中國歷史文化名村的「保護性開發」：以浙江寧波韓嶺村為例

Abstract

近年來，中國在逐步發展下步入城市化進程，城市人口逐漸超越農村人口，青年世代大量流向城鎮化地區。城鎮化加劇了古村落的空心化問題，導致農村土地資源嚴重浪費，村中房屋大量閒置老化；在地歷史文化在感知上也因當地的經濟、社會與文化的衰敗受到了一定的衝擊。當人們逐漸意識到永續發展及傳統文化的重要性時，保護古村落成為一種必然趨勢。然而，古村落缺乏基礎設施，難以維持現代生活水準，經濟水準嚴重落後，這使得開發成為無法避免的事情。「保護」的概念本具有普世價值意義，然而在中國既要對歷史文化遺產進行保護，又希望推動鄉村振興使城鄉發展趨向平衡的需求下，其逐漸演化變形，「保護性開發」這個名詞應運而生。「保護性開發」究其根本是與本質「保護」不同的再現，它所呈現出來的是帶有中國特色的一種保護手法，本研究認為可以將「保護性開發」看作是在不同的社會環境及政策體系下演化出的一種保護層級。本研究將以批判性地域主義（Critical Regionalism）、雜揉（hybridity）及底層研究（Subaltern Studies）作為主要理論論述視角，重新審視「保護性開發」的提出是否能夠如願實現歷史文化遺產保護與經濟發展的平衡，進而理清古村落在保護政策下被忽視的面向，試圖為「保護性開發」的政策落實提出建議。因此，本研究將會利用批判性地域主義強調地方性與永續發展的重要意義，研究雜揉理論提示文化的多元性與論述權重構的必要性，通過底層研究表明邊緣群體參與共同營造的重要性，意在指出「保護性開發」在政策中的落實更需要以包容的視角去正視那些單一的主體論述能動性與被忽視的文化要素。本研究將以古村落韓嶺村（韓嶺村）經過「保護性開發」後的建築風貌為例，發現那些被忽視的傳統建築、文化要素與在地群體，分析在治理者強大的論述支配權下古村落應如何在「保護性開發」的過程中展現自身的獨特的特殊性，建構自己的文化身份與意識形態，回應同質化的普遍性，進而重新理解並詮釋「保護性開發」在古村中的建設意義。

In recent years, China has gradually entered a process of urbanization amid ongoing development, with the urban population increasingly surpassing the rural population and large numbers of younger generations flowing into urbanized areas. Urbanization has intensified the hollowing-out of ancient villages, resulting in the severe waste of rural land resources and the large-scale vacancy and deterioration of village housing. Local historical and cultural traditions have also been perceptibly impacted by economic, social, and cultural decline. As awareness of sustainable development and the importance of traditional culture has grown, the conservation of ancient villages has become an inevitable trend. However, ancient villages generally lack adequate infrastructure, struggle to sustain modern standards of living, and lag far behind economically, rendering development unavoidable. The concept of “conservation” inherently carries universal value; yet, within the Chinese context—where there is both a need to safeguard historical and cultural heritage and a desire to promote rural revitalization and achieve balanced urban–rural development—it has gradually evolved and transformed, giving rise to the term “Conservation in Development.” Fundamentally, “Conservation in Development” represents a form of representation distinct from conservation in its essential sense; it embodies a conservation approach with distinctly Chinese characteristics. This study contends that “Conservation in Development” may be understood as a level or modality of conservation that has evolved under different social contexts and policy regimes. Drawing upon Critical Regionalism, hybridity, and Subaltern Studies as its primary theoretical perspectives, this study re-examines whether the proposition of “Conservation in Development” can indeed achieve a balance between the conservation of historical and cultural heritage and economic development. It further seeks to clarify the dimensions of ancient villages that have been overlooked under existing conservation policies and to propose recommendations for the implementation of “Conservation in Development” in practice. Accordingly, this study employs Critical Regionalism to emphasize the significance of locality and sustainability; utilizes hybridity theory to highlight cultural plurality and the necessity of reconstructing discursive power; and draws on Subaltern Studies to demonstrate the importance of marginalized groups’ participation in collective place-making. Through these perspectives, the study aims to argue that the implementation of “Conservation in Development” policies requires a more inclusive viewpoint that directly addresses the agency embedded in singular subject narratives and the cultural elements that have been neglected. Taking the architectural character of Hanling Village after the implementation of “Conservation in Development” as a case study, this research identifies overlooked traditional architecture, cultural elements, and local groups. It analyzes how, under the strong discursive dominance of governing authorities, ancient villages can articulate their own distinctive particularities during the process of “Conservation in Development,” construct their cultural identity and ideology, respond to the pervasive tendency toward homogenization, and ultimately re-understand and reinterpret the constructive significance of “Conservation in Development” within ancient villages.