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.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.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.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.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

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

外文标题：

VillagerenewalandruraldevelopmentintheformerGermanDemocraticRepublic

外文作者：

OliviaJ.Wilson

文献出处:

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。

VillagerenewalandruraldevelopmentintheformerGermanDemocraticRepublic

OliviaJ.Wilson

Keywords:

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

Abstract:

Thispaperanalysesthe“Dorferneuerung”orvillagerenewalscheme–akeypolicyforruraldevelopmentinthenew“Länder”ofGermanywhichhasbeentransferredfromtheoldLänder.ThecontributionthatDorferneuerungcanmaketoruraldevelopmentisconsidered,withparticularreferencetotheexperienceofparticipatingvillagesinSachsen-Anhalt.ItconcludesthatDorferneuerunghascontributedmuchtoimprovingthebuiltenvironmentbutlittletonewjobcreation.ItisindicativeoftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofreunificationforruraldevelopmentinthenewLänder.

Introduction

Thedramaticandfundamentalchangesintheruralecon-omyandsocietyoftheformerGermanDemocraticRepublic（GDR）sincereunificationhavereceivedwidespreadinterestandattention,particularlyconcerningrestructuringoftheagriculturalsector（e.g.Bergmann,1992;Gross,1996;Vo-geler,1996;Wilson,1996;Hagedornetal.,1997）.Theaimofthisarticleistoanalyseakeypolicyforruraldevelopmentinthenew‘Länder’;namelythe‘Dorferneuerung’orvil-lagerenewalscheme.Thisschemehasbeentransferredfromthe‘oldLänder’whereithasbeeninoperationforsomefortyyears.TheschemehasattractedinterestfromotherEuropeancountries.Indeed,ithasbeenclaimedthat‘Dor-ferneuerungwillbecomeatrans-nationalexportintheWestandEast’（translatedfromMagel,1996,p.4）.However,theschemehasnotbeenwithoutitscritics（Paasetal.,1994;GrubeandRost,1995;Herrenknecht,1995;Zierold,1997）.InordertoevaluatethecontributionthatDorferneuerungcanmaketoruraldevelopmentinthenewLänder,thear-ticlewillfirstbrieflyidentifythedevelopmentchallengesfacingtheEastGermancountryside.ItwillthenoutlinetheDorferneuerungschemeandanalyseitintermsofitsappropriatenessfortacklingtheproblemsfacingruralareasofthenewLänder.TheevaluationwillfocusonexamplesofDorferneuerunginvillagesinSachsen-Anhalt,oneofthenewLänder.

Dorferneuerungandagriculturalrestructuring

ThefederalministryofagriculturejustifiestheinclusionofDorferneuerungintheGAKbecause（a）itdoesgiveprioritytotherestoration/renovationoffarmbuildingsinvillagesovernon-farmbuildings;（b）itcanimprovetheroadlay-outinvillagesandthereforehelpaccessforfarmtrafficand（c）byraisingrurallivingstandardsgenerallyitmayencourageyoungpeopletostayontheland（BML,1995）.Thisargumentillustratesthecloseassociationbe-tweenfarmingandruralsettlementsthatstillexistsintheoldLänder.However,itscontributiontoagriculturalrestruc-turinginthenewLänderismarginalbecauseoftheproblemsinvolvedin（re）establishingfarmbusinesseswithinvillages,asillustratedbyDitfurt.

Ditfurtcontained135farmsofabout40hainsizeinthepre-GDRera,butfollowingcollectivisationinthe1950sasinglecooperativefarmwasformedwith2500ha.Newfarmbuildingswerebuiltontheoutskirtsofthevillageinthe1970sandmanyofthevillagefarmyardsfellintodisuse,butbecauseoflackofredevelopmentduringtheGDRerathesefarmyardshavesurvived（albeitofteninadilapidatedcondition）.Sincereunificationthesocialistcooperativehasbeenrestructuredintoaregisteredcooperativeof1400ha.Inaddition,therearethreefull-timefamilyfarmersandseveralpart-timefarmers（Tecklenberg,pers.comm.）.Onlyoneofthefull-timefarmsislocatedinthevillage,andthisfarmerhasbuiltanewbarnontheoutskirtsofthevillage.Itisunlikelythatanyotherfull-timefarmswillbeestablishedwithinthevillage.Inadditiontotheeconomicuncertain-tiesfacingallfarmersinthenewLänder,twobarrierscanbeidentifiedtothere-establishmentoffarmswithinvil-lages.First,thecostsofrenovatingrun-downfarmyardsareenormousandevenwithDorferneuerungsubsidiesmaybeprohibitive,andsecond,theenclosedcourtyardfarmstyp-icalofvillagesinthenewLändermaybetoosmalltobesuitableforfull-timefarmers（GrubeandRost,1995）.Thesefarmyardsare,therefore,mostsuitedtopart-timefarmers.

Dorferneuerungandruraldevelopment

TheextenttowhichDorferneuerungcancontributetosocio-economicdevelopmentdependsmuchonindividualactorsintheprocess,andinparticularonthevillagemayor,whoseroleisvitalinnetworkingwithkeyofficialsandin‘animat-ing’thevillagecommunitytoparticipate.ThisisparticularlyimportantinthenewLänderwherevillageresidentswereinitiallyscepticalaboutthegovernment’scommitmenttopublicparticipationandwereunsureifsubsidieswouldma-terialise（Stert,pers.comm.）.Theywerealsotoobusywithprivateproblemssuchasemploymentandpropertyrightstohavetimetodevotetovillagematters（Paasetal.,1994）.

Ditfurt,BiereandKlädenallenteredtheDorferneuerungschemeinitsfirstyear（1991）duetothepro-activenessoftheirmayors.ThemayorofDitfurtmadecontactwithaGemeindeinNiedersachsenstraightafterreunificationtofindoutaboutDorferneuerung.ShewasthenputintouchwithaprofessorofplanningatHannoverUniversity.Hebroughtagroupofstudentstothevillagetodoafield-workproject,andthroughhimthemayorwasputintouchwithanofficialinchargeofDorferneuerungintheSachsen-Anhaltministryofagriculture（Tecklenberg,pers.comm.）.InmanycasesneighbouringvillageshelpeachotherwiththeDorferneuerungscheme,especiallyiftheyarepartofthesame‘Verwaltungsgemeinschaft’（administrativecommu-nity–VWG）whichinSachsen-Anhaltisthelowestformalleveloflocalgovernment.Forinstance,KlädenbelongstoaVWGwith12otherGemeindeand24villages.KlädenandanothervillagehavenowcompletedDorferneuerung,buttenothervillagesarecurrentlyinthescheme,sotheycanbenefitbysharingadvice,contactsandexperience（Schlusselburg,pers.comm.）.

Frosejoinedtheschemein1994,anditsvillagecouncilhasappointedaDorfberater（villageadvisor）toworkfull-timeonmaximisingthedevelopmentpossibilitiesofDorfer-neuerung.ThisisapilotschemeinitiatedbyaneastGermanNGOrepresentingfarmandforestryworkers（Mühlknickel,1997）.Thevillageadvisorsworkalongsidethevillagecoun-cilandworkinggroup,andhaveaccesstoregionaladviceandinformationabouttheplethoraofotherfederalandLän-dergrantsthatcanbe‘tiedin’toDorferneuerungprojects.TheyfulfilaparticularlyimportantroleinvillageslikeFrosethathaveavoluntarymayorwithlittletimetodevotetoDor-ferneuerung.TheFrosevillageadvisorinformsthevillagersaboutthescheme,answersinquiriesandgenerallyraisespublicawareness.Inaddition,sheiswellnetworkedwithkeygatekeepersofDorferneuerungfunding（intheLandandDistrictagriculturaloffices）.AswellasherinvolvementinDorferneuerung,shehassetupsocialactivitiesforoldandyoungpeopleinthevillage,andhasmanagedtobringinotherfundingforconvertingtheinsideofthevillagecouncilbuilding（Stert,pers.comm.）.Whilethebenefitsofthevil-lageadvisorschemehavebeenrecognisedthereisatpresentnolong-termfundingsupportavailable（Mühlnickel,1997;Rakow,pers.comm.）.

TheconstructionworkresultingfromDorferneuerungschemeshasgivenaboosttoruralbuildingfirms,butitscon-tributiontolongertermjob-creationismorequestionable.OnepolicythatiscloselycoordinatedwithDorferneuerungisakeyfederaljobcreationscheme（Arbeitsbeschaffungs-maßnahmenorABM）,whichsubsidisesunemployedwork-erstoworkonshorttermprojectsofpublicbenefit（BMBau,1993）.AllfourvillageshaveemployedABMworkersoncommunalprojects,inparticularenvironmentalimprove-mentprojects,ascheaplabour.Forinstance,Froseemployed41ABMworkersfrom1994to1996toclearundergrowth,buildstonewalls,layfootpathsandplanttrees（Stert,pers.comm.）.Whilethisprovidestrainingopportunitiesfortheworkersandisofenormousbenefittothevillages,itdoesnotleadtolong-termjobcreation,andindeedunderminesthejobmarket（Schlusselburg,pers.comm.）.

SuitabilityofDorferneuerungforthenewLänder

OnthesurfaceitwouldappearthatvillagesinthetwopartsofGermanyhavelittleincommon.WhileDorferneuerunghasbeenimplementedgraduallyintheoldLänderoveraperiodoffortyyears,inthenewLänderithasbeenimple-mentedintensively,withhighfundinglevels,overaperiodofonlysevenyears.TheexpectationsofDorferneuerungaremuchhigherinthenewLänderthanintheoldLänderbecauseofthegreaterdevelopmentneeds.

Therearebothpositiveandnegativeevaluationsofthescheme’stransfertothenewLänderthatcanbemade.Look-ingatthepositivesidefirst,thefactthattheschemewasalreadyestablishedintheoldLändermayhavehelpedtolegitimiseitinthenewLänder,andindeedfollowingreuni-ficationeachofthenewLänderwasgivenhelptoestablishtheschemefromanoldLand.Forinstance,Sachsen-AnhaltwaspartneredwithneighbouringNiedersachsen,andmanyvillagesinSachsen-AnhalthavebenefitedfromcontactwithvillagesinNiedersachsen（asisthecasewithDitfurt）.Sec-ond,everyvillagecandrawupitsownplanwithpublicparticipationbasedonlocalneedsandaspirations.Thescheme,although‘topdown’,isflexi