日本地方創生的發展與限制─以京丹後市為例

日本面對著當前少子高齡化、地域過疏化的課題，除了制定少子化對策與各種國土政策因應之，在2014年時更宣布啟動「地方創生」，以解決人口減少問題與創造地方‧人‧工作機會良好循環為號召，由中央扮演協助者的角色支援地方展開地方創生。地方創生是日本首次透過跨部會的整合，自中央到地方全力推動的總合性地域發展政策，不僅具有實踐國家戰略的目的，更重視以地域為主體，藉由產官學合作、跨地域合作等方式，發揮各自的智慧與創意以展開能因應地域特性的創生事業，進而實現永續的地域發展，因此可以說地方創生同時具有中央主導、地域自主的雙重特性，這和自戰後以來地方開發與地方營造的脈絡習習相關。另一方面，在地方創生展開後幾年，人口仍然呈現持續往都市圈移動的趨勢，可見現階段地方創生難以解決地域過疏化與一極化的問題，且其他方面亦存在著一些限制。本研究採取個案研究法，先透過對戰後地方發展的脈絡的探討，包含地方開發與地方營造的歷程，來釐清地方創生的背景因素，再來以京丹後市作為個案，分析其近年的地方創生政策、法令與事業，來總結地方創生在展開時所遭遇的實際狀況與限制。結論的部分，本研究歸納了地方開發、地方營造與地方創生的特徵，並驗證了四個假說，分別為1.地方創生的構想具有地方開發和地域主義的特徵。2.地方創生忽視了農地零碎化、農家兼業化的特性，因此在農業振興方面成效有限。3.人口減少現象在短期間難以改變，必須要將地方創生的焦點放在如何因應人口減少的現實，發展相應對策。4.在中央集權體制下，地方在行財政上過於依賴中央的常態並未改變，因此是否能透過地方創生讓地方達到真正的自立仍有待商榷。

關鍵字

地方創生；地方開發；地方營造；京丹後市

並列摘要

To face the trend of fewer children, aging society and depopulation in remote areas, Japanese government made some laws and policies for low child birth and national spatial planning. Then, in 2014, the Third Abe Cabinet announced that “Japanese Placemaking” had begun, in order to solve the problems of depopulation and create great recycle of “place,people,jobs”. It is the first time that central and local governments promote the systematic area development policy together through inter-departmental convergence. Japanese Placemaking is not only for national strategy but also for developing placemaking with local style through cooperation of industry-government-university and inter-area, and finally achieves the sustainable development in areas. Hence, Japanese Placemaking has two different characteristics of centralization and localization, which are relate to community development and local placemaking after the post-war period. On the other hand, there is still a trend of the move of population toward big city after Japanese Placemaking began, reflecting that it is difficult to solve the problem of depopulation in remote areas and densely inhabited phenomenon in big city. Also, there are some limits in Japanese Placemaking. The research uses case study. First, we discusses the development in areas after the post-war period, including community development and local placemaking, to realize the background of Japanese Placemaking. Then, we chooses Kyotango city as case study, and analyses its recent policies, laws and activities, to understand the actual conditions and limits in Japanese Placemaking. About the conclusion, there are four hypotheses being proved. First, the concept of Japanese Placemaking includes developmentalism and regionalism. Second, Japanese Placemaking ignores the characteristics of farm fragmentation and pluriactivity in Japan’s agriculture, so it is hard to get achievement in agricultural revitalization. Third, Japanese Placemaking should focus on how to think of some measures as the depopulation cannot be changed in a short period of time. Fourth, in the political structure of centralization, the over-dependent condition in administration and finance of local government has not been changed yet, so whether areas can become independent through Japanese Placemaking needs to be discussed.