基于边界对象的人-空（域）关系进化研究：表现形式与内涵

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2025.04.20230322

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

早在20世纪20年代，学者即预测：人类的空中移动将征服时间和空间，并以新的地理想象为特征，重塑文化、政治乃至社会经济。但一直以来却较少有关于人-空（域）关系研究的成果问世。这与其涉猎主题较多、行为过于抽象、实践对象的非实体遍在性以及关系配置手段的缺乏相关。本文基于边界对象的创建与使用及跨边界沟通逻辑，梳理人类空域实践热点，旨在阐释人-空（域）关系的进化过程：①过去百年来人们在应对一系列空域利用矛盾和挑战高度层的过程中持续进化，分别表现出天空-地面边界突破、领空权属边界建立、航空管制区边界划设以及U-Space边界设置等形式，也显示出外空改变空域上层边界的潜力；②其进化的内涵是各个活动域均经历了转变，由仰视想象向俯视观察转变、由无权无界使用向国家权属约束转变、由无序飞行向规范化飞行转变，当前则正在经历无人机肆意穿梭向U-Space进近管制的转变，而外空开拓更极大激发了人类可旅行可居住愿景。从学科角度看，空域是人类社会经济作用下的另一种空间化理解，人-空（域）关系以多种方式、多层次的垂直模式重塑地理事物的结构，并承载着对流动性无定形资源开发利用的探索。人-空（域）关系进化研究具有地理认识论和地理现象学意义，有助于丰富地理非实体相互作用研究。

关键词: 人-空（域）关系, 进化, 边界对象, 空域利用, 低空

Abstract:

As early as the 1920s, scholars predicted that human aerial mobility would conquer time and space and shape culture, politics, and even the social economy with new geographic imaginings. However, few results on the evolution of the human-sky (airspace) relations have been published. It is related to too many subjects, too abstract behavior, non-physical ubiquity of practice objects, lack of relationship allocation and coordination means. Based on the creation and use of boundary objects and the logic of cross-border communication, this paper reviewed the research hotspots of human airspace practice, aiming to explain the evolution of the human-sky (airspace) relationship. According to the study: For more than one hundred years, the human-sky (airspace) relationship has evolved continuously in dealing with a series of airspace utilization contradictions. The evolution of the human-sky (airspace) relationship shows the forms of sky-ground boundary breakthrough, airspace ownership boundary establishment, aviation control area boundary demarcation and U-Space boundary setting, respectively. It also shows the potential of outer space to change the upper boundary of airspace. The connotation of the evolution of the human-sky (airspace) relationship is the multi-dimensional transformation of resource utilization in the active domain: That is, it has experienced the transformation from looking up imagination to looking down observation, from unbounded use to national ownership constraints, from disorderly flight to standardized airspace use, and is undergoing the transformation of UAS wanton shuttle to U-Space approach control, and the competitive development of outer space has greatly stimulated the vision of human travel and habitation. From a disciplinary perspective, airspace is another kind of spatialized understanding under the influence of human society and economy. The human-sky (airspace) relationship reshapes the structure of geographical things in multiple ways and multi-level vertical patterns, and carries the exploration of the development and utilization of mobile and amorphous resources. The study of the evolution of human-sky (airspace)relation has the significance of geographical epistemology and geographical phenomenology, which is helpful to enrich the study of non-physical interaction in geography.

Key words: human-sky (airspace) relationship, evolution, boundary object, airspace utilization, low altitude

董雅晴, 路紫, 张一诺, 杜晓辉. 基于边界对象的人-空（域）关系进化研究：表现形式与内涵[J]. 世界地理研究, 2025, 34(4): 152-164.

Yaqing DONY, Zi LU, Yinuo ZHANG, Xiaohui DU. A study of the human-sky (airspace) relationship's evolution based on boundary object: Expression form and connotation[J]. World Regional Studies, 2025, 34(4): 152-164.

图/表 3

图1 关键词共现图谱注：节点表示关键词，节点大小表示关键词出现频次，节点颜色表示关键词聚类，节点间连线表示共现关系。

Fig.1 Co-occurrence mapping of keywords

图2 边界对象模型

Fig.2 Boundary object model

图3 基于边界对象的人-空（域）关系进化研究框架

Fig.3 The research framework of human-sky （airspace） relationship’s evolution based on boundary object

参考文献 80

1	BRADBURY J. ICAO and future air navigation systems. Automation and Systems Issues in Air Traffic Control. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991: 79-99.
2	SHAMIR R. British interwar airspace in the Middle East: The forgotten airport of Lydda. Journal of Historical Geography, 2022, 76(4): 23-33.
3	董雅晴, 路紫, 刘媛, 等. 中国空中廊道划设与时空拥堵识别及其航线流量影响. 地理学报, 2018, 73(10): 2001-2013.
	DONG Y, LU Z, LIU Y, et al. The design of China's corridors-in-the-sky and the influence of air routes traffic on the identification of space-time congestion. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2018, 73(10): 2001-2013.
4	BECKEN S, SHUKER J. A framework to help destinations manage carbon risk from aviation emissions. Tourism Management, 2019, 71(4): 294-304.
5	PLANÈS T, DELBECQ S, POMMIER-BUDINGER V, et al. Simulation and evaluation of sustainable climate trajectories for aviation. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 295(10): 113079.
6	DODDS K, BROTO V, DETTERBECK K, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic: Territorial, political and governance dimensions of the crisis. Territory Politics Governance, 2020, 8(3): 289-298.
7	ZURBA M.Boundary work as a concept and practice in human geography.Journal of Cultural Geography,2022,39(1): 1-7.
8	贺灿飞, 郭琪, 邹沛思. 基于关系视角的中国对外直接投资区位. 世界地理研究, 2013, 22(4): 1-12.
	HE C, GUO Q, ZOU P, Spatial distribution of China's foreign direct investment: A perspective of relationship(Guanxi) between China and its host countries. World Regional Studies, 2013, 22(4): 1-12.
9	路紫, 张秋娈, 张佳卿, 等. SNS社区空间交流特征与教育社会资源理论的地理解释—以百度贴吧的"高考吧"为例. 世界地理研究, 2017, 26(1): 124-133.
	LU Z, ZHANG Q, ZHANG J, et al. The geographical interpretation of space communication characteristics in SNS community by education social resources theory:Taking "College Entrance Examination" of Baidu Post Bar as an example. World Regional Studies, 2017, 26(1): 124-133.
10	ZURBA M, MACLEAN K, WOODWARD E, et al. Amplifying indigenous community participation in place-based research through boundary work. Progress in Human Geography, 2019, 43(6): 1020-1043.
11	WILLIAMS A J. Reconceptualising spaces of the air: Performing the multiple spatialities of UK military airspaces. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2011, 36(2): 253-267.
12	YOO W, YU E, JUNG J. Drone delivery: Factors affecting the public's attitude and intention to adopt. Telematics and Informatics, 2018, 35(6): 1687-1700.
13	MACDONALD F. Anti-Astropolitik—Outer space and the orbit of geography. Progress in Human Geography, 2007, 31(5): 592-615.
14	STAR S L, GRIESEMER J R. Institutional ecology, translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 1989, 19(3): 387-420.
15	KARAMAN O, ISLAM T. On the dual nature of intra-urban borders: The case of a Romani neighborhood in Istanbul. Cities, 2012, 29(4): 234-243.
16	TROMPETTE P, VINCK D. Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue D'anthropologie des Connaissances, 2009, 3(1): 3-25.
17	FONG A, VALERDI R, SRINIVASAN J. Using a boundary object framework to analyze interorganizational collaboration. INCOSE International Symposium. 2007, 17(1): 1843-1857.
18	STAR S L. This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2010, 35(5): 601-617.
19	汤国安, 李吉龙, 熊礼阳, 等.论地理边界的科学属性与表达. 地理学报, 2021, 76(11): 2841-2852.
	TANG G, LI J, XIONG L, et al. Scientific attributes and expression methods of geographical boundary. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2021, 76(11): 2841-2852.
20	廖开怀, 何金廖, 蔡云楠, 等. 国外政治地理学边界理论研究进展与评述. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(2): 264-274.
	LIAO K, HE J, CAI Y, et al. A review of international political geography studies on border theories. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(2): 264-274.
21	ZEISS R, GROENEWEGEN P. Engaging boundary objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the subtleties of layered engagement. Organization the Critical Journal of Organization Theory & Society, 2014, 16(1): 81-100.
22	ZURBA M, BERKES F. Caring for country through participatory art: Creating a boundary object for communicating indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environment, 2014, 19(8): 821-836.
23	ZURBA M, LAND G, BULLOCK R, et al. Exploring indigenization and decolonization in cross-cultural education through collaborative land-based boundary education. Journal of Cultural Geography, 2022, 39(1): 8-31.
24	ROBINSON C J, MACLEAN K, HILL R, et al. Participatory mapping to negotiate indigenous knowledge used to assess environmental risk. Sustainability Science, 2016, 11(1): 115-126.
25	CLARK W, TOMICH T, VAN NOORDWIJK M, et al. Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2016, 113(17): 4615-4622.
26	RAMUTSINDELA M. Placing subnational borders in border studies. South African Geographical Journal, 2019, 101(3): 349-356.
27	MACLEAN K, ROBINSON C, BOCK E, et al. Reconciling risk and responsibility on indigenous country: Bridging the boundaries to guide knowledge sharing for cross-cultural biosecurity risk management in northern Australia. Journal of Cultural Geography, 2022, 39(1): 32-54.
28	WHEELER M J, LUEDEE J. Place as boundary object: The Manitoba Oil Museum. Journal of Cultural Geography, 2022, 39(1): 131-150.
29	JAMES C, FRANCIS T, BAKER J, et al. A boundary spanning system supports large-scale ecosystem-based management. Environmental Science & Policy, 2022, 133(7): 137-145.
30	MACLEAN K, INC T. Crossing cultural boundaries: Integrating indigenous water knowledge into water governance through co-research in the Queensland Wet Tropics, Australia. Geoforum, 2015, 59(2): 142-152.
31	BLUEMLING B, TAI H S, CHOE H. Boundaries, limits, landscapes and flows: An analytical framework for boundaries in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 285(5): 112129.
32	JOHNSTON R, PATTIE C, MANLEY D. Britain's changed electoral map in and beyond 2015: The importance of geography. The Geographical Journal, 2017, 183(1): 58-70.
33	YUSOFF K. Antarctic exposure: Archives of the feeling body. Cultural Geographies, 2007, 14(2): 211-233.
34	BISHOP B, OLIVER E, APORTA C. Co-producing maps as boundary objects: Bridging labrador Inuit knowledge and oceanographic research. Journal of Cultural Geography, 2022, 39(1): 55-89.
35	SHAW A, STEELMAN T, BULLOCK R. Evaluating the efficacy of GIS maps as boundary objects: Unpacking the limits and opportunities of indigenous knowledge in forest and natural resource management. Journal of Cultural Geography, 2022, 39(1): 90-116.
36	WOODWARD E, MCTAGGART P. Transforming cross-cultural water research through trust, participation and place. Geographical Research, 2016, 54(2): 129-142.
37	HOLLNAGEL E. Flight Decks and Free Flight: Where are the System Boundaries? // HARTMAN C, HUFFAKER J.Decision Making in Aviation. Evanston, IL, USA: Routledge, 2017: 321-328.
38	KEARNES M. Seeing is believing is knowing: Towards a critique of pure vision. Australian Geographical Studies, 2000, 38(3): 332-340.
39	MCCORMACK D. Engineering affective atmospheres on the moving geographies of the 1897 Andrée expedition. Cultural Geographies, 2008, 15(4): 413-430.
40	LIN W. Drawing lines in the sky: The emotional labours of airspace production. Environment and Planning, 2016, 48(6): 1030-1046.
41	WILLIAMS A. Re-orientating vertical geopolitics. Geopolitics, 2013, 18(1): 225-246.
42	MAHONY M. Historical geographies of the future: Airships and the making of imperial atmospheres. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 2019, 109 (4): 1279-1299.
43	COE N, COCHRANE A, RANDALLS S, et al. 'State, science and the skies: Governmentalities of the British atmosphere', by Mark Whitehead(2009): A critical review. Geoforum, 2012, 43(6): 1057-1064.
44	BILLING B. Circular visions: Viewing the world from above in the late eighteenth century. Journal of Historical Geography, 2019, 63: 61-72.
45	WILLIAMS A. A crisis in aerial sovereignty? Considering the implications of recent military violations of national airspace. Area, 2010, 42(1): 51-59.
46	VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS N. The UK border security continuum: Virtual biopolitics and the simulation of the sovereign ban. Environment & Planning D Society & Space, 2010, 28(6): 1071-1083.
47	KAPLAN C. Mobility and war: The cosmic view of US air 'power'. Environment & Planning A, 2016, 38(2): 395-407.
48	PAASI A. Bounded spaces in a 'borderless world': Border studies, power and the anatomy of territory. Journal of Power, 2009, 2(2): 213-234.
49	LIN W. The politics of flying: Aeromobile frictions in a mobile city.Journal of Transport Geography,2014, 38(6): 92-99.
50	ELDEN S. Secure the volume: Vertical geopolitics and the depth of power. Political Geography, 2013, 34(5): 35-51.
51	SUAU-SANCHEZ P, VOLTES-DORTA A, CUGUERÓ-ESCOFET N.An early assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on air transport: Just another crisis or the end of aviation as we know it? Journal of Transport Geography, 2020, 86(5): 102749.
52	COLE J, DODDS K. Unhealthy geopolitics? Bordering disease in the time of coronavirus.Geographical Research, 2021, 59(2): 169-181.
53	MILLER M A, ASTUTI R, HIRSCH P, et al. Selective border permeability: Governing complex environmental issues through and beyond COVID-19. Political Geography, 2022, 97(8): 102646.
54	PFOSER A, YUSUPOVA G. Memory and the everyday geopolitics of tourism: Reworking post-imperial relations in Russian tourism to the 'near abroad'. Annals of Tourism Research, 2022, 95(7): 103437.
55	LIN W. Re-assembling (aero) mobilities: Perspectives beyond the west. Mobilities, 2016, 11(1): 49-65.
56	LIN W. Sky watching: Vertical surveillance in civil aviation. Environment & Planning D Society & Space, 2017, 35(3): 399-417.
57	LIN W. Evental infrastructure: Momentous geographies of technoscience production. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 2020, 110(7): 1-17.
58	张一诺, 路紫, 丁疆辉. 京广空中廊道系统延误弹性测算与航空流运行结构分析. 热带地理, 2020, 40(2): 194-205.
	ZHANG Y, LU Z, DING J. Calculation of the system delay elasticity of the Beijing-Guangzhou air corridor with analysis of the air flow operation structure. Tropical Geography, 2020, 40(2): 194-205.
59	COCKAYNE D, RICHARDSON L. Queering code/space: The co-production of socio-sexual codes and digital technologies. Gender, Place & Culture, 2017, 24(11): 1642-1658.
60	DOBRUSZKES F, PEETERS D. Where do planes fly past overhead? Determining departure and arrival routes from radar traces. Applied Geography, 2017, 89(12): 173-183.
61	ROGERS S, SINGH K, MATHEWS A, et al. Drones and geography: Who is using them and why? The Professional Geographer, 2022, 74(3): 516-528.
62	JENSEN O. Drone city-power, design and aerial mobility in the age of "smart cities". Geographica Helvetica, 2016, 71(2): 67-75.
63	SHAW I. The great war of enclosure: Securing the skies. Antipode, 2017, 49(4): 883-906.
64	HOLLMAN V C. Drone Photography and the Re-aestheticisation of Nature.∥ SCHELHAAS B, et al. Decolonising and Internationalising Geography. Berlin: Springer, 2020: 57-66.
65	CHEN H. Cashing in on the sky: Financialization and urban air rights in the Taipei metropolitan area. Regional Studies, 2019, 54(4): 198-208.
66	KAPLAN C. Atmospheric politics: Protest drones and the ambiguity of airspace. Digital War, 2020, 1(1): 50-57.
67	JACKMAN A, BRICKELL K. 'Everyday droning': Towards a feminist geopolitics of the drone-home. Progress in Human Geography, 2022, 46(1): 156-178.
68	周培勤. 社会性别视角下的人地关系——国外女性主义地理学研究进展和启示. 人文地理, 2014, 29(3): 63-68.
	ZHOU P. The man-land relationship from the gender perspective: A summary and analysis of feminist geographic research abroad. Human Geography, 2014, 29(3): 63-68.
69	廖小罕, 黄耀欢, 徐晨晨. 面向无人机应用的低空空域资源研究探讨. 地理学报, 2021, 76(11): 2607-2620.
	LIAO X, HUANG Y, XU C. Views on the study of low-altitude airspace resources for UAV application. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2021, 76(11): 2607-2620.
70	JACKMAN A. Consumer drone evolutions: Trends, spaces, temporalities, threats. Defense and Security Analysis, 2019, 35(4): 362-383.
71	LOCKHART A, WHILE A, MARVIN S, et al. Making space for drones: The contested reregulation of airspace in Tanzania and Rwanda. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2021, 46(4): 850-865.
72	JENSEN O. Thinking with the drone–visual lessons in aerial and volumetric thinking. Visual Studies, 2020, 35(5): 417-428.
73	CORREA-OLARTE M. Current status of the process of outer space territorialization in Colombia and recommendations for its consolidation. Perspectiva Geográfica, 2017, 22(6): 147-160.
74	KRAMER W. In dreams begin responsibilities-environmental impact assessment and outer space development. Environmental Practice, 2017, 19(3): 128-138.
75	KLINGER J. Environmental geopolitics and outer space. Geopolitics, 2021, 26(3): 666-703.
76	DUNNETT O. Patrick moore, arthur C. clarke and 'British outer space' in the mid 20th century. Cultural Geographies, 2012, 19(4): 505-522.
77	COHEN E, SPECTOR S. Comparative visions of cosmic expansion: Implications for sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2022, 30(9): 2207-2222.
78	BEERY J. Unearthing global natures: Outer space and scalar politics. Political Geography, 2016, 55(11): 92-101.
79	TACHIBANA K, TACHIBANA S, INOUE N. From outer space to Earth—The social significance of isolated and confined environment research in human space exploration. Acta Astronautica, 2017, 140(11): 273-283.
80	YAP X, KIM R. Towards earth-space governance in a multi-planetary era. Earth System Governance, 2023, 16(4): 100173.