundaries of how we perceive and engage with theHinterland， advocating for a more nuanced and forwardthinkingapproach to its study and development. Hisresearch not only underscores the need for a definition ofthis non-urban territory， but also shows the wide varietyof topics that fall in this area that are not yet covered byour current discourse.

1.4 The Historical Context of The Hinterland

Now， we often think that urbanization is a typicalmodern phenomenon. However， it is not. To furtherunderstand how this ‘urban lt;-gt; non-urban’ relationhas been changing over the past millennia， and howthis has lead to the establishment of the non-urban as arelatively ‘Ignored Realm’， and with typically negativeconnotations， we shall look at the historic evolutionof this dynamic. In ‘The Earth Transformed’ （2021）Oxford professor of Global History， Peter Frankopandescribes how ‘wealth disparities became a signatureof the populations that urbanized earliest and mostintensively’， which then created a model of the city asa parasite， where growth was powered by the labourforce and the benefits harvested by an elite who set upand maintained barriers to cement their own positionsand restrict access at the same time[16]. Frankopandescribes how the relationship between cities， thecountryside， and the Hinterland has undergonesignificant transformations throughout history， shapedby economic， social， and environmental dynamics[14].In ancient China for instance he describes how，during the Qin Dynasty， there was a concerted effortby officials to tie the labor force to the land， ensuringhigh agricultural production. This was achieved bymaintaining registers to prevent peasant mobility，effectively binding workers to their agrarian roles.This approach underscores the historical relianceon agricultural labor to support urban centers andthe state’s broader economic stability. Philosophicalperspectives from ancient Greece and Rome furtherillustrate the urban-rural dichotomy. Socrates， asrecounted by Plato， “there was nothing to be learnedfrom trees， nature and the countryside; the only placeone could gain knowledge was in the city， from othermen.” Socrates thus dismissed the countryside as asource of knowledge， emphasizing the city as thesole place of intellectual growth. In contrast， Ciceroromanticized agriculture as an ideal pursuit， yet he overlooked the harsh realities faced by those whofarmed for their livelihood. This idealization of rurallife often masked the exploitation and backbreakinglabor endured by agricultural workers.

Throughout history， urban and rural areashave not only been interconnected through laborand economic dependencies but also throughenvironmental reconfigurations. The movement ofplants， animals， and agricultural techniques acrossregions was driven by human needs and desires，reshaping the environment to suit urban and ruraldemands alike. The Han Dynasty in China， forexample， saw officials introducing land-reclamationtechniques and new tools to enhance agriculturalproductivity， paralleling similar developments inother parts of the world， such as Rome. Urbanizationalso brought about significant ecological and healthchallenges throughout history. Pliny the Elderlamented humanity’s overexploitation of nature forself-enrichment， warning of environmental backlashin the form of natural disasters. Urban areas all overthe globe， with their dense populations and oftenunsanitary conditions， became breeding groundsfor disease， further complicating the health andsustainability of city life. The historical narrative alsohighlights the resilience and adaptability of differentregions in response to environmental and sociopoliticalpressures. In parts of Europe， innovations inagricultural practices and a shift towards pastoralismhelped communities adapt to changing climates andexternal threats， such as barbarian invasions. Theseadaptations fostered local self-sufficiency， providingbuffers against food shortages and other urbanvulnerabilities. Arab scholars， drawing on Greekthought， examined how environmental conditionsinfluenced human characteristics and societaldevelopment. These perspectives underscored thebelief that climate shaped not only physical attributesbut also cultural and intellectual traits， reflecting abroader understanding of the interconnectednessbetween environment and human society.

Overall， the historical evolution of therelationship between cities， the countryside， and theHinterland reveals a complex interplay of economicexploitation， philosophical ideals， environmentalmanagement， and adaptive resilience. Thesehistorical insights are crucial for understanding thecontemporary challenges and opportunities in definingand navigating the Hinterland in architecture andurban planning. A good example of this changingperspective and its relation to the definitions ofarchitecture and urban planning can be visualizedby studying the scroll ‘Along the River during theQingming Festival’， widely regarded as the mostimportant Chinese painting. Figure 4 shows a plandepiction of the content focus of the scroll， it showsa focus on the in between. In between City andCountryside， depicting the Hinterland. Various versionsof this painting exist， covering a period of severalhundred years that further show the evolution of thedefinitions of cities， rural areas and the in between.

1.5 A Fractal Theory

Building upon the proposed definition of theHinterland as 腹地 （fùdì）， the author proposes anapplication beyond just the realm of the ‘non-urban’.This paper aims to introduces the definition as afractal theory that applies consistently across variousscales. The Hinterland as an ‘a(chǎn)bdomen’ area， of arelation between that what we see and that which ishidden beyond sight， but invaluable to the overalloperation of the system is something that can beobserved in various scales. It does not only applyto the literal ‘land’ definition of ‘Hinterland’. It canapply to the scale of countries， global regions， cities，campuses， even buildings. New relationships andstructures of Hinterlands are forming and this willraise the attention to different scale “Hinterland”， largescales for example （international， national， regionaletc.）， and smaller scales for example （neighborhood，campus， service institutions etc.）， see figure 5.

For instance， at the global level， the Hinterlandis characterized as transitional zones between majorurban centers and remote rural areas. This definitionextends to regional and local scales， encompassingperi-urban areas and other intermediate zones. Thefractal theory further penetrates the micro-scale，influencing the design and definition of individualbuildings within the Hinterland. And even at thebuilding level， it could be described in this way， andin this regard resembles Louis Kahn’s definition ofthe ‘served and service spaces’[17]. By embracinga fractal approach， the Science of the Hinterlandacknowledges the interconnectedness of thisprinciples across scales， facilitating a comprehensiveand adaptable understanding of transitional zones，of hidden and ignored areas that are fundamental tothe functioning of the whole. For this paper we focuson the intermediate scale of cities， regions and theirperipheries to explain the core principles.

2 Why is it important？

According to the UN’s “World UrbanizationProspects： The 2018 Revision，” the world’s populationbecame more urban than rural for the first time in2007[5]. Today， over half of the world’s populationresides in cities， which occupy a mere 2% of theglobal land. Most of the research and practice inour discipline is focused on this 2%. The remaining98% of the world’s territory， however， constitutes thefocus of the proposed theory. This 98% encompassesvast expanses of countryside， rural territories， vitalinfrastructures， industries， county towns and wildlandscapes， largely untouched by urbanization （Figure 6 and 7）. An image compiled by TU DelftProfessor Steffen Nijhuis， as presented during hisinaugural lecture， vividly illustrates this contrast （Figure 7）[18]. The hinterland operates as a dynamicrealm between urban hubs and rural expanses， offeringunique challenges and opportunities.

2.1 Challenges in the Hinterland

As we have shown， there has historically existeda strong division between the urban and the rural.Many societies have prioritized urban developmentover rural development， with the urban beingsynonymous with a higher and more civilized partof society. According to Frankopan ， this divisionwas even the most important single reason for thedevelopment of hierarchical societies[16]. And to thisday， an increase in the urbanization rate of a particularcountry or area is used as a measure of development，with the UN stating that there is a correlation betweena country’s wealth and its urbanization rate. However，this tunnel vision on urbanization and the supposedpositive aspects has come under scrutiny. Koolhaas（2020）， once a strong advocate of the urban himself，now states that today we don’t have a real， mutualrelationship between the urban and the non-urban[2]. Infact， this long focus on the importance of urbanization，cities， and urban lifestyles has led to some unwantedand undesirable side effects， that underscore theimportance of establishing a specific framework toaddress these. A first categorization of these currentproblems include， but are not limited too：

2.1.1 Alienation of the Non-Urban from the Urban

This alienation can be observed in the socialand cultural aspects， the distribution of resources，and the general dissatisfaction in rural areas. Thisdissatisfaction is also observed through the rise ofpopulist political parties and the spread of conspiracy theories based on the fear of being “l(fā)eft out” or“controlled by an urban elite” in Western countriesin Europe or in the US. This alienation exacerbatessocial divides and hinders cohesive nationaldevelopment.

2.1.2 Unsustainable Urbanization

Total urbanization raises questions aboutsustainability and the quality of life. Perhaps morewealthy on average， high-density urban areas cansuffer from overcrowding， pollution， and increasedvulnerability to diseases. Moreover， the pressureon urban infrastructure can lead to deterioratingliving conditions， high continuous stress levels anddepression rates， and a sharp decline in fertility. Thus，it is crucial to consider whether total urbanizationshould be the ultimate goal， and what alternativemodels might better balance human progress andquality of life， which would ultimately benefit societyat large. Li Xiaodong’s concept or ‘Rurbanization’（Figure 8） provides an interesting experiment in thisdirection of a specific development model that isapplied to the Hinterland area that doesn’t have thefinal goal to fully urbanize a former rural area.

2.1.3 Environmental Degradation

The intense focus on urban development hasalso often lead to the neglect， exploitation anddegradation of rural and natural areas. This canresult in deforestation， loss of biodiversity， and soildegradation. Hinterland areas are sometimes usedmerely as resource bases to support urban growth，without adequate measures to sustain their ecosystems.Urban areas and their residents themselves arequite shielded from the immediate effects of thisenvironmental degradation. Koolhaas， in an interviewwith China Daily in February 2020， accurately stateshow the environmental degradation and the resultingclimate changes can be much more observed in thehinterland： “If you’re in cities you barely notice kindof global warming. But （…）， as soon as you go out ofthe city， you realize the weather is strange， or thereare irregularities in terms of expectation，” he said[19].Recent global studies shown that more than 70% offarmers have already seen large impacts of climatechange on their farm [20]. With 70.3% of farmers inHenan， China’s largest agricultural province with ca51 Million farmers， believing that climate changeposed a risk to their livelihood [21].

2.1.4 Economic Disparity

The economic focus on cities can exacerbatedisparities between urban and rural areas. Ruralregions may experience a lack of investment， leadingto limited economic opportunities and higher rates ofpoverty. This economic imbalance can fuel migrationto cities， further straining urban infrastructures，contributing to rural depopulation and exacerbatingthe problems mentioned above. This disparity canalso be observed in the availability of services andinfrastructure. Hinterland areas often have limitedaccess to healthcare， education， and transportation.Such disparities can lead to lower quality of lifeand hinder the potential for rural development andintegration into broader national progress.

2.1.5 Cultural Erosion

The 98% of non urban areas are often rich incultural heritage and traditions. The emphasis onurbanization can lead to the erosion of these culturalidentities as younger generations move to cities insearch of better opportunities， and it can erode adiversity of cultures typically found in this larger nonurbanhinterland. The migration influx can result inthe loss of unique cultural practices and communitystructures that have been maintained for centuries，now all merging into a single urban melting pot，losing their distinct heritage lineages.

2.1.6 Urban Hubris

There is a real danger of applying UrbanPrinciples to Non Urban contexts. Not everythingis a city， not everything needs to be a city， not everytown needs a museum. Not every village needs a hispeedrailway station with high rise offices. Not everyempty polder area has to have a data center. There is aproblem in which planners， architects and officials tryto utilize and implement urban strategies to develop orsolve non-urban problems. Instead we need to definea specific implementation strategy based upon anaccurate understanding and analysis of the situation，fitting with local needs， customs and requirements.Within the context of China， it’s striking to considerthat most of the important buildings， resources，architects and universities are all focused in the toptiered cities （megacities， super cities and large cities），which together account for less than 5% of totaladministrative entities （ figure 9）. Leaving thousandsof other administrative entities which receive muchless specific attention， but are typically conceived ormodeled after the ‘success’ of higher ranked cities.Even though the administrative definitions do notnecessarily represent a fixed definition of ‘urban’ vs‘non-urban’ territories （ figure 10）.

2.2 Research Context

This all together defines the context for thisproposed theory. However， focusing on the hinterlandis not just about addressing the problems faced bythese non-urban areas but also about recognizing theirpotential contributions to sustainable development. Byintegrating the hinterland into the broader frameworkof urban and rural planning， we can promote a morebalanced and inclusive approach to development.This involves acknowledging the interdependenciesbetween urban and rural areas and fostering policiesthat support the revitalization and sustainabledevelopment of hinterlands. This shift in focusencourages us to rethink the way we define progressand success. Instead of viewing urbanization as thesole indicator of development， we should considerthe health， sustainability， and cultural richness of allregions. By doing so， we can create a more equitableand resilient society that values and nurtures both itsurban centers and its hinterlands.

To summarize this intend， the Hinterland：

1.Is crucial for societal functioning but often neglected in theories， policies， and research.

2.Exerts significant effects and directly impacts a substantial portion of the population.

3.Represents an increasingly influential force shaping surface-level phenomena.

4.Is a concept， adaptable and scalable， with relevance at various scales beyond urban centers.

5.Faces unique development challenges distinct from strictly rural or fully urban areas.

6.Aims to understand and redevelop existing structures at its starting point.

7.Can be a place of restoration， nutrients and resources for integrated development at larger scales.

3 Towards A Hinterland Theory

In 2012， while trying to propose an alternativevoice to the excessive focus on urban areas， whichleft out significant amounts of territory around theglobe， the author organized a 24-hour workshopwith five universities across four continents， themed“Beyond the City.” This workshop was based on theobservation that urban-centric planning often neglectsthe areas beyond the city’s borders. The workshop’sintroduction posed critical questions about the balancebetween urban growth and the natural environment，emphasizing the need to consider what lies outsideand beyond the city to create a sustainable future.Being nothing more than an observation at first，more than a decade later it can be seen as a startingpoint of acknowledging the importance of the nonurban.Utilizing the platform of this paper， this simpleobservation has now grown to become a propositionfor a research direction that defines an area withinour discipline that is currently both physically andintellectually overlooked. At the same time， it offersa valuable framework for addressing the globalambiguity surrounding urban and rural definitions.Rather than a strict dichotomy， this theory proposesa gradient definition， without the stigmatic ‘quality= urban vs. undeveloped = rural’ outline. Thisgradient definition could also be helpful in betterunderstanding international comparisons， as it’s nolonger important what the exact definition of the urbanis. This ignored realm can now be described throughthe type of challenges it faces， it’s relative positionin relation to urban and rural areas， and so forth. Thisin between area has distinctly different needs anddevelopment characteristics than both the strictlyurban or the strictly rural， for which neither China，nor the Netherlands， like many countries around theworld， currently has a specific policy or developmentstrategy. This realm we refer to as ‘The Hinterland’，the accompanying framework concerns “The Theoryand Practice of a Science of the Hinterland” （ 腹地科學(xué)的理論與實(shí)踐）， ‘the Hinterland’ hereafter. Theconcept of the Hinterland encompasses both the notionof being “behind，” often disregarded or beyond ourprimary focus， of being ‘out of sight’ and the notion ofan “abdomen land” （ 腹地） a direct translation of theChinese definition of ‘hinterland’， acknowledging itsintegral role within a larger system.

3.1 From Observations to Theory and Science

In the field of architecture， urban design andplanning， the establishing of a new theoreticalframework often stems from social culturalobservations （ figure 11）. From Le Corbusier andDoxiadis to Buckminster Fuller， Wu， Koolhaas， andothers， a common thread among influential architectsand urban planners has been their reliance on specificobservations of contemporary society to formulatecomprehensive theories. These observations， oftenuncovering hidden or overlooked aspects of society，have led to the development of new theoreticalframeworks that have profoundly impacted architecturaland urban design practices. It is in this tradition thatthis paper aims to propose a foundational observationsfor a prospective theory， and The Hinterland can beconsidered as a next step in the evolution of thesemodern comprehensive theories.

To understand this better， let’s take a look atthe evolution of these theories since modern times.With his seminal work， ‘The City of Tomorrow andIts Planning’ ， Le Corbusier was a pioneer in moderntheories of urban development， in which he proposeda radical modern concept of urbanization to addressthe unhygienic， unhealthy， and dilapidated conditionsof historic cities[22]. Le Corbusier's observations of thesocial and environmental failings of early 20th-centuryurban centers led him to envision a new kind of citycharacterized by functionality， efficiency， and harmony，emphasizing the importance of green spaces and theintegration of modern technology. Later， in a differenttime and context， Konstantinos Doxiadis developedthe field of Ekistics. In which， through systematicobservation， he proposed that human settlements aresusceptible to systematic investigation. His approach，outlined in ‘Ekistics： An Introduction to the Scienceof Human Settlements’ （1968）， suggested that bymeticulously studying the patterns and functions ofhuman habitats， we could derive a theory that wouldform the basis for better urban planning and settlementdevelopment[6]. Doxiadis's work laid the groundworkfor a more scientific approach to urban design，emphasizing the need for comprehensive analysisand systematic planning. Another example would beBuckminster Fuller， who， known for his innovative andforward-thinking designs， also relied heavily on hisobservations of societal problems. In his book ‘CriticalPath’ （1981）， Fuller examined the environmental andsocial issues of his time and proposed architectural andurban planning solutions aimed at addressing thesechallenges[23]. His holistic approach sought to integratetechnology and sustainable practices into design，advocating for a synergy between human needs andenvironmental stewardship.

In the 1970s， Rem Koolhaas introduced anovel method of theory formulation by retroactivelyconsidering past observations to construct what hetermed a “retroactive manifesto.” In ‘Delirious NewYork： A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan’ （1978），Koolhaas used the historical and contemporaryphenomena of Manhattan to develop a theoreticalframework that would also come to inform his ownfuture architectural and urban design projects[24].This work became a foundational pillar for hispractice at the Office for Metropolitan Architecture（OMA）， demonstrating how historical analysiscould inform contemporary design. A little later InChina， partially based on his studies of Doxiadis，combined with his own observations， Wu Liangyongproposed an integration of various theories basedon his observations of rapid societal development.His theory of the *Science of Human Settlements*emphasized the relationship between humans andtheir surroundings through a series of embeddedscales. Wu’s approach combined traditional Chineseplanning principles with modern urban design，creating a comprehensive framework for sustainabledevelopment in rapidly urbanizing contexts. Mostrecently， Koolhaas’s work， ‘Countryside： A Report’（2020）， accompanied by an exhibition at theGuggenheim Museum in New York， continues thistradition of observation-based theory development[2].Koolhaas explores the often-ignored rural andnon-urban areas， highlighting the significanttransformations occurring in these regions. His workchallenges the traditional urban-centric perspectiveand calls for a more inclusive understanding of theglobal landscape， recognizing the dynamic interplaybetween urban and rural environments.

All together， these architects and urban plannersdemonstrate how careful observation of societalchanges can lead to the development of robust theoriesthat guide practical applications in architecture andurban design. Sometimes these theories become newscientific domains， like in the case of Doxidadisand Wu. All together， their work underscores theimportance of continually re-evaluating and adaptingour understanding of the built environment to addresscontemporary challenges and opportunities， andsecondly the ability of architects as observers ofcritical social phenomena and their subsequent skillsto translation these into a comprehensive theory， withclear practical value and application potential. This isthe inspiration for the aim of this paper as well.

3.2 Hinterland Narrative Context

As for the specific narratives in the Hinterland，we have established that there has long been a strongdivision between the urban and the rural， whichis not tied to modernization or urbanization. Thisthinking still holds true today for a majority of ourintellectual， economic and cultural world. To addressthe challenges in the Hinterland accurately， we needto consider the framework of challenges as describedin 2.1， which we can then group in several topics.

These topics in no way aim to be a completeoverview at this point， but they are a starting point forthe theoretical development. They include;

3.2.1 Socio-Cultural Dynamics

The Hinterland， is a non-homogeneous， richtapestry of socio-cultural dynamics where urban andrural cultures intertwine. This convergence givesrise to unique expressions， creating a hybrid identityreflective of the symbiosis between contrastinglifestyles. Architects and planners must delve into thesocio-cultural fabric of the Hinterland to design spacesthat resonate with the diverse needs and aspirations ofthe communities inhabiting these transitional zones.。

3.2.2 Economic Interdependencies。

Rethinking the Hinterland involves recognizingintricate economic interdependencies. This plays out atvarious scales， it could relate to the interdependenciesbetween urban centers， the surrounding hinterlandsand the countryside， but it could also concern therelatively under developed areas inside city areas.Beyond being a source of materials， produce orresources at large， the Hinterland plays a pivotalrole in supporting interdependent economies.Understanding and leveraging these interdependenciesis essential for architects and planners to developsustainable and resilient development strategies.

3.2.3 Ecological Integration

The Hinterland， as an unseen or unknown area，is a nexus where urban and rural ecosystems intersect.Acknowledging the ecological significance of thesetransition zones is pivotal for fostering environmentalsustainability. Architects and urban planners mustconsider the impact of their designs on the naturalenvironment and aim for solutions that promotebiodiversity， resource conservation， and ecologicalbalance.

In this way， the research aims to aid inidentifying specificities for appropriate architecture（and urban） design approaches for the Hinterland.

4 Towards Hinterland Practice

In addition to the theoretical framework， theHinterland is also very much a situation in whicharchitects and urban designers can intervene throughpractice. For the purpose of illustrating possiblepractical application areas， a variety of examples areincluded below. They are grouped in two parts， first asection dedicated to the Hinterland realm defined in thecontext of China， combined with possible topic areasrelated to the previous three point framework. Thesecond part is a small selection of empirical examples，typically the result of personal involvement in relatedtopics over the past few years while simultaneouslydeveloping the theoretical framework. They are in noway a complete overview of topics， but merely aim toillustrate the possible range of topics， the potential andthe practical relevance of the research field.

4.1 Possible Scope of Research Fields withinthis Theory

Considering the functioning of this journal as aleading journal in China， with a bilingual output， listedbelow are some possible Hinterland research topics andtheir applications areas of these principles in China.First of all， the area of possible intervention that fallsunder this Hinterland on the scale of a country， can beseen in figure 12. It is a large land area， with no exactboundaries， within which there is still a large varietyof different conditions， but which can be generallydescribed according to the framework of the theory，and are at large outside of the general scope of thediscourse， and without a general policy or specificapproach. This area generally excludes the large urbanagglomerations， and most of the higher income coastalbelts， and instead includes many counties， shrinkingtowns and cities， as well as many 3rd and lower tiercities.

To show possible applications of the theorydomains within this territory， listed below are somespecific research areas with sub-topics that are alreadyare， or could be suitable for applied research.

4.1.1 Regarding Socio-Cultural Dynamics

Sub topic： Peri-Urban Conundrum

Example Area： The outskirts of Shanghai

Scale： Metropolis

Rationale： Shanghai， being a rapidly growingand urbanizing city， has expansive peri-urban areasthat depict the interface between urban developmentand agricultural landscapes. The clash betweenurban expansion and traditional rural land use can beobserved in areas surrounding the city.

4.1.2 Regarding Economic Interdependencies

Sub-topic： Economic Transitioning

Example Area： Baoxi， Zhejiang Province

Scale： County

Interestingly， as Koolhaas points out （2019）‘China is currently one of the only countries thathas a policy of keeping the countryside as a viableenvironment， as a place where there are newopportunities created’. Various interesting initiatives torevitalize and transition local economics are found inthe Hinterland and the Lonquan International BambooBiennale （Figure 13）， curated by local artist GeQiantao and architect George Kunihiro is an excellentexample. An exploration of bamboo and adobe tosupport an ecological lifestyle， through a combinationof a local supplier， an international curator and acombination of functions and architects suited to thecontext. After visiting the finished projects， Lazarova（2017） wrote in the Architectural Review that ‘thesedesigns reappropriate the cultural influences that haveshaped our world， and use this knowledge to bringsomething new to it’[25]. A great example of effectiveeconomic transitioning in the Hinterland.

4.1.3 Sub-topic： Regarding Ecological Integration

Sub-topic： Climate Effects and Ecological Integration

Example Area： The Hebei Floodplains River including areas around Beijing and Xiong’an

Scale： Region

Rationale： As mentioned earlier， if you’re incities you barely notice the severity of the adverseeffects of the climate crisis. But if you’re in thehinterland， as soon as you go out of the city， yourealize the weather is strange and you have to dealwith the real after effects. Weather is becoming moreextreme， and cities are too valuable to sacrifice. Thesurrounding hinterland is sacrificed instead for waterbuffering or flood mitigation. Potentially savingmillions of lives and billions of dollars of GDPproduction in urban centers， but violently uprootingthe daily livelihoods of people living in these lessfortunate hinterlands. In 2023 large areas of Hebeiprovince were intentionally inundated to relievepressure and potential disaster in the urban centers ofthe Tian-Jin-Ji region （figure 14）. The usage of bufferareas like this is of course not bound to China， in fact，the Netherlands uses a very similar strategy， but itis vital that this is considered not only from the topdownneeds of the urban clusters， but also from theperspective of the local residents using and inhabitingthese areas Something with which the Netherlandsalready has good experiences.

4.2 Recent Empirical Applications

In this last section a small selection of empiricalapplications in which the author has been personallyinvolvement in related topics over the past few yearswhile simultaneously developing the theoreticalframework.

4.2.1 Rediscovering Ancestral Roads for Sustainable Futures

The ‘Ancestral Roads Joint Research and Design Studio’ exemplifies the empirical applicationof the Hinterland theory by integrating sustainabletourism development with community revitalizationin hinterland regions. This ongoing collaborativeinitiative， co-hosted by Tsinghua University in Beijingand the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru inLima， with researches from ETH Zurich and ETSAMMadrid involved as well， focuses on ancient nonvehiculartrail systems as templates for sustainablefutures. It aims to shows how a particular topic canbe found in various similar conditions in differentHinterland areas around the world， and with a similarstrategy approach that is adjusted to local conditions.The first site of investigation is the renowned IncaTrail System， or Qhapac ?an， which spans over20，000 kilometers across multiple South Americancountries. The project’s goals extend beyond historicalappreciation to understanding settlement patterns，local conditions， and social structures， forming afoundation for sustainable redevelopment amidstevolving environmental conditions.

The research mission encompasses bothpreserving heritage and envisioning its evolution andadaptation. By conducting in-depth mapping andexploration of the surrounding landscapes， the teamunravels the intricate connections between thesetrails and the social structures that shaped them. Thisunderstanding informs innovative design solutionsthat blend heritage preservation with adaptability，ensuring these historical networks remain relevant inthe face of climate change and shifting landscapes. Asignificant focus is the well-being of the communitieslinked to these landscapes， exploring how low-impacttourism can act as a catalyst for positive change，benefiting both the environment and local populations.The designs aim to balance economic growth with thepreservation of cultural and natural heritage， fosteringcommunity well-being.

While the initial studio focuses on the Qhapac?an， the framework is set within a global context，recognizing the existence of similar systems acrossvarious cultures， both ancient and modern， eventuallyresulting in a comprehensive comparative strategyanalysis. The next phase of the investigation willfocus on China’s Ancient Tea Horse Road， a historictrail that facilitated the trading of tea and other goodswith the help of horses in a similarly mountainousregion， shaping regional economies and fosteringintercultural connections. By studying such pathways，the studio aims to understand their global significanceand explore how they can inspire sustainableredevelopment practices worldwide. This ongoingresearch aims to counter cultural erosion， highlightingthe importance of integrating heritage withsustainability， offering valuable lessons for hinterlandrevitalization globally.

4.2.2 Future Lifestyles in the Hinterland

For this project a group of three students workedunder my guidance on a national student competitionfor a self chosen site and was awarded an honorablemention for their submission. We decided to take onthe topic of county towns， often overlooked， thoughhome to ca 19% of the total Chinese population.Further analysis showed that the population of countytowns is declining， and their development strategiesand supporting facilities are relatively backward.On the other hand， county towns also have theirdevelopment advantages and potential. Compared withbig cities， their pace of life is slower， the pressure islower， and consumption is more affordable. Comparedwith rural areas， they can provide relatively moreintensive and complete life services， such as educationand medical care.

County towns thus provide an excellent topic forthe application of Hinterland strategies， summarizedthrough the special advantages of county townsbetween urban and rural areas. A typical county-leveltown， the hometown of one of the students， in China’sSichuan province was chosen with a specific site todesign an integrated community block， that couldshow the potential for a lifestyle in the hinterland.The design ambition was to combine small scaleagriculture and a complex and diverse population.In the eventual competition submission， the studentsdesigned an interactive， relaxed and high-quality lifeexperience for people from different backgroundsthrough the integration of agricultural facilities andlife and work， so as to create a future community withcounty town characteristics.

This future community was then imagined asa prototype that could suit itself to various similarconditions， in which the future community iscomposed of a series of U-shaped courtyards. Suchcourtyards are highly adaptable and can be modifiedaccording to different sites and needs. Differentresidential unit combinations form buildings in thefour directions of the courtyard： east， west， south， andnorth. Agricultural areas such as fruit trees， rice fields，vegetable plots， and animal husbandry are arrangedinside the courtyard for the common use of residents.These areas not only provide residents with dailynecessities， but also can become a link for residentsto work together and communicate with each other.All together highlighting the ambition for a ‘FutureCommunity Design： with Collective Agriculture as anew lifestyle’ （ figure 15 and 16）.

5 Conclusion： Paving the Way for aComprehensive Science of The Hinterland

In conclusion， this paper proposes theestablishment of a Science of The Hinterland，presenting a conceptual framework that defines，understands， and navigates transitional spaces inarchitecture and urban planning. By integratingtheoretical insights with practical applications， itdemonstrates how this Science could be established，relevant， and applicable across various contexts.

Inspired by the Chinese translation forHinterland， 腹地 （fùdì）， or ‘a(chǎn)bdomen land’， theHinterland framework emphasizes the hidden yetvital nature of these spaces as part of a larger whole.This definition serves as the foundation for a fractaltheory applicable across multiple scales—from globalperspectives， regions， and cities to neighborhoodsand individual buildings. By integrating insightsfrom key architectural and urban planning theoriesand drawing on case studies to illustrate challenges，this paper lays the groundwork for a comprehensiveand adaptable Science of The Hinterland. Embracingthe complexities of transitional zones， this proposedscience seeks to bridge the gap between urban andrural classifications， fostering a more holistic andnuanced approach to contemporary urbanization.

The Hinterland， representing areas that typicallylie behind what is visible or known， provides avaluable framework for addressing the lack of a globaldefinition of urban and rural areas， a core problemhindering international comparisons. By offeringa new paradigm for the interface between urbanand rural spaces， this paper advocates for a deeperunderstanding and appreciation of the Hinterland’spotential. This approach not only addresses thechallenges of contemporary urbanization but alsoopens up possibilities for sustainable and innovativedesign solutions that can enhance the quality of life inboth urban and rural contexts.

In this way， the Science of The Hinterlandpaves the way for a future where the complexitiesand opportunities of transitional spaces are fullyrecognized and harnessed， promoting a balanced andintegrated development approach that benefits diverseenvironments and communities worldwide.