中英文双语关于古建筑村庄改造更新及农村发展改造建设设计外文文献翻译成品 外文原文+翻译Word格式.docx

中英文双语关于古建筑村庄改造更新及农村发展改造建设设计外文文献翻译成品 外文原文+翻译Word格式.docx

《中英文双语关于古建筑村庄改造更新及农村发展改造建设设计外文文献翻译成品 外文原文+翻译Word格式.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《中英文双语关于古建筑村庄改造更新及农村发展改造建设设计外文文献翻译成品 外文原文+翻译Word格式.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

GeoJournal,2018,46（3）:

247–255（如觉得年份太老，可改为近2年，毕竟很多毕业生都这样做）

英文2618单词，14802字符（字符就是印刷符），中文4689汉字。

Keywords:

builtenvironment,cooperatives,depopulation,EastGermany,employment,infrastructure,ruraldevelopment,villages

Abstract:

Thispaperanalysesthe“Dorferneuerung”orvillagerenewalscheme–akeypolicyforruraldevelopmentinthenew“Lä

nder”ofGermanywhichhasbeentransferredfromtheoldLä

nder.ThecontributionthatDorferneuerungcanmaketoruraldevelopmentisconsidered,withparticularreferencetotheexperienceofparticipatingvillagesinSachsen-Anhalt.ItconcludesthatDorferneuerunghascontributedmuchtoimprovingthebuiltenvironmentbutlittletonewjobcreation.ItisindicativeoftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofreunificationforruraldevelopmentinthenewLä

nder.

Introduction

Thedramaticandfundamentalchangesintheruralecon-omyandsocietyoftheformerGermanDemocraticRepublic（GDR）sincereunificationhavereceivedwidespreadinterestandattention,particularlyconcerningrestructuringoftheagriculturalsector（e.g.Bergmann,1992;

Gross,1996;

Vo-geler,1996;

Wilson,1996;

Hagedornetal.,1997）.Theaimofthisarticleistoanalyseakeypolicyforruraldevelopmentinthenew‘Lä

nder’;

namelythe‘Dorferneuerung’orvil-lagerenewalscheme.Thisschemehasbeentransferredfromthe‘oldLä

nder’whereithasbeeninoperationforsomefortyyears.TheschemehasattractedinterestfromotherEuropeancountries.Indeed,ithasbeenclaimedthat‘Dor-ferneuerungwillbecomeatrans-nationalexportintheWestandEast’（translatedfromMagel,1996,p.4）.However,theschemehasnotbeenwithoutitscritics（Paasetal.,1994;

GrubeandRost,1995;

Herrenknecht,1995;

Zierold,1997）.InordertoevaluatethecontributionthatDorferneuerungcanmaketoruraldevelopmentinthenewLä

nder,thear-ticlewillfirstbrieflyidentifythedevelopmentchallengesfacingtheEastGermancountryside.ItwillthenoutlinetheDorferneuerungschemeandanalyseitintermsofitsappropriatenessfortacklingtheproblemsfacingruralareasofthenewLä

nder.TheevaluationwillfocusonexamplesofDorferneuerunginvillagesinSachsen-Anhalt,oneofthenewLä

Dorferneuerungandagriculturalrestructuring

ThefederalministryofagriculturejustifiestheinclusionofDorferneuerungintheGAKbecause（a）itdoesgiveprioritytotherestoration/renovationoffarmbuildingsinvillagesovernon-farmbuildings;

（b）itcanimprovetheroadlay-outinvillagesandthereforehelpaccessforfarmtrafficand（c）byraisingrurallivingstandardsgenerallyitmayencourageyoungpeopletostayontheland（BML,1995）.Thisargumentillustratesthecloseassociationbe-tweenfarmingandruralsettlementsthatstillexistsintheoldLä

nder.However,itscontributiontoagriculturalrestruc-turinginthenewLä

nderismarginalbecauseoftheproblemsinvolvedin（re）establishingfarmbusinesseswithinvillages,asillustratedbyDitfurt.

Ditfurtcontained135farmsofabout40hainsizeinthepre-GDRera,butfollowingcollectivisationinthe1950sasinglecooperativefarmwasformedwith2500ha.Newfarmbuildingswerebuiltontheoutskirtsofthevillageinthe1970sandmanyofthevillagefarmyardsfellintodisuse,butbecauseoflackofredevelopmentduringtheGDRerathesefarmyardshavesurvived（albeitofteninadilapidatedcondition）.Sincereunificationthesocialistcooperativehasbeenrestructuredintoaregisteredcooperativeof1400ha.Inaddition,therearethreefull-timefamilyfarmersandseveralpart-timefarmers（Tecklenberg,pers.comm.）.Onlyoneofthefull-timefarmsislocatedinthevillage,andthisfarmerhasbuiltanewbarnontheoutskirtsofthevillage.Itisunlikelythatanyotherfull-timefarmswillbeestablishedwithinthevillage.Inadditiontotheeconomicuncertain-tiesfacingallfarmersinthenewLä

nder,twobarrierscanbeidentifiedtothere-establishmentoffarmswithinvil-lages.First,thecostsofrenovatingrun-downfarmyardsareenormousandevenwithDorferneuerungsubsidiesmaybeprohibitive,andsecond,theenclosedcourtyardfarmstyp-icalofvillagesinthenewLä

ndermaybetoosmalltobesuitableforfull-timefarmers（GrubeandRost,1995）.Thesefarmyardsare,therefore,mostsuitedtopart-timefarmers.

Dorferneuerungandruraldevelopment

TheextenttowhichDorferneuerungcancontributetosocio-economicdevelopmentdependsmuchonindividualactorsintheprocess,andinparticularonthevillagemayor,whoseroleisvitalinnetworkingwithkeyofficialsandin‘animat-ing’thevillagecommunitytoparticipate.ThisisparticularlyimportantinthenewLä

nderwherevillageresidentswereinitiallyscepticalaboutthegovernment’scommitmenttopublicparticipationandwereunsureifsubsidieswouldma-terialise（Stert,pers.comm.）.Theywerealsotoobusywithprivateproblemssuchasemploymentandpropertyrightstohavetimetodevotetovillagematters（Paasetal.,1994）.

Ditfurt,BiereandKlä

denallenteredtheDorferneuerungschemeinitsfirstyear（1991）duetothepro-activenessoftheirmayors.ThemayorofDitfurtmadecontactwithaGemeindeinNiedersachsenstraightafterreunificationtofindoutaboutDorferneuerung.ShewasthenputintouchwithaprofessorofplanningatHannoverUniversity.Hebroughtagroupofstudentstothevillagetodoafield-workproject,andthroughhimthemayorwasputintouchwithanofficialinchargeofDorferneuerungintheSachsen-Anhaltministryofagriculture（Tecklenberg,pers.comm.）.InmanycasesneighbouringvillageshelpeachotherwiththeDorferneuerungscheme,especiallyiftheyarepartofthesame‘Verwaltungsgemeinschaft’（administrativecommu-nity–VWG）whichinSachsen-Anhaltisthelowestformalleveloflocalgovernment.Forinstance,Klä

denbelongstoaVWGwith12otherGemeindeand24villages.Klä

denandanothervillagehavenowcompletedDorferneuerung,buttenothervillagesarecurrentlyinthescheme,sotheycanbenefitbysharingadvice,contactsandexperience（Schlusselburg,pers.comm.）.

Frosejoinedtheschemein1994,anditsvillagecouncilhasappointedaDorfberater（villageadvisor）toworkfull-timeonmaximisingthedevelopmentpossibilitiesofDorfer-neuerung.ThisisapilotschemeinitiatedbyaneastGermanNGOrepresentingfarmandforestryworkers（Mü

hlknickel,1997）.Thevillageadvisorsworkalongsidethevillagecoun-cilandworkinggroup,andhaveaccesstoregionaladviceandinformationabouttheplethoraofotherfederalandLä

n-dergrantsthatcanbe‘tiedin’toDorferneuerungprojects.TheyfulfilaparticularlyimportantroleinvillageslikeFrosethathaveavoluntarymayorwithlittletimetodevotetoDor-ferneuerung.TheFrosevillageadvisorinformsthevillagersaboutthescheme,answersinquiriesandgenerallyraisespublicawareness.Inaddition,sheiswellnetworkedwithkeygatekeepersofDorferneuerungfunding（intheLandandDistrictagriculturaloffices）.AswellasherinvolvementinDorferneuerung,shehassetupsocialactivitiesforoldandyoungpeopleinthevillage,andhasmanagedtobringinotherfundingforconvertingtheinsideofthevillagecouncilbuilding（Stert,pers.comm.）.Whilethebenefitsofthevil-lageadvisorschemehavebeenrecognisedthereisatpresentnolong-termfundingsupportavailable（Mü

hlnickel,1997;

Rakow,pers.comm.）.

TheconstructionworkresultingfromDorferneuerungschemeshasgivenaboosttoruralbuildingfirms,butitscon-tributiontolongertermjob-creationismorequestionable.OnepolicythatiscloselycoordinatedwithDorferneuerungisakeyfederaljobcreationscheme（Arbeitsbeschaffungs-maß

nahmenorABM）,whichsubsidisesunemployedwork-erstoworkonshorttermprojectsofpublicbenefit（BMBau,1993）.AllfourvillageshaveemployedABMworkersoncommunalprojects,inparticularenvironmentalimprove-mentprojects,ascheaplabour.Forinstance,Froseemployed41ABMworkersfrom1994to1996toclearundergrowth,buildstonewalls,layfootpathsandplanttrees（Stert,pers.comm.）.Whilethisprovidestrainingopportunitiesfortheworkersandisofenormousbenefittothevillages,itdoesnotleadtolong-termjobcreation,andindeedunderminesthejobmarket（Schlusselburg,pers.comm.）.

SuitabilityofDorferneuerungforthenewLä

nder

OnthesurfaceitwouldappearthatvillagesinthetwopartsofGermanyhavelittleincommon.WhileDorferneuerunghasbeenimplementedgraduallyintheoldLä

nderoveraperiodoffortyyears,inthenewLä

nderithasbeenimple-mentedintensively,withhighfundinglevels,overaperiodofonlysevenyears.TheexpectationsofDorferneuerungaremuchhigherinthenewLä

nderthanintheoldLä

nderbecauseofthegreaterdevelopmentneeds.

Therearebothpositiveandnegativeevaluationsofthescheme’stransfertothenewLä

nderthatcanbemade.Look-ingatthepositivesidefirst,thefactthattheschemewasalreadyestablishedintheoldLä

ndermayhavehelpedtolegitimiseitinthenewLä

nder,andindeedfollowingreuni-ficationeachofthenewLä

nderwasgivenhelptoestablishtheschemefromanoldLand.Forinstance,Sachsen-AnhaltwaspartneredwithneighbouringNiedersachsen,andmanyvillagesinSachsen-AnhalthavebenefitedfromcontactwithvillagesinNiedersachsen（asisthecasewithDitfurt）.Sec-ond,everyvillagecandrawupitsownplanwithpublicparticipationbasedonlocalneedsandaspirations.Thescheme,although‘topdown’,isflexi