- “一带一路”倡议下全球南方国家港产城发展与国际规划合作
- 文章编号：1009-6000(2026)01-0016-09
- 中图分类号：TU984 文献标识码：B
- Doi：10.3969/j.issn.1009-6000.2026.01.003
- 项目基金：住房和城乡建设部工程建设标准化基础研究（2023年）课题“中蒙俄经济走廊沿线口岸规划建设标准及经济指标研究”。
- 作者简介：陈骁，博士，南京市社会科学院助理研究员，东南大学建筑学院博士后，主要研究方向为工程建设标准国际化、“一带一路”城乡规划等；
王兴平，通信作者，博士，东南大学建筑学院教授、博士生导师，中国城市规划学会城市规划历史与理论学术委员会副秘书长，中国城市规划学会国外城市规划学术委员会委员，主要研究方向为区域与城乡规划、“一带一路”城乡规划等；
刘浩宇，硕士，东南大学建筑学院博士研究生，主要研究方向为区域与城乡规划、“一带一路”城乡规划等；
陈秋伊，硕士，上海市松江区建设用地和土地整理事务中心，主要研究方向为区域与城乡规划。
- 中蒙俄经济走廊沿线口岸空间建设与标准研究
- Spatial Construction and Standardization of Border Ports
along the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor
- 陈骁 王兴平 刘浩宇 陈秋伊
- CHEN Xiao WANG Xingping LIU Haoyu CHEN Qiuyi
- 摘要：
“一带一路”倡议背景下，中蒙俄经济走廊沿线口岸是实现区域互联互通的关键节点，但其发展面临功能协同不足、空间建设与标准体系不一等挑战。为探究其空间形态特征与规划建设标准差异，文章以中蒙俄经济走廊沿线的 28 个口岸为研究对象，对口岸的空间建设模式与三国标准体系进行了系统性研究。研究发现，在空间形态上，沿线口岸已形成综合型、资源型、通道型 3 种功能类型，其口岸限定区呈现“集约式” 或“分散式”的组织模式，口岸经济区则根据功能定位演化出“节点—轴带”“圈层式” 和“多功能叠加”等空间组合模式，岸城关系则表现为“岸城融合型”与“岸城分离型”两类。在规划建设标准上，中国的标准体系层次分明、动态演进，是以定量指标为核心的技术驱动型；俄罗斯的标准体系更侧重战略性与管理性，是以创造可持续操作环境为目标的管理导向型；蒙古国的相关标准体系则尚不完善。研究认为，这种由标准体系的深层理念差异所导致的“软联通”障碍，是制约经济走廊深度一体化的核心瓶颈。因此，推动口岸规划建设标准的对接与融合，建立协同共建机制，是充分释放中蒙俄经济走廊战略潜能的关键路径。 - 关键词：
中蒙俄经济走廊；口岸空间建设；规划标准；岸城关系 - Abstract: Against the backdrop of the Belt and Road Initiative, border ports along the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor serve as key nodes for achieving regional connectivity. However, their development faces challenges such as insufficient functional coordination and inconsistencies in spatial construction and standard systems. To explore the spatial characteristics and differences in planning and construction standards, this study examines 28 border ports along the corridor, conducting a systematic analysis of their spatial development patterns and the standard systems of the three countries. The findings reveal that, in terms of spatial morphology, the ports have evolved into three functional types—comprehensive, resource-oriented, and corridor-oriented. The designated port areas exhibit either “compact” or “dispersed” organizational patterns, while port economic zones develop spatial combination modes such as “node–axis,” “concentric,” and “multi-functional overlapping,” depending on their functional positioning. The relationship between ports and cities can be categorized as either “integrated” or “separated.” In terms of planning and construction standards, China’s system is hierarchical, dynamic, and technology-driven, centered on quantitative indicators; Russia’s system is more strategic and managerial, aiming to create a sustainable operational environment; Mongolia’s relevant standard system remains underdeveloped. The study argues that the “soft connectivity” barriers arising from the fundamental conceptual differences in standard systems constitute a major bottleneck to the deep integration of the economic corridor. Therefore, promoting the alignment and integration of planning and construction standards, and establishing a coordinated co-construction mechanism, are essential pathways to fully unlocking the strategic potential of the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor.
- Key words: China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor; spatial development of border ports; planning standards; port-city relationship