法國(guó)城市綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的認(rèn)知與實(shí)施三個(gè)案例研究（巴黎、馬賽、斯特拉斯堡）

撰文：（法國(guó)）羅蘭·科米爾 （法國(guó)）艾蒂安·格雷斯倫 （法國(guó)）姍德林·格拉特倫 （法國(guó)）娜塔莉·布蘭

翻譯：孫帥

Text by:Laure CORMIER (FR) Etienne GRESILLON (FR) Sandrine GLATRON (FR) Nathalie BLANC (FR)

Translation by:SUN Shuai

1 引言

在歐洲，自20世紀(jì)90年代末以來，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施便逐漸成為規(guī)劃的當(dāng)務(wù)之急（瓊格曼等，2004）。法國(guó)許多城市地區(qū)根據(jù)其自身的利益需求而對(duì)這一概念進(jìn)行了重新解釋（布蘭克，2012）。隨著格勒內(nèi)勒（Grenelle）1、2號(hào)法律（2009年和2010年）的頒布，如今每一個(gè)地方當(dāng)局都必須將具有生態(tài)意義的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施納入大都市和地方尺度的規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目，具體來說，即“綠道（trame verte）”。為了涵蓋文化、社會(huì)、地理和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)等多元化要素，3個(gè)城市：巴黎，馬賽，斯特拉斯堡市都在嘗試如何建立這種反射機(jī)制。事實(shí)上，在法國(guó)法蘭西島大區(qū)，城市當(dāng)局的多項(xiàng)舉措都反映了其對(duì)綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和生物多樣性問題的關(guān)注：塞納圣 -德尼（Seine St-Denis）部門觀測(cè)的生物多樣性和自然棲息地（巴黎市政府，2004年），建立區(qū)域機(jī)構(gòu)自然法國(guó)（Natureparif）（2006年），制定區(qū)域生物多樣性戰(zhàn)略（2007年），以及巴黎生物多樣性計(jì)劃（2011年）。此外，馬賽受到巴塞羅那及其綠環(huán)（anellaverda）的影響，在自己的城市范圍內(nèi)制定了綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的發(fā)展計(jì)劃。馬賽市規(guī)劃局（AGAM）提出的方案連接了城市殘留的非構(gòu)造性空間，通過城市綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，來解決城市環(huán)境的可持續(xù)發(fā)展問題。最后，阿爾薩斯是第一個(gè)響應(yīng)法國(guó)的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施環(huán)境政策（20世紀(jì)90年代中后期）的地區(qū)。斯特拉斯堡1992年的本地規(guī)劃和2007年的大都市計(jì)劃，都在其法定文件中提到了“綠道”一詞。目前，城市社區(qū)當(dāng)?shù)爻鞘邪l(fā)展計(jì)劃（PLU）的一部分——斯特拉斯堡更多地從生態(tài)角度來定義綠道網(wǎng)絡(luò)。

通過考慮鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)植被連續(xù)性，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的概念帶來了當(dāng)下城市思想的復(fù)興。如果生態(tài)學(xué)家們?cè)缧┠曜⒁獾缴锒鄻有员磺治g，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施會(huì)作為一個(gè)新的人類科學(xué)研究領(lǐng)域。多種與此概念相關(guān)的理念，為物種保護(hù)的實(shí)踐和理論研究帶來了新挑戰(zhàn)。對(duì)于科學(xué)模型和政治問題，決策過程必須考慮并回應(yīng)這些期望。在今天的大多數(shù)情況下，多學(xué)科領(lǐng)域的交叉將難免需要在公眾參與環(huán)節(jié)中引入新的組織方式。我們比較研究以下3個(gè)案例在政策、科學(xué)和物種彼此的不同。

2 綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施政策的相似性和異質(zhì)性

2.1 強(qiáng)烈的共同特點(diǎn)

當(dāng)審視這3座城市時(shí)，第一個(gè)著眼點(diǎn)是綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施在當(dāng)?shù)匾惑w化城市規(guī)劃（PLU）法定分區(qū)中的缺失。事實(shí)上，3個(gè)城市的規(guī)劃（PLU）都沒有預(yù)先在其政策和圖形文檔中考慮到生態(tài)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的存在需要，但這3個(gè)舊規(guī)劃已在進(jìn)行修訂中。格勒內(nèi)勒1、2號(hào)法案為這些文件帶來了新的發(fā)展層面，要求各市在其規(guī)劃中“考慮”生態(tài)連續(xù)性的需求。而3座城市的最新發(fā)展規(guī)劃則體現(xiàn)了這種演變。分區(qū)文件尚未制定完成，但綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的制圖規(guī)定正在研究之中，主要使用基于照片的解釋方法。景觀/環(huán)境/生態(tài)設(shè)計(jì)辦公室正在為馬賽進(jìn)行這項(xiàng)工作，斯特拉斯堡和巴黎則是由自己的市政當(dāng)局著手。將可持續(xù)性的綠地整合入當(dāng)?shù)胤ǘǖ某鞘幸?guī)劃文件中，立法者需要采用多樣手段使公共及私人空間均能獲益。然而，回顧這3個(gè)城市的規(guī)劃文件，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施定下義的空間幾乎僅包括公共空間：行道樹，公園和花園，河岸區(qū)等。在法律上實(shí)行生態(tài)連續(xù)性問題需要政治勇氣，而法國(guó)地方議員很不愿意顯示出來。然而，從監(jiān)管的角度來看，通過確立《保護(hù)綠色空間》《持久性私人綠色空間……旨在全面改善那些綠地和種植園的空間質(zhì)量》的概念，將有利于形成真正的符合巴黎市政府意愿的私人空間（引自：PADD，巴黎城市規(guī)劃文件）。

最后，通過對(duì)多種情景的解讀，我們理解到在城市中構(gòu)建連續(xù)性所存在的困難與發(fā)展前景的困境，以及它與綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施概念之間的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系。如果綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施在圖紙上出現(xiàn)，因?yàn)槟鞘且粋€(gè)特定的地理位置。綠色的連續(xù)性需要得到支持，因此它強(qiáng)烈需要被納入道路或流域網(wǎng)絡(luò)系統(tǒng)中去。在高密度建設(shè)的城市里，只有沿著街道或河流才可能創(chuàng)造一個(gè)連續(xù)的綠色空間。因此，我們可以觀察到綠色和藍(lán)色之間存在著很強(qiáng)的相關(guān)性，特別是在斯特拉斯堡的例子中。然而，通過閱讀各種文件，我們可以觀察到一個(gè)旨在避免使用通用術(shù)語“綠道、藍(lán)道”總的趨勢(shì)，這一趨勢(shì)由于格勒內(nèi)勒法案的關(guān)系，現(xiàn)已與城市的規(guī)劃密度息息相關(guān)。

使用其他的詞匯來表達(dá)綠色連續(xù)性的概念，如斯特拉斯堡的“生態(tài)網(wǎng)絡(luò)”和巴黎的“生態(tài)走廊”，給規(guī)劃師在資源組織和相關(guān)地區(qū)調(diào)配方面帶來了更大的操作空間。因此，從監(jiān)管的角度來看這與“綠道”的定義相關(guān)，它希望為那些沒有被格勒內(nèi)勒法案覆蓋的空間（如墓地、運(yùn)動(dòng)場(chǎng)等）對(duì)不同形式的生態(tài)管理進(jìn)行整合。這一語言劃分可能顯得微不足道，卻反映了規(guī)劃師在使用“綠道”一詞的不安。通過我們對(duì)3個(gè)城市已經(jīng)進(jìn)行的各種采訪，發(fā)現(xiàn)監(jiān)管層對(duì)于這兩個(gè)基本概念的區(qū)分顯得過于嚴(yán)格。這增加了對(duì)生物多樣性相關(guān)策略的實(shí)用性，政策不會(huì)對(duì)有關(guān)區(qū)域的實(shí)際管理進(jìn)行干預(yù)。進(jìn)一步說，在規(guī)劃法規(guī)范圍內(nèi)的綠地監(jiān)管工具由于相對(duì)較弱，似乎并不適合城市的需要（坎普奧·杜夫亨與盧卡斯，2012年）。

此外，盡管目前法國(guó)的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施政策主要針對(duì)生物多樣性，如格勒內(nèi)勒法案，3個(gè)城市多樣的行動(dòng)計(jì)劃都突出了不能被單一的生態(tài)愿景所取代的社會(huì)維度。綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的社會(huì)功能與生態(tài)功能密切相關(guān)，在某些情況下，規(guī)劃者需要特別說服當(dāng)?shù)毓賳T。事實(shí)上，與經(jīng)濟(jì)利益和生活質(zhì)量相比，保護(hù)生物多樣性的問題幾乎不能引起官員們的重視。3個(gè)城市負(fù)責(zé)綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目的規(guī)劃師們，都在確保研究具有必要的科學(xué)謹(jǐn)慎性方面下了苦工。等到空間的生態(tài)特性被明確下來，才用一個(gè)完美的說法對(duì)地方官員施壓。

2.2 當(dāng)?shù)丨h(huán)境的重要性

這些城市之間既有相似之處，也有不同之處。最明顯的差距是3個(gè)城市綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的發(fā)展演變過程。馬賽最近才開始致力于明確綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的定義，而斯特拉斯堡自1992年以來就一直進(jìn)行相關(guān)研究，巴黎則于2011年通過生物多樣性文件規(guī)劃了一個(gè)廣闊的生物多樣性行動(dòng)計(jì)劃?！熬G道”的概念也因場(chǎng)地、項(xiàng)目目標(biāo)和監(jiān)管手段的不同而不同。

在馬賽，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施對(duì)于公共決策者是一個(gè)全新的概念。只有少數(shù)最近的規(guī)劃文件明確與之相關(guān)。然而，城市對(duì)這個(gè)話題的反思已經(jīng)持續(xù)了7年。各種文件都同意在密集的城市周邊區(qū)域進(jìn)行綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目。通過“自然2000計(jì)劃1號(hào)與2號(hào)”等文件將森林和小溪定為不同級(jí)別的保護(hù)對(duì)象。雖然大都市政策導(dǎo)向的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施服務(wù)于生物多樣性，但在文件文中并不明顯。事實(shí)上，生態(tài)目標(biāo)似乎更類似于旅游、娛樂和城市發(fā)展的制度，以確?！按蠖际械奈Α薄Ｒ?yàn)檫@種大都市的政策定義，馬賽市政府目前正在審查其當(dāng)?shù)氐某鞘幸?guī)劃。雖然規(guī)劃文件集合了生態(tài)和社會(huì)學(xué)的觀點(diǎn)，但工作文件主要關(guān)注通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)組織“城市中所有的自然公園、花園、鄰里花園、小徑和高品質(zhì)社區(qū)”來提升生活質(zhì)量。地方民選官員似乎不愿發(fā)展綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施政治（城市項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理，康薩爾斯等，2012），這一現(xiàn)象在法國(guó)的許多城市都可以觀察到（康米爾，2011）。然而，城市的綠化和規(guī)劃行政主管部門，在當(dāng)?shù)胤ǘǔ鞘幸?guī)劃的制定過程中所能發(fā)揮的能量極小。它會(huì)為未來預(yù)留一個(gè)潛在的政治意愿。嚴(yán)格來說，并沒有一個(gè)線性和連續(xù)的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，在該框架之下公共綠地被定義為一種沒有沖突的區(qū)域，是一系列的片段，康薩爾斯與其同事（2012）譴責(zé)這種對(duì)生態(tài)問題的疲軟政治承諾。在綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目中，強(qiáng)大的城市化過程疊加在龐大的綠色自然空間網(wǎng)絡(luò)上，往往有利于被破壞的半自然區(qū)域，特別是那些未受到環(huán)境立法保護(hù)的脆弱區(qū)域。

在斯特拉斯堡，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的概念已在政治上達(dá)到了成熟。第一個(gè)被引用的文件是1992年當(dāng)?shù)爻鞘幸?guī)劃，它反對(duì)以人類中心的規(guī)劃范式，強(qiáng)調(diào)以植被區(qū)域美化城市。該市對(duì)連續(xù)性的關(guān)注在20世紀(jì)90年代初的規(guī)劃就早有體現(xiàn)，且與水文學(xué)緊密聯(lián)系。但事實(shí)是直到21世紀(jì)初，在環(huán)保團(tuán)體和區(qū)域政策壓力的巨大影響之下，環(huán)境問題才真正在規(guī)劃文件中被關(guān)注。事實(shí)上，阿爾薩斯是全法首批關(guān)注綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施在制止生物多樣性喪失方面作用的城市之一。2007年，都市計(jì)劃開始實(shí)施其第二和第三章指出的“保持自然區(qū)域，以確保全球的生態(tài)平衡”的自然區(qū)域保護(hù)目標(biāo)，但是這個(gè)雄心勃勃的目標(biāo)對(duì)于綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的概念還不清楚。綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施一直與特殊區(qū)域的保護(hù)相關(guān)，如自然空間，線性溪流，多樣化景觀，但卻從來沒有被真正定義?，F(xiàn)在，該市正處于文件定義（屬于生態(tài)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的）空間的實(shí)施階段。這是城市地方規(guī)劃中定義綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的初步步驟。生態(tài)網(wǎng)絡(luò)術(shù)語的使用并不是一個(gè)偶然的機(jī)會(huì)，它反映出與“綠道”政策相比人們更加接受環(huán)保政策。

在法國(guó)首都巴黎，人們很早就開始思考綠色連續(xù)性問題。從19世紀(jì)末豪斯曼（HAUSSMANN）與艾爾凡（ALPHAN）主持的城市規(guī)劃工程（阿爾利夫等，2011；卡爾考德 康米爾，2010）到2011年的生物多樣性規(guī)劃，我們可以觀察到其考慮問題的一個(gè)大轉(zhuǎn)變。有研究指出，在2003年的地方一級(jí)政府文件中，第一次提及到將綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施融入當(dāng)?shù)爻鞘幸?guī)劃。這份文件將其定義為“由公園、廣場(chǎng)、公共花園和城市海濱長(zhǎng)廊構(gòu)成的綠地空間。”因此，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施包括所有的綠地和行道樹。在以人類為中心的模式中，巴黎的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施不得不假設(shè)這些目標(biāo)本質(zhì)上要為社會(huì)、美學(xué)和生活質(zhì)量的改善而服務(wù)。2006年的巴黎市本地規(guī)劃非常適合于這種思想，依托了關(guān)鍵的綠地，樹林，塞納河，運(yùn)河，墓地等空間。但是，它也增加了另一個(gè)層面，即通過了將私人空間整合入綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的具體規(guī)定。

這一政策使政治意愿得以在私人空間得到貫徹，即通過監(jiān)管工具來維持綠地。我們必須等待2011年11月“生物多樣性計(jì)劃”——一個(gè)真正的城市生態(tài)政策——由巴黎國(guó)會(huì)通過。巴黎的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施明確界定了其線性形式和點(diǎn)狀形式，使其更具多樣化和多尺度的特征，并展現(xiàn)出以生物多樣性為中心的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施愿景。文本中的“組織（mobilized）”基本上屬于生態(tài)詞匯，并提出了各種具體措施來實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)：監(jiān)管（如在包括私人空間的所有綠地中停止使用合成殺蟲劑和除草劑），建立或恢復(fù)空間（如到2020年新建40座池塘或濕地），知識(shí)和認(rèn)識(shí)（如創(chuàng)建的生物多樣性觀測(cè)臺(tái)）。

3 三個(gè)城市，三個(gè)假想的人

在這3個(gè)城市中，24個(gè)“專案小組”均由6至9人組成，其中包括2至3個(gè)研究人員。專案小組制度本身缺乏多樣化的代表性，但此外通常還有約160位公民通過采樣方式參與進(jìn)來。盡管缺乏代表性，但是這種制度使社會(huì)上的批評(píng)聲音減少了，并收到令民眾滿意的效果。

我們采用了兩種方法來研究民眾的意見。第一種是使用阿爾切斯特軟件（Alceste software）量化意見。它區(qū)別于統(tǒng)計(jì)關(guān)聯(lián)詞的頻率和程度的計(jì)算方法，如計(jì)算χ^ 2統(tǒng)計(jì)指標(biāo)。智方（Chi-square）數(shù)據(jù)能夠識(shí)別出關(guān)聯(lián)的意見。第二種方法是為綠道確定想法和主題。我們?cè)?個(gè)城市里都實(shí)行了以上兩種方法。

3.1 關(guān)于綠道的不同論述

整個(gè)文本中，專案小組對(duì)阿爾切斯特軟件（Alceste software）的結(jié)果進(jìn)行分類，以確定每個(gè)城市發(fā)展不同的話語（表01）。詞匯計(jì)量學(xué)（Lexicometric）分析表明，巴黎人關(guān)心野生動(dòng)物。他們首先提出了他們認(rèn)為不必要的動(dòng)物（如鴿子，鼠），并希望管理者限制這些動(dòng)物的活動(dòng)空間，因?yàn)樗麄儗⒁吧鷦?dòng)物視為潛在的有害物。然后他們談?wù)摿死硐氲膭?dòng)物，如松鼠，魚，兔，并希望綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施能夠增加它們的數(shù)量。巴黎人不認(rèn)為在密集的城市中能夠建設(shè)這些綠色走廊。一個(gè)巴黎人說：“我想象中的城市綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施應(yīng)類似于一張網(wǎng)，是將城市與農(nóng)村連接起來的東西。但不可否認(rèn)我不能把這張網(wǎng)具現(xiàn)化，我不知道在巴黎這樣的大城市它會(huì)以什么樣的形式出現(xiàn)?！?/p>

在馬賽，重大利益是不同的，環(huán)境首先喚起公眾健康的問題。綠地空間應(yīng)專注于廢物處理（垃圾收集，糞便）和保證狗被皮帶拴住等問題。對(duì)于馬賽居民們來說，環(huán)保項(xiàng)目并不是最優(yōu)先的。因此我們必須首先解決不文明行為的問題。城市綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施首先要對(duì)環(huán)保的電車進(jìn)行建造。其后，將它轉(zhuǎn)化為一種將周圍丘陵與城市中心之間的潛在鏈接。

在斯特拉斯堡，使用的詞匯與生態(tài)學(xué)家和環(huán)境學(xué)家相似。人們熟悉城市綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施（走廊，生物多樣性）的概念。環(huán)保團(tuán)體在斯特拉斯堡明確提及（有時(shí)是自發(fā)的，在剛開始時(shí)則是受邀請(qǐng)的）對(duì)于綠道的渴望。對(duì)于非環(huán)保人士來說，雖然他們沒有提及到綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施這一術(shù)語，但他們對(duì)自然區(qū)域的描述則清楚地反映出他們對(duì)保持植物和動(dòng)物運(yùn)動(dòng)連續(xù)性的強(qiáng)烈想法。然而，只有當(dāng)城市人們每天都實(shí)踐綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的理念時(shí)，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的理念才能發(fā)揮到最好，而不是服務(wù)于“人”。此外，自然要素是必要的，并將在城市生活中的目標(biāo)中占據(jù)重要位置。有人說：“我認(rèn)為自然有兩方面功能：首先可以觀察這個(gè)空間，另外，自然可以整合更多其他的空間。首先，出于健康的原因，對(duì)自然進(jìn)行觀察與思考，并試圖反思整個(gè)社會(huì)，這樣以后，城市肌理得以形成，城市也將重獲生機(jī)”。在斯特拉斯堡，城市化與保護(hù)自然可以兼容。他們?cè)敢飧淖兯麄兊倪\(yùn)輸方式，并重新反思自己的城市設(shè)計(jì)。

表01 阿爾切斯特軟件對(duì)最常用詞匯（Σ）和最顯著詞匯（ΣCHI2）進(jìn)行分類，以顯示這些詞匯對(duì)于城市的重要性。

這些巨大差異使城市之間的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施愿景產(chǎn)生了不同的態(tài)度和行為方式。

3.2 城市的實(shí)踐也不同

由于斯特拉斯堡的城市居民每天都使用綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，因此其綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施元素比其他城市更為有名。這里的綠地連續(xù)性是顯而易見的，并可以被感知和描述。斯特拉斯堡居民可以通過在自然中步行或騎自行車來觀察和思考。

巴黎和馬賽則與斯特拉斯堡相反，自然元素通常都固定出現(xiàn)于公園中。在巴黎，人們總是提到公園和花園。在這兩個(gè)城市，人們?cè)诠珗@和花園中坐下、閱讀、放松、聽音樂、玩耍、帶著孩子來玩。這就是為什么連續(xù)性不太容易被察覺的原因。馬賽是一個(gè)奇特的案例，不同于任何其他荒野臨近的密集城市（例如卡蘭奎斯）。一方面，公園作為城市中的自然區(qū)域，卻存在著許多文明問題。另一方面小溪被看作是更真實(shí)的區(qū)域，但不同于有不同法律城市的其他法律領(lǐng)域。小溪是安全的避難所或逃離區(qū)。對(duì)于一些馬賽城鎮(zhèn)居民來說，城市中心與自然區(qū)域相對(duì)立。一位婦女說道：“喜歡去海邊、野外的小溪……那里沒有任何建筑物，它是自然和野生的。”另一名在小溪游憩的居民表示“在我家附近會(huì)產(chǎn)生窒息的感覺，我不能呼吸……我真的需要‘充電’，環(huán)境或景觀還可以撫慰我、陽(yáng)光、大海、我需要聽到動(dòng)物的叫聲，看看黃蜂等小飛蟲，看看這些花……”

最后，由于城市的結(jié)構(gòu)，以及沿運(yùn)河和自行車道勾勒出的城市建成區(qū)線條，斯特拉斯堡的居民們得以在自然中自由的穿行。反之，巴黎和馬賽的居民只能去一座公園，卻沒有更多的移動(dòng)性。他們來到一個(gè)可以休息和享受寧?kù)o的場(chǎng)所。自然空間與城市建成區(qū)隔離開來。公園和花園還面對(duì)著噪聲的侵?jǐn)_和城市人口或交通的壓力。

盡管在某些案例中，自然是人工建設(shè)的并缺乏真實(shí)感，但人們?cè)谧匀恢懈惺艿降男腋８?，仍具有重要作用?/p>

4 結(jié)論

因此，這3種情況使我們能夠在不同領(lǐng)域的操作系統(tǒng)中評(píng)估綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的概念。

首先，我們從綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施正常的目標(biāo)中看到了一些規(guī)律。我們觀察到在大都市層面的規(guī)劃中發(fā)生傾斜：如果最初的綠道主要考慮社會(huì)和娛樂功能，那么現(xiàn)在它們將會(huì)具有更多的移動(dòng)性，其生態(tài)功能也將得以發(fā)揮。但當(dāng)?shù)毓賳T懷疑媒體的報(bào)道和通過“綠道”管理自然的理念。這種不情愿，對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)卣弋a(chǎn)生了語義上的后果：當(dāng)?shù)卣谄渚G色政策上使用其他的術(shù)語來替代綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。因此，這一語義上的規(guī)避使綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施概念的理解更為廣泛自由?，F(xiàn)在，“綠道”一詞幾乎完全在監(jiān)管領(lǐng)域中被專用。這項(xiàng)立法禁止任何解釋，綠道有助于促進(jìn)城市中生物多樣性的解釋也被限制。

這3個(gè)案例說明，在法國(guó)不同的發(fā)展需求、不同的發(fā)展、不同的空間條件和不同的執(zhí)行策略，會(huì)導(dǎo)致產(chǎn)生不同的“綠道”政策。這種政策的異質(zhì)性與當(dāng)?shù)氐牡乩砗蜕鐣?huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)條件密切相關(guān)。從上述3個(gè)案例可以看出，有幾個(gè)因素可能影響到地方官員的意識(shí)：當(dāng)?shù)嘏c自然系統(tǒng)相關(guān)的文化，參與者的組織架構(gòu)，尤其是綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人的魅力等。

為了實(shí)施綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，規(guī)劃師必須花費(fèi)一個(gè)漫長(zhǎng)的官方規(guī)劃周期（10年）時(shí)間了解當(dāng)?shù)鼐用駛兊目捶?。因此，由于綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施空間連續(xù)性發(fā)達(dá)，斯塔拉斯堡對(duì)于綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施更加敏感。重要的是要確保綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的開放性。如果規(guī)劃者能夠?yàn)榛A(chǔ)設(shè)施預(yù)留出綠化的公共空間，就可以增強(qiáng)居民規(guī)避風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的能力。在綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施空間中，確保居民能夠進(jìn)行動(dòng)態(tài)的行為（自行車，步行）和靜態(tài)的行為（閱讀，沉思）都是必要的。

1 Introduction

Green infrastructures have gradually become imperative in planning since the end of 1990s in Europe (Jongman et al,2004).Numerous urban areas in France mobilize and reinterpret the notion according to stakes of their territory (Blanc,2012).With the promulgation of Grenelle 1 and 2 Laws(in 2009 and 2010),today every local authorities have to integrate an ecological reflection on green infrastructures into its planning projects at metropolitan and local scales,called "trame verte".To cover a plurality of contexts of cultural,social,geographical and eco-systematic levels,three cities were retained to understand how this reflection is set up:the municipalities of Paris,Marseille,and Strasbourg.Indeed,in Ile-de-France,a number of initiatives reflect the interest of the regional,departmental and municipal authorities for green infrastructures and biodiversity issues:the Seine St-Denis departmental observatory of biodiversity and natural habitats (City hall of Paris,on 2004),the creation of the regional agency Natureparif(2006),the regional strategy for biodiversity (2007),the Paris biodiversity plan (2011).Furthermore,the city of Marseille,influenced by the example of Barcelona metropolitan area and its anellaverda(green ring),plans the development of a green infrastructure on its municipal territory.It confided the study to the Planning Agency of Marseille Urban area (AGAM) which elaborates scenarios for connecting the residual non-constructed spaces,to endow the city of a green infrastructure addressing the environmental issues of sustainable development.Finally,the region Alsace was one of the first regions to integrate a reflection into these environmental policies on green infrastructure in France (in the late 1990s).The Strasbourg local planning in 1992 and the metropolitan plan in 2007 (SCOTER) mention the term "greenway" in their statutory documents.Currently,as part of the development of the urban local plan (PLU),Strasbourg urban community defines a network of greenways in an ecological perspective.

Through the consideration of vegetable continuities in town,the notion of green infrastructures brings a revival in the current urban thinking.If scientists in ecological sciences were interested since a few years in this question to fight against biodiversity erosion,green infrastructures appear as a new field of investigation for human sciences.Multifunctionality associated with this notion of meshing offers new challenges as for practices and perceptions of inhabitants.How decision making can take into account and translate their expectations regarding scientific models proposed and political issues? Its diverse dimensions introduce inevitably new modalities of the public debate organization which remain to invent in most cases today.We have compared in each of the studied sites the three following spheres,often distinct from one another:political,scientific and inhabitants.

2 Similarities and Heterogeneity of Green Infrastructure Policies

2.1 Strong Common Characteristics

In view of the analysis of these three municipalities,the first observation that can be made is the absence of zoning statutory integration of green infrastructure in the urban local plan(PLU).Indeed,none of the three PLU reserve in their rules and graphic document refer to a consideration of an ecological network.However,these documents are old,and the three PLUs are under review.Laws Grenelle 1 and 2 bring a new dimension in the development of these documents by requiring municipalities to "take into account"ecological continuity in their regulation.The orientation of the three new local development plans reflects this evolution.Zoning documents have not yet been made,but cartographic definition of green infrastructure is underway in the three municipalities,mainly using method based on photo-interpretation.It is undertaken by a design office of landscape/environment/ecology for Marseille,and by municipality's services for Strasbourg and Paris.To integrate statutorily green continuities in local urban planning documents,the legislator may act on different devices that could interest both to public and private spaces.However,regarding planning documents of the three cities,spaces included in this definition are almost essentially public:roadside trees,parks and gardens,the edges of banks ...to act statutorily on ecological continuity issues requires a political courage which local councilors in France are quite reluctant to show.However,there is a true will from the municipality of Paris to act on private space from a regulatory point of view by defining the notion of Protected Green Space for Durable Private Green Space […]Aiming at Improving the Global Quality of those Spaces and their Plantations (PADD PLU,Paris).

Finally,reading the various scenarios,we understand the difficult existence and prospects of the idea of continuity in the city,intrinsically linked to the concept of green infrastructure.If it appears cartographically,it's because of a particular geographic location.The green continuity requires support,and so is therefore strongly imbricated to with the road or watershed networks.In town,building densification allows the creation of a green physical continuity only on spaces along streets or rivers.So as a result,we could observe a strong correlation of green and blue frames as evidence,particularly in the example of Strasbourg.However,reading the various documents,we can observe a general trend that aims to overcome the generic term "trame verte et bleue",which is now strongly linked to a planning disposition because of Grenelle's laws.

Using a distinct vocabulary to express the idea of green continuity,"ecological networks"for Strasbourg,"ecological corridor" for Paris,allows greater interpretation latitude for planner,particularly in resources mobilized and areas concerned.Thus,it is associated with the definition of "trame verte" in a regulatory perspective,the desire to integrate different forms of ecological management for more spaces (Cemetery/ sports field) that does not seem to be covered by Grenelle laws.This linguistic demarcation,that may seem insignificant,reflects planner's unease in front of the regulatory aspect of "trame verte".Thus,in view of the various interviews we have carried out in these three cities,this regulatory dimension appears too restrictive for two essential points.It raised the relevance of such a device on the real effect on the biodiversity increasing;regulation does not intend to act on management of the areas concerned.Futhermore,the range of regulatory tools for green spaces in planning law,relatively small,do not seem suited to urban logics (Camproux-Duffrène and Lucas,2012).

Moreover,even if green infrastructure policy in France today,as intended by Grenelle laws,aims to act mainly on biodiversity,various actions on the three cities highlight a social dimension that cannot be ousted in favor of a single ecological vision.Green infrastructure social functions are strongly associated with ecological functions,and in some cases are the main arguments of planners especially in order to convince elected officials.Indeed,considering the economic and the quality of life issues,preservation of biodiversity does hardly make sense for them.Planners in charge of green infrastructure in the three municipalities unanimously raise the necessary scientific caution that should bring researchers in an ecological definition.Waiting for clear criteria to recognize the ecological character of a space,they want to have a flawless argument in order to pressure on local officials.

2.2 The Importance of Local Context

If there are similarities between these cities,there are also differences.The greatest disparity relates to the progress thought on green infrastructures between three cities.While Marseille is currently committed in this green infrastructure definition,Strasbourg approached it since 1992 in its planning documents and Paris especially from 2011 through its biodiversity plan sets a broad plan of action for biodiversity.The concept of "trame verte" takes different meanings in those three cases,depending on areas identified,objectives and regulatory means mobilized.

Green infrastructure concept in Marseille is a new idea for the public decision maker.Only a few planning documents refers to it explicitly,and they are recent.However,the city reflection on this topic has been engaged for 7 years.Various documents and testimonies agree to draw a green infrastructure in a peripheral position of the dense city.It identifies forests and creeks recognized by various levels of protection:Natura 2000 ZNIEFF 1 and 2...While metropolitan political discourse oriented green infrastructure policy serving biodiversity,its statement in the text is not so obvious.Indeed,stated objectives seem more akin to orders under tourist,recreational and urban than ecological,ensuring "the attractiveness of the conurbation."Along with this metropolitan policy definition,the municipality of Marseille is currently reviewing its urban local planning.Although planning document convenes ecological and sociological arguments,working papers are primarily focused on the quality of life by organizing "network of all urban nature parks,gardens,neighborhood gardens,trails,quality urban".Local elected officials seem reluctant to develop a green infrastructure politics (chargé de mission of the city,Consales et al.2012),a phenomenon observed in many cities in France (Cormier,2011).However,the green space and planning department of municipality statutorily registered in a frame a minima in urban local plan.It will set aside areas for a potential political will in the future.The frame is then defined as a patch primarily based on areas not carrying conflicting issues,public green spaces.There is not a linear and continuous infrastructure;strictly speaking,it is more a succession of patch based on non-conflicting issues spaces:mainly public green spaces.Consales and colleagues(2012) denounce the weakness of political commitment on these ecological issues in front of"a powerful densification process which tends to be superimposed on a vast network of green natural spaces potentially be mobilized in a project of green infrastructure".This lack of political commitment tends to favor the loss of semi-natural areas,particularly vulnerable when they are not protected by an environmental legislation.

In Strasbourg,green infrastructure concept has reached a political maturity.The first document to be referenced is local urban plan of 1992,essentially declined in anthropocentric paradigm,where vegetated area allows the city to heal its urbanity.Consideration of the idea of continuity is already in the planning early 1990s and is strongly associated with the hydrological context.But it was not until early 2000 that environmental issues were considered in planning documents.This concern is greatly influenced by pressures of environmental groups and regional policy.Indeed,Alsace is one of the first states to become interested in green infrastructure characterization in order to halt the loss of biodiversity.In 2007,the metropolitan plan devotes its second and third chapters to natural areas preservation of by stating the objective of keeping "natural areas to ensure global ecological balance".Despite this ambitious goal,the concept of green infrastructure is unclear.The green infrastructure term is associated with the preservation of exceptional areas (natural spaces,linear streams,varied landscapes) but is never actually defined.Today,the metropolitan level is in the implementation phase of a document defining the spaces belonging to the ecological network.It is a preliminary step for the identification of green infrastructure in the urban local plan.The use of ecological network term is not a chance,it responds to a desire to adopt an environmental policy wider than a "trame verte" policy.

The consideration of green continuities has a past in the French capital.Since city planning works undertaken by Haussmann and Alphan late 19th (Arrif et al.,2011;Carcaud Cormier,2010)to the Biodiversity plan of 2011,we can observe a large change in its consideration.The first mention of green infrastructure term at the local level is supported by a study,in 2003,for its integration into urban local plan.This document defines it as "all green spaces constituting parks,squares,public gardens and promenades of the city."the green infrastructure concerns,therefore,all green spaces and tree lines.In an anthropocentric paradigm,Paris green infrastructure has to assume objectives which are essentially social,aesthetic,and improvment of the quality of life.Paris urban local plan (2006) fits well in this thought,relying on key spaces:green spaces,woods,Seine,canals,cemeteries.However,it adds another dimension by integrating a specific regulation on private spaces for green infrastructure.

This device translates a political will to have control over private spaces,through regulatory tool,to sustain green spaces.We must await the adoption of the Biodiversity plan (November 2011) by Paris Council for a real display of the city ecological policy.The Parisian green infrastructure is clearly defined through linear forms and punctual forms.The elements taken into account,more varied and at different scales compared to the local urban plan,show a biocentric vision of the green infrastructure.Semantics mobilized in the text essentially belong to ecological vocabulary.Various concrete measures are proposed to achieve this goal:both regulatory (eg.Stopping the use of synthetic herbicides and pesticides in all green spaces,including private spaces),creation or restoration of spaces (eg.creation of 40 ponds or wetlands to 2020),knowledge and awareness (eg.creation of a biodiversity observatory).

3 Three Cities,Three Imaginary People

In all three cities,twenty-four "focus groups"composed of six to nine people were gathered around two to three researchers.The focus group method does not bring out the diversity of representations but the significant number of the participating citizens (total 160),the sampling technique,and some redundancies in the comments encourage us to think that despitethe lack of representativeness,we are facing a satisfactory significance of the remarks.

Table 1 Classification proposed by the Alceste software with the most used words (Σ) and significant (ΣCHI2) showing the importance of the city.

Two methods have been developed to study the speech of the inhabitants.The first seeks to quantify the words with the Alceste software.It distinguishes classes by frequencies and degrees of meaning of word association by calculations of statistical indices such as Chi2.The Chi-square index identifies words significantly associated with a class of speech.The second method is to identify ideas and themes specific to the greenway.These two analysis have described the practices and representations specific to the three urban areas.

3.1 Different Discourses in Relation to Greenways

Throughout the text focus group the classification descendant of Alceste has determined that each city develops has different discourses(Table 1).Lexicometric analysis shows that Parisians are concerned about wildlife.They first speak of unwanted animals strongly related to humans(dove,rats).They want managers to limit their spatial progress because they see wildlife as potential pests.Then they talk about desirable animals like squirrel,fish,and rabbits.They would like green infrastructure to increase their number.Parisians don't see what these corridors or developments could look like in a dense city.And a Parisian says that " I imagine urban green infrastructures means mesh,maybe something that would link city to countryside,but it is true,I cannot visualize it.I don't know what form it might take in a big city like Paris."

Table 1:Classification proposed by the Alceste software with the most used words (Σ) and significant (ΣCHI2) showing the importance of the city.

In Marseille,the stakes are different and the environment first evokes problems of public health.Greenspace focus on issues related to the treatment of waste (garbage collection,excrement)and dogs on leash.For inhabitants of Marseilles environmental projects are not yet a priority.We must first address incivility problems.The urban green infrastructures refer primarily to the tramway built.Then,it is a potential link between surrounding hills and city center.

In Strasbourg,vocabulary used is similar to ecologists and environmentalists discourses.People are familiar with concepts attached to urban green infrastructure (corridor,biodiversity).Environmental groups in Strasbourg explicitly mention (sometimes spontaneously and at the beginning of interviews) greenway expression.For non-environmentalists,though the term itself is not quoted,the description of places of naturalness clearly shows this strong idea of continuity for plants and animals movement.However,it is when urban people practice green infrastructure daily that it is best known,and rather for "human"uses.In addition,nature is a necessity and will recharge a major goal of urban life as evidenced by these words:"I saw nature in two ways:firstly,in terms of observation,watch this space there,and on the other hand,try to integrate more.First,for reasons of health "and to" observe nature,contemplate,managing to join in this observation the whole society,it creates an urban fabric.The city back to life." For Strasbourg,urbanization is not incompatible with preservation of nature.They are willing to change their mode transport and to review the design of their city.

These large differences induce visions of urban green infrastructures,very different attitudes and behaviors from one city to another.

3.2 Urban Practices are also Different

Elements of a urban green infrastructure are more known in Strasbourg than in other cities because urban people use them daily.Continuities are apparent,perceived and described.Strasbourg inhabitants observe and contemplate nature by walking,cycling.

In Paris and Marseille on the contrary,nature elements are rather related to stationary practices in parks.In Paris,parks and gardens are always mentioned.In both cities,people come to sit,read,relax,listen to music,play and their children often run into these parks and gardens.That's why continuity is much less easy to perceive or project.Marseille is a singular cases,unlike any other cities with presence of wilderness (Calanques for exemple) close to dense city.On the one hand,parks (Borely,Longchamp) that form the urban nature which found many problems civility.On the other hand the creeks are areas perceived as more authentic but different from the city with other laws.The creeks are compared to haven of peace or areas of escape.For some Marseilles urban inhabitants,the center is the opposite of a natural area.A woman "prefers to go by the sea in the wild creeks,(...),there are no buildings,it's natural,it's wild." Another resident is in creeks because she has the "feeling of choking,I'm choking in my neighborhood,I cannot breathe ...I really need" to recharge "in quotation marks,to have an environment that soothes me,either by sight,the sun is on the horizon,the sea,I need to hear these animals,these wasps,to see these little gnats to see these flowers ...".

其次將傘形集果筒套在果樹上，將搭扣扣緊之后安裝在支撐座上，再利用4個(gè)繩鉤其中一端勾住傘形集果筒的4個(gè)固定孔，另一端勾住果樹枝干，防止傘形集果筒產(chǎn)生傾斜。

Eventually,because of structure of the city,and building lines made by canals and bike lanes,the inhabitants of Strasbourg associate nature with their mobility.Whereas Parisians and the inhabitants of Marseilles go to a park and don't move of it.They come to these spaces to have a rest and enjoy the quiet.Natural spaces make a break with urban frenzy.Parks and gardens are the opposite of stress,noise and agitation of urban people or traffic.

For all nature is a purveyor of well-being in which the senses have an important role.Despite of the fact that,for some,nature has something synthetic and does not seem quite "real" in town.

4 Conclusion

Thus,these three contexts allow us to evaluate consideration of green infrastructure concept in different spheres of actors system.

Firstly,some logic emerges from the objectives assumed by a green infrastructure policy.We observe a shift of its declination in metropolitan level planning:if greenways were first considered in their social and recreational functions,they are now more mobilized for their ecological functions.But local officials are suspicious of media coverage and the regulatory nature of "trame verte" concept.This reluctance has a semantic consequence in local politics by using many other terms for their green politics.Thus the semantic avoidance offers more freedom of interpretation."Trame verte" is now associated almost exclusively with regulatory fields.This legislation inhibits any latitude of interpretation which however could contribute to promote biodiversity in city.

These three cases illustrate the diversity of "trame verte" policies that can be carried out in France in their progress,theirs objectives,spaces concerned,and enforced measures.The heterogeneity of these politics is closely related to both geographical and socio-economic conditions of each site.From these three contexts,several factors may be involved in the awareness of elected officials.They are influenced by the local culture versus nature in the city,the system of actors and especially the charisma of the project leader of the green infrastructure policy.

For the implementation of green infrastructure,planners have to understand perceptions inhabitant on a lengthy time at scale of official planning calendar (10 years).Thus,Strasbourg are most sensitive to green infrastructures because of their access to physical continuities.It is important to ensure opening of green infrastructures.If planners close to public spaces reserved for green infrastructure,rejection risk of inhabitants is strengthened.It is necessary to ensure and enroll in green infrastructures in mobile practices(cycling,walking) and static practices (reading,contemplation) of inhabitants.

[1]Arrif T.,Blanc N.,Clergeau P.,Trame verte urbaine,un rapport Nature-Urbain entre géographie et écologie[J/OL].Cybergéo,2011[2013-10-25].http://cybergeo.revues.org/24862

[2]Blanc N.Les nouvelles esthétiques urbaines[M].Paris:Armand Colin.2012.

[3]Camproux-Duffrène M.-P.,Lucas M.,L'ombre portée sur l'avenir de la trame verte et bleue[J/OL].Quelques réflexions juridiques:Développement durable et territoires,2012[2013-10-25].http://developpementdurable.revues.org/9256.

[4]Consalès J.N.,Goiffon M.,Barthélémy C.,Entre aménagement du paysage et ménagement de la nature à Marseille:la trame verteàl'épreuve du local[J].Développement durable et territoires,2012:3 (2) .

[5]Cormier L.,Bernard De Lajartre A.et Carcaud N.,La planification des trames vertes,du global au local:réalités et limites[M].Cybergeo:European Journal of Geography,2010:22.

[6]Jongman R.H.G.,Külvik M.,Kristiansen I.European Ecological Networks and Greenways[J].Landscape and Urban Planning,2004:68(2-3):305-319.