【正文】 plans and a role of each ministry should be made clear.(2)Vertical relation of plans: China and Korea has paratively clear vertical relation between plans because they both have strong nature to transmit planning policy from top to bottom. However, an each plan of China was strictly bound to administrative unit and in Japan the role of semiwide area planning is relatively weak. In the future, setting widearea planning beyond single administrative unit would be possible to connect effectively the higher plans and the lower plans,according to economic, cultural and natural conditions.(3)Spatial area covered by national territory plan: In Japan the area covered by a certain prehensive plan is actually limited to city planning area (CPA). Spatial planning does not cover almost nonCPA area。 therefore prehensive environmental or landscape improvement from a viewpoint of multidirections is possibly difficult.(4)Weight of planning: We might say Japan puts the weight of planning to urban area, and Korea, theoretically, puts the weight to both urban and rural area equally. In China, nowadays the weight of planning is particularly on tile urban area with high economic growth. However it is important tasks to establish nonurban area39。s prehensive planning in three countries, in other words, to conserve their own nature, culture and landscapes of nonurban area, strengthening local identity and originality. Through this study, we can refer that there is a big relation between the size of national territory and a character of the planning system. Wider national territory has more multistage administrative unit, and the planning phase also tends to bee more plicated. If we assumed the Eastern Asian Spatial Planning as one munity, the subjects would be wider regional tasks like nature/environment/biosphere/cultural area conservation, economical and social interchange, and strategic traffic route,’etc. Considering these themes, it will be needed in the future to collect information about Eastern Asia to study possibility of a wide area zoning across the country borders.4結(jié)論：（1）行為和國家有關(guān)部委主管領(lǐng)土的計劃：可以說，日本和中國有類似的規(guī)劃體系。如（）顯示，當(dāng)有計劃支持國家領(lǐng)土復(fù)數(shù)行為，每個部門的關(guān)系和作用應(yīng)該明確。 （2）垂直關(guān)系的計劃：中國和韓國之間的計劃縱向關(guān)系比較明確，因?yàn)樗鼈兌季哂泻軓?qiáng)的性質(zhì)，規(guī)劃政策從上倒下貫穿。但是，在中國每個行政部門的計劃被嚴(yán)格約束而在日本的規(guī)劃的作用相對較弱。今后，根據(jù)經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化和自然條件有可能設(shè)置超出單一的行政單元規(guī)劃來有效地連接近遠(yuǎn)計劃。 （3）空間面積覆蓋全國領(lǐng)土的計劃：在日本某地區(qū)綜合計劃實(shí)際上是僅限于城市規(guī)劃區(qū)（注冊會計師）?？臻g規(guī)劃不包括幾乎非注冊會計師地區(qū)，因此從多方向角度的改善全面的環(huán)境或景觀可能是困難的。 （4）規(guī)劃重點(diǎn)：我們可以說，日本提出了在城市規(guī)劃區(qū)內(nèi)的重點(diǎn)，韓國理論上提出了同等重視城市和農(nóng)村地區(qū)。在中國，現(xiàn)在的重點(diǎn)是規(guī)劃與城市經(jīng)濟(jì)高增長相協(xié)調(diào)。然而，它的重要任務(wù)是建立在三個國家的非城市地區(qū)的綜合規(guī)劃，換句話說，要保護(hù)自己的自然、文化和非市區(qū)景觀，加強(qiáng)地方認(rèn)同和獨(dú)創(chuàng)性。 通過這項(xiàng)研究，我們可以參考，一個國家領(lǐng)土之間的大小和規(guī)劃體系的特點(diǎn)有很大關(guān)系。更廣泛的國家領(lǐng)土上有更多的多級行政單位和規(guī)劃階段，也往往使其變得更加復(fù)雜。如果我們假定東亞空間規(guī)劃為一個社會，則環(huán)境、生物圈、文化保護(hù)區(qū)，經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會交流，交通路線和戰(zhàn)略等學(xué)科將會有更廣泛的任務(wù)?？紤]到這些主題，這將是今后需要收集有關(guān)資料，以研究跨越國家邊界地帶東亞地區(qū)。References:[1] M. Li and 1. Sakamoto. 2003. A Comparative study on the Urban planning system of large cities in Institute. 38(3):301306[2] K. Ye and T. Kinoshita. 2005. A Comparative Study on the Development System of the National Territory and Related Acts in Japan and Korea. Journal of the JLA. 68(5):8598132[3]中國城市規(guī)畫設(shè)計研究院(2004).城市規(guī)畫資料集1,[4](20050616 16:39)[5]://. (20050615 16:09)[6]國土規(guī)劃、區(qū)域規(guī)劃、城市規(guī)劃.12 / 12