A review of international political geography studies on border theories

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2020.02.2019398

Abstract

Abstract:

As a classic domain of political geography, the study of borders has since the early 1990s undergone a renaissance prompted by both the end of the Cold War and globalisation. New theoretical perspectives and conceptual changes have emerged in border studies. This paper summarises the evolution of research topics, methods and theoretical foundations of border studies by reviewing the international literature. As border studies have become more interdisciplinary, the conceptualisation of borders now goes beyond the traditional understanding as lines which spatially separate countries. Most contemporary scholars emphasise the dynamics, multiple scales, the spatiality and the diversity of the border concept. They pay more attention to social practices at different spatial scales and to the symbolic aspects of borders, which are constantly created and recreated. The authors of this paper suggest an extension of border theories derived from national-level borders to the study of micro-level borders in urban space, and strengthening the integration of border theories and geopolitical theories.

Key words: borders, frontier，borderland, research progress, theoretical comment

摘要：

边界研究是政治地理学的一个经典议题。受“冷战”结束和全球化的影响，边界研究在20世纪90年代初期以来步入一个复兴时期，产生了新的理论视角和概念转变。本文通过梳理国外文献，归纳总结了边界理论的内涵、研究内容和方法的演变。边界研究进入复兴时期后呈现出明显的多学科交叉和综合性特征，对边界的理解超越了传统意义上把边界单纯看作是国家空间分隔的理解，强调边界内涵的动态性、多尺度性、空间性和多样性，更多地关注不断创造和重新创造出来的符号性边界，以及不同空间尺度的社会实践。研究呼吁加强边界理论向城市内部空间尺度的边界延伸与拓展，以及加强边界理论与地缘政治学说的融合。

关键词: 边界, 边境，边界区, 进展, 理论探讨

Kaihuai LIAO, Jinliao HE, Yunnan CAI, Werner BREITUNG. A review of international political geography studies on border theories[J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(2): 264-274.

廖开怀, 何金廖, 蔡云楠, Breitung Werner. 国外政治地理学边界理论研究进展与评述[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(2): 264-274.

Figures/Tables 2

References 86

1	Newman D. Borders and Bordering: Towards an Interdisciplinary Dialogue. European Journal of Social Theory, 2006, 9(2): 171-186.
2	王恩涌, 王正毅，楼跃亮, 等.政治地理学: 时空中的政治格局. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 1998.
	Wang E, Wang Z, Lou Y, et al. Political geography: political landscape in time-space. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press, 1998.
3	王亮, 刘卫东. 西方经济地理学对国家边界及其效应的研究进展. 地理科学进展, 2010, 29(5): 601-8.
	Wang L, Liu W. Geographers: Western countries' experience and its implications for China. Progress in Geography, 2010,29(5): 601-608.
4	唐雪琼, 杨茜好, 钱俊希. 社会建构主义视角下的边界——研究综述与启示. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(7): 969-978.［Tang X, Yang X, Qian J. Conceptualizing border from a social constructionist perspective: Current progress and implications for future research[J]. Progress in Geography, 2014,33(7): 969-978.］
5	宋涛, 刘卫东, 李玏. 国外对地缘视野下边境地区的研究进展及其启示. 地理科学进展, 2016, 35(3): 276-285.
	Song T, Liu W, Li L. International research on the border regions with a geopolitical perspective and revelation. Progress in Geography, 2016,35(3): 276-285.
6	Laine J P. 当代全球化背景下的边界和边界景观. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(12): 1531-1539.[ Laine J P. Borders and borderscapes under contemporary globalization[J]. Progress in Geography, 2017,36(12): 1531-1539.]
7	安宁, 梁邦兴. 中国政治地理学研究进展——基于国家科学基金资助的分析. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(12): 1463-1474.
	An N, Liang B. Progress in Chinese political geographical research: A perspective based on projects supported by the National Science Foundation of China. Progress in Geography, 2017,36(12): 1463-1474.
8	Van Houtum H. The Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries. Geopolitics, 2005, 10(4): 672-679.
9	Alexander B.Murphy,刘云刚. 东西对话:中国政治地理学研究展望. 人文地理, 2019, 34(1): 3-8.
	Murphy, A. B, Liu Y. Between east and west: research directions in political geography. Human Geography, 2019,34(1): 3-8.
10	Kristof L. The nature of frontiers and boundaries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1959,49(3): 269-282.
11	Newman D. The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our `borderless' world. Progress in Human Geography2006, 30(2): 143-161.
12	Newman D, Paasi A. Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: boundary narratives in political geography. Progress in Human Geography, 1998, 22(2): 186-207.
13	Newman D. Boundaries，borders and barriers: changing geographic perspectives on territorial lines, In Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, Yosef Lapid,et al. Identities, Borders and Orders, Rethinking International Relations Theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2001:137-151
14	Newman D. Borders, Boundaries, and borderlands, in the international encyclopedia of geography. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017.
15	Minghi J V. Boundary studies in political geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1963, 53(3): 407-428.
16	Prescott J R V. Political frontiers and boundaries. London: Allen and Unwin, 1987.
17	Laine J P. A historical view on the study of borders, In Sevastianov V S, Laine J, Kireev A. Introduction to Border Studies. Dalnauka: Vladivostok: 14-32. 2015.
18	Anderson M. Frontiers: territory and state formation in the modern world. Oxford: Polity1996.
19	Ratzel F. Politische geographie: Oder die geographie der staaten, des verkehres und des krieges. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1903.
20	Turner F J. The frontier in American history. New York: H. Holt & Co, 1920.
21	Hartshorne R. Suggestions on the terminology of political boundaries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers1936, 26(1): 56-57.
22	Kjellén R. Der Staat als Lebensform. Leipzig: University Press, 1917.
23	Mackinder H. Democratic ideals and reality: a study in the politics of reconstruction. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1919.
24	Mahan A T. The influence of sea power upon history, 1660–1783 online edition, 1890.
25	Haushofer K. Zeitschrift fur geopolitik Berlin: Vowinckel, 1938.
26	Semple E C. Influences of geographic environment: on the basis of ratzel's system of anthropo-geography. New York: Henry Holt & Co, 1911.
27	Spykman N J. Frontiers, security and international organization. Geographical Review, 1942, 32:430-445.
28	Holdich T H. Political frontiers and boundary making. London: MacMillan, 1916.
29	Lyde L W. Some frontiers of tomorrow: An aspiration for Europe. London: A. & C. Black., 1915.
30	Prescott J R V. The geography of frontiers and boundaries. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1965.
31	Kolossov V. Theorizing borders: border studies: changing perspectives and theoretical approaches. Geopolitics, 2005, 10(4): 606-632.
32	Diener A C, Hagen J. Theorizing borders in a ‘borderless world’: globalization, territory and identity. Geography Compass, 2009, 3(3): 1196-1216.
33	Ohmae K. The borderless world. New York: HarperCollins, 1990.
34	Caney S. Justice beyond borders: a global political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
35	Jones R. Categories, borders and boundaries. Progress in Human Geography, 2009, 33(2): 174-189.
36	Van Houtum H, Van Naerssen T. Bordering, ordering and othering. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie2002, 93 (2): 125-136.
37	Parker N, Vaughan-Williams N, Bialasiewicz L, et al. Lines in the sand? towards an agenda for critical border studies. Geopolitics, 2009, 14(3): 582-587.
38	Rumford C. Introduction: Theorizing borders. J Asian Afr Stud, 2006, 41(3): 159-169.
39	Stetter S. Territories we make and unmake. the social construction of borders and territory in the age of globalization. Harvard International Review, September, 2008,
40	Newman D. On borders and power: A theoretical framework. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 2003, 18(1): 13-25.
41	Newman D. Territory, compartments and borders: Avoiding the trap of the territorial trap. Geopolitics, 2010, 15(4): 773-778.
42	Paasi A. Territories, boundaries, and consciousness: The changing geographies of the Finnish-Russian boundary. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.
43	Lundén T, Zalamans D. Local co-operation, ethnic diversity and state territoriality – The case of Haparanda and Tornio on the Sweden – Finland border. GeoJournal, 2001, 54(1): 33-42.
44	Alvarez R R. The Mexican-Us Border: The Making of an Anthropology of Borderlands. Annual Review of Anthropology, 1995, 24(4):47-70.
45	Sassen S. When the center no longer holds: Cities as frontier zones. Cities, 2013, 34:67-70.
46	Schulzke M. The ephemeral borders of revolutionary spaces. Geopolitics, 2012, 17(1): 177-191.
47	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.
48	Iossifova D. Blurring the joint line? Urban life on the edge between old and new in Shanghai. Urban Design International, 2009, 14(2): 65-83.
49	Breitung W. Borders and the city- intra-urban boundaries in Guangzhou(China). Quaestiones Geographicae, 2011, 30(4): 55-61.
50	Liao K, Breitung W, Wehrhahn R. Debordering and rebordering in the residential borderlands of suburban Guangzhou. Urban Geography, 2018, 39(7): 1092-1112.
51	Agnew J. Place and politics: the geographical mediation of state and society. London: Allen & Unwin, 1987.
52	Paasi A. Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: Border studies, power and the anatomy of territory. Journal of Power, 2009, 2(2): 213-234.
53	Doevenspeck M. Constructing the border from below: Narratives from the Congolesee Rwandan state boundary. Political Geography, 2011, 30:129-142.
54	Van Houtum H, Kramsch O, Zierhoffer W. Bordering Space. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Limited, 2005.
55	Brunet-Jailly E. Theorizing borders: an interdisciplinary perspective. Geopolitics, 2005, 10(4): 633-649.
56	Konrad V, Nicol H N. Border Culture, the Boundary Between Canada and the United States of America, and the Advancement of Borderlands Theory. Geopolitics, 2011, 16(1): 70-90.
57	Banerjee P, Chen X. Living in in-between spaces: A structure-agency analysis of the India–China and India–Bangladesh borderlands. Cities, 2013, 34:18-29.
58	Bauder H. Toward a critical geography of the border: engaging the dialectic of practice and meaning. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2011, 101(5): 1126-1139.
59	Anderson J. Theorizing state borders: 'politics/economics' and democracy in capitalism. CIBR/WP01-1Belfast: CIBR Working Papers in Border Studies, 2001,
60	Anderson J, O'dowd L. Borders, border regions and territoriality: contradictory meanings, changing significance. Regional Studies, 1999, 33(7): 593-604.
61	O'dowd L. The changing significance of European borders. Regional & Federal Studies, 2002, 12(4): 13-36.
62	Albert M, Brock L. Debordering the world of states: New spaces in international relations. New Political Science, 1996, 18(1): 69-106.
63	Coleman M. U.S. statecraft and the U.S.–Mexico border as security/economy nexus. Political Geography, 2005, 24(2): 185-209.
64	Ferrer-Gallardo X. The Spanish-Moroccan border complex: Processes of geopolitical, functional and symbolic rebordering. Political Geography, 2008, 27(3): 301-321.
65	Etienne B. At the borders of Europe, In Cheah P, Robbins B. Cosmopolitics: thinking and feeling beyond the nation. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press. 1998: 216-229.
66	Newman D. Boundaries, In Agnew J, Mitchell K, Toal G. A Companion to political geography. Malden; Blackwell Publishers. 2003: 123-137.
67	Paasi A. A Border Theory: An unattainable dream or a realistic aim for border scholars?, In Wastl-Walter D. The Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies. London; Ashgate. 2011: 11-31.
68	Vila P. The limits of American border theory, In Vila P. Ethnography at the border. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press. 2003: 306-341.
69	Ackleson J. Directions in border security research. The Social Science Journal, 2003, 40(4): 573-581.
70	Paasi A. Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’:border studies, power and the anatomy of territory. Journal of Power2009, 2(2): 213-234.
71	Agnew J. The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1994, 1(1): 53-80
72	Ong A. Graduated Sovereignty in South-East Asia. Theory, Culture & Society, 2000, 17(4): 55-75.
73	Johnson C, Jones R, Paasi A, et al. Interventions on rethinking ‘the border’ in border studies. Political Geography, 2011, 30(2): 61-69.
74	Nijkamp P, Rietveld P, Salomon I. Barriers in spatial interactions and communications. Annals of Regional Science, 1990, 24(4): 237-252.
75	Taylor P J, Flint C. Political Geography, World-economy, Nation-State and Locality, 4th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall-Longman, 2000.
76	Ackleson J. Metaphors and community on the us-mexican border: identity, exclusion, inclusion and “Operation Hold the Line”. Geopolitics, 1999, 4(2): 155-179.
77	Castells M. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
78	Ratti R, Reichman S. Theory and practice of transborder cooperation. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1993.
79	Anderson J, O'dowd L, Wilson T M. New borders for a changing Europe: Cross-border cooperation and governance. Frank Cass, 2003.
80	Scott J W. European and north american contexts for cross-border regionalism. Regional Studies, 1999, 33(7): 605-617.
81	Perkmann M. Construction of new territorial scales: a framework and case study of the EUREGIO Cross-border region. Regional Studies, 2007, 41(2): 253-266.
82	Laitinen K. Geopolitics of the northern dimension: a critical view on security borders. Geopolitics, 2003, 8(1): 20-44.
83	Walters W. Border/control. European Journal of Social Theory, 2006, 9(2): 187-203.
84	Andreas P. Redrawing the line: borders and security in the twenty-first century. International security, 2003, 28(2): 78-111.
85	Amoore L. Biometric borders: Governing mobilities in the war on terror. Political Geography, 2006, 25(3): 336-51.
86	Van Houtum H. An overview of European geographical research on borders and border regions. Journal of Borderlands Studies,, 2000, 15(1): 57-83.

研究范围	代表性作者/文章年代	具体理论概念
边界的扩张与划定	Ratzel，1903^[19]	提出“生存空间”概念，即国家或帝国作为一个有机体，具有内部器官，外部保护性边界，和内在的扩张动力的生物体
	Turner，1920^[20]	提出边境理论（frontier thesis）：边境是波浪的外缘——野蛮与文明的交汇点。认为边境地区在塑造美国的民族性格方面发挥了重要作用
	Kjellén，1917^[22]	“地缘政治学”的创始人，提出“国家作为地理有机体或空间现象的理论”，国家作为一个地理单位必须以自然边界加以划分
	MacKinder，1919^[23]	提出欧亚中心地带理论。认为地理边界是变化无常的，世界地图由于帝国主义而不断被重新绘制，探讨国家中心与边缘的关系
	Mahan,1890^[24]	海权的重要性，取得大国地位的民族国家之所以能够这样做，是因为它们掌握了海洋。心脏地带确实存在，而且它们的边界通常是动态的
	Haushofer，1938^[25]	世界强国应该寻求对其边界的控制。边界控制是确保其中心地带稳定与安全的更大努力的一部分
	Semple,1911^[26]	人类无法定居的自然地理边界是理想的国家划定边界
	Spykman，1942^[27]	边界周围的领土是理解国家权力关系的核心。全球实力的关键是外围力量，而非核心力量。处于边缘地带的国家，如日本，有可能发展成为超级大国，因为它们与外部世界或非中心地带的国家有更多的接触，因此更容易出现创新
边界的类型	Holdich，1915， Lyde，1919^[28,29]	区分“好的”与“差的”边界，前者可以避免或减轻国家冲突，甚至是提供经济均衡，而后者常常产生或加剧国家冲突。好的边界与自然和/或社会-种族边界相吻合，而差的边界既不符合景观的物理特征，也不符合社会-文化区域的边界
边界的类型	Hartshorne，1950	提出一种遗传边界分类方法，根据该方法可以将边界划分为先成的、后成的、叠加的、因果的和遗迹等
边界功能分析	Kristof，1959^[10]	系统地研究边界作为“现实政治”和国家组织要素的各个方面。区分边界（border）和边境（frontier）的概念，离心与向心的区别
	Minghi1963^[15]	边界作为政治分隔物，分隔不同民族和肤色的群体
	Prescott，1965^[30]	主要关注确定政治和地理之间的空间关系，认为行使政治主权是空间形态和功能变化的重要来源，而边界是正式的分界线

研究范围	代表性作者/文章年代	具体理论概念
边界的扩张与划定	Ratzel，1903^[19]	提出“生存空间”概念，即国家或帝国作为一个有机体，具有内部器官，外部保护性边界，和内在的扩张动力的生物体
	Turner，1920^[20]	提出边境理论（frontier thesis）：边境是波浪的外缘——野蛮与文明的交汇点。认为边境地区在塑造美国的民族性格方面发挥了重要作用
	Kjellén，1917^[22]	“地缘政治学”的创始人，提出“国家作为地理有机体或空间现象的理论”，国家作为一个地理单位必须以自然边界加以划分
	MacKinder，1919^[23]	提出欧亚中心地带理论。认为地理边界是变化无常的，世界地图由于帝国主义而不断被重新绘制，探讨国家中心与边缘的关系
	Mahan,1890^[24]	海权的重要性，取得大国地位的民族国家之所以能够这样做，是因为它们掌握了海洋。心脏地带确实存在，而且它们的边界通常是动态的
	Haushofer，1938^[25]	世界强国应该寻求对其边界的控制。边界控制是确保其中心地带稳定与安全的更大努力的一部分
	Semple,1911^[26]	人类无法定居的自然地理边界是理想的国家划定边界
	Spykman，1942^[27]	边界周围的领土是理解国家权力关系的核心。全球实力的关键是外围力量，而非核心力量。处于边缘地带的国家，如日本，有可能发展成为超级大国，因为它们与外部世界或非中心地带的国家有更多的接触，因此更容易出现创新
边界的类型	Holdich，1915， Lyde，1919^[28,29]	区分“好的”与“差的”边界，前者可以避免或减轻国家冲突，甚至是提供经济均衡，而后者常常产生或加剧国家冲突。好的边界与自然和/或社会-种族边界相吻合，而差的边界既不符合景观的物理特征，也不符合社会-文化区域的边界
边界的类型	Hartshorne，1950	提出一种遗传边界分类方法，根据该方法可以将边界划分为先成的、后成的、叠加的、因果的和遗迹等
边界功能分析	Kristof，1959^[10]	系统地研究边界作为“现实政治”和国家组织要素的各个方面。区分边界（border）和边境（frontier）的概念，离心与向心的区别
	Minghi1963^[15]	边界作为政治分隔物，分隔不同民族和肤色的群体
	Prescott，1965^[30]	主要关注确定政治和地理之间的空间关系，认为行使政治主权是空间形态和功能变化的重要来源，而边界是正式的分界线

边界观	理论方法	主要内容	主要研究方法	代表作者
边界是一种分隔与秩序	世界系统与领土认同分析(world systems and territorial identities)	研究领土认同的演变，以及在从全球到地方的不同空间层次上，综合研究特定边界在世界边界系统中的作用与位置	对外交政策文本、媒体文本和各种流行文本(书面、图片、电影)的分析、历史资料分析与制图等	Paasi (1996); Anderson (1996)；Taylor & Flint (2000)； Ackleson (1999);等^{[18,42,75,76]}
边界是一种选择性的过滤器	功能分析（Function approach）	以跨界联系和流的不连续性为研究切入点，如对区域基础设施的衔接、跨境的人流、物流、资本流等的研究	跨境通勤人流、物流、信息流等数据定量分析；GIS制图、行为空间分析等	Prescott (1965)；Minghi(1963)； Castells （1996)等^[15,30,77]
边界是一种资源与桥梁	跨界合作与管治（Cross-border cooperation and governance）	在全球化背景下，区域、国家和国际之间的合作不断加深，边境区被看作是跨境合作的试验场。探索全球化的影响，研究跨界合作的特征、模式及不同尺度的管治策略与政策	对经济与社会统计数据进行定量分析、社会网络分析、GIS制图、访谈与参与者观察等	Ratti & Reichman(1993); Anderson, et al (2003); Scott (1999);Perkmann, (2007)等^{[78,79,80,81]}
边界是一种身份符号	人本分析法（people approach）	把边界看作是政治或社会的构建。认为边界是社会和个体生活中不可或缺的一部分，分析个体或群体参与边界实践的行为和态度，涉及边界的生产与再生产、认知、感知及边界对国家身份构建的影响等内容	种族志研究方法、参与者观察、深度访谈和叙事分析等	Agnew（1987）; Paasi（1996）; Doevenspeck（2011）等^[42,51,53]
边界是一种冲突与潜在威胁	边界安全分析 (border security approach)	研究边界的安全管理、国际迁移和其他跨界流动管制、边界安全政策与措施等，目的是最小化跨境流动带来的不稳定因素和潜在威胁，如非法移民与走私，恐怖主义，物种入侵等问题	深度访谈、问卷调查、参与者观察、生物识别与计算机监控技术等	Laitinen（2003）；Walters (2006)；Andreas (2003)；Amoore (2006) 等^{[82,83,84,85]}

边界观	理论方法	主要内容	主要研究方法	代表作者
边界是一种分隔与秩序	世界系统与领土认同分析(world systems and territorial identities)	研究领土认同的演变，以及在从全球到地方的不同空间层次上，综合研究特定边界在世界边界系统中的作用与位置	对外交政策文本、媒体文本和各种流行文本(书面、图片、电影)的分析、历史资料分析与制图等	Paasi (1996); Anderson (1996)；Taylor & Flint (2000)； Ackleson (1999);等^{[18,42,75,76]}
边界是一种选择性的过滤器	功能分析（Function approach）	以跨界联系和流的不连续性为研究切入点，如对区域基础设施的衔接、跨境的人流、物流、资本流等的研究	跨境通勤人流、物流、信息流等数据定量分析；GIS制图、行为空间分析等	Prescott (1965)；Minghi(1963)； Castells （1996)等^[15,30,77]
边界是一种资源与桥梁	跨界合作与管治（Cross-border cooperation and governance）	在全球化背景下，区域、国家和国际之间的合作不断加深，边境区被看作是跨境合作的试验场。探索全球化的影响，研究跨界合作的特征、模式及不同尺度的管治策略与政策	对经济与社会统计数据进行定量分析、社会网络分析、GIS制图、访谈与参与者观察等	Ratti & Reichman(1993); Anderson, et al (2003); Scott (1999);Perkmann, (2007)等^{[78,79,80,81]}
边界是一种身份符号	人本分析法（people approach）	把边界看作是政治或社会的构建。认为边界是社会和个体生活中不可或缺的一部分，分析个体或群体参与边界实践的行为和态度，涉及边界的生产与再生产、认知、感知及边界对国家身份构建的影响等内容	种族志研究方法、参与者观察、深度访谈和叙事分析等	Agnew（1987）; Paasi（1996）; Doevenspeck（2011）等^[42,51,53]
边界是一种冲突与潜在威胁	边界安全分析 (border security approach)	研究边界的安全管理、国际迁移和其他跨界流动管制、边界安全政策与措施等，目的是最小化跨境流动带来的不稳定因素和潜在威胁，如非法移民与走私，恐怖主义，物种入侵等问题	深度访谈、问卷调查、参与者观察、生物识别与计算机监控技术等	Laitinen（2003）；Walters (2006)；Andreas (2003)；Amoore (2006) 等^{[82,83,84,85]}

[1]	Ning LIU, Qing LIU, Guicai LI. Research progress and prospect of population migration in counties, towns and villages in China [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(2): 166-178.
[2]	Yichuan ZHANG, Meng HU, Hong LI. A review of the progress and hot issues of Gravity Model based on the CiteSpace: A comparative analysis of literature from the economic geography perspective [J]. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(1): 130-140.
[3]	Yuqing ZHANG, Chengcheng ZHAN. Progress and prospects of feminist geography research [J]. World Regional Studies, 2022, 31(4): 881-893.
[4]	Qianyi MA, Yushan DUAN, Rong WU. A review and prospect of international studies of children's geographies [J]. World Regional Studies, 2022, 31(1): 177-188.
[5]	Bo JING, Tongsheng LI, Yiping ZHU, Wenhao CHENG. Research progress of Human-Earth System in the mountainous areas in China [J]. World Regional Studies, 2021, 30(6): 1230-1240.
[6]	Peijuan ZHU, Meifang ZHANG, Qingyun HE. Research progress and prospect of urban space fragmentation [J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(5): 985-995.
[7]	Luyi TONG. A review on definitions and measurements for urban expansion [J]. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(4): 762-772.
[8]	Yu SONG, Jianfeng HUANG. Research progress and prospect of rural memory geography [J]. World Regional Studies, 2019, 28(6): 166-177.
[9]	. The Hotspots, Progress and Inspiration of High-speed Rail Tourism Research [J]. WRS, 2019, 28(1): 175-186.
[10]	. Progress in International Environmental Impact of Cruise Tourism and Its Implications [J]. WRS, 2017, 26(5): 136-146.
[11]	. Research Progress of Innovation Network and Knowledge Flow [J]. WRS, 2017, 26(04): 117-125.
[12]	. Research progress on coordination development of IUA [J]. WRS, 2015, 24(04): 111-121.
[13]	. Review of Community Participation in Tourism Development at Home and Abroad over the Past Decade [J]. WRS, 2015, 24(02): 148-157.
[14]	. Review on Energy Consumption and Carbon Emission from Tourism Industry [J]. WRS, 2014, 23(03): 158-168.
[15]	HUANG Liang, DU De-Bin. The Review and Comment of Theoretical Study on International R&D Hub [J]. WRS, 2012, 21(03): 84-.