地处湖南省西部的凤凰县长期以来是国家级贫困县，它于2001年被列为国家历史文化名城。凤凰古城是凤凰县的老城区，在2001年后的短短几年间就从一个地理偏远的贫困县城迅速发展为国内著名旅游地。那么，凤凰古城旅游业迅速发展所依赖的地方特色要素或资源是如何形成的？旅游大开发前、后，凤凰古城社会与空间发生了怎样的变迁？这些问题是本文选题的现实缘由。 “地方”（place）是人文地理学尤其是文化地理学研究的关键词和核心主题之一。综观国内外有关地方（性）形成、转型与机制的现有研究成果，存在两个研究不足：一，地方（特殊）性形成的“层累”机制研究忽视了作为地方特殊性的‘层’间流动性与互动过程；二，美国著名人文地理学者Allen Pred（1984）在研究地方生成时提出了“作为历史权变过程的地方”理论及框架，但忽视了全球性因素在地方生成中的角色与作用。 本研究在“地方”理论的指导下，以“地方生成”为视角，选择凤凰古城旅游地为案例，综合利用文献分析、文本分析、访谈法、观察法、归纳法等方法，梳理了凤凰古城自秦汉以来地方性构成要素与地方（总体）特征的演变与互动过程，揭示了凤凰古城地方演变的机制；构建了“全球性地方生成”框架作为对Pred（1984）“地方生成”理论的补充，以该框架为指导，总结了凤凰古城在旅游大开发前、后的地方要素变迁特征，以此揭示其地方生成与转型过程。通过以上研究，本文得出以下研究结果： （1）凤凰古城地方性构成要素的演变具有“时空多向性”特征，其演变模式主要有持续存在型（M1）、间断存在型（M2）、消失型（M3）和新出现型（M4）四种类型。作为地方特殊性的“层”之间的互动关系模式主要有延续模式、取代模式和调节模式。凤凰古城地方（总体）特征随时间演变的序列为：湘西苗疆的边缘地方→湘渝黔交界区的军事中心→凤凰县域中心→国内著名旅游地。这些特征也同样存在着互动关系。 （2）自然决定机制、结构主义机制和事件机制均对凤凰古城地方演变产生重要影响，这些机制的效应具有“时间尺度性”。自然地理因素对古城整个（研究）时期的地方特征都具有影响，是凤凰古城地方演变的长期性决定力量。各个时期的结构因素只在相应的时期里对古城地方特征产生影响，是凤凰古城地方演变的中期性决定力量。事件对凤凰古城地方特征演变只有短期的影响，而不具有决定作用，并且事件往往也是由结构因素所引发。 （3）基于所构建的“全球性地方生成”框架，本文研究了凤凰古城在旅游大开发前、后的地方要素变迁特征，结果发现该框架能够更全面地把握古城地方的生成与转型特征，旅游大开发的启动过程以及全球性要素在地方生成过程中的角色。因而，该框架可为全球化时代的地方生成与转型研究提供理论指导。 （4）旅游大开发前（1990年代），凤凰古城土地利用类型以居住用地、行政办公用地和文化教育用地为主，空间功能也以居住、行政、文化教育为主，房屋建筑和人口空间分布较均匀。古城空间性影响到居民个人经历形成和社会化：古城被居民视为是“居住和生活的地方”；居民邻里交往频繁，居民之间基本相互熟知；跨地方社会互动弱；不同空间区位上的居民地方感有所差异。古城居民职业结构以工厂职工为主，“工厂上班”成为古城社会的主导性制度计划。这一主导性制度计划主导了居民的日常路径构成和其它生活计划，辩证地生成了以工厂为中心的多尺度权力关系。古城内部的权力关系运作强度低。 （5）旅游大开发前，凤凰古城全球文化流景观主要包括族裔景观、媒体景观和意识景观。地方（政府）的能动性主要体现在：开发旅游的意识启蒙；跨地方的旅游学习实践；地方认同推动的遗产保护行动和开发旅游业的共识形成；政府主导旅游运营的初尝试；尝试失败后，将景点经营权转让。总体上，全球文化流、地方能动性和地方认同、地方性要素三者的耦合，启动了凤凰古城的旅游大开发。 （6）旅游大开发后，凤凰古城地方要素相较于旅游大开发前发生显著转型。现阶段，古城商业用地有了大幅增加，行政办公用地、教育科研用地完全转换成其它用地类型，空间功能以“商业和居住”为主。外地商人大量进入，部分原住居民成为收取租金的“商人”，以此古城中出现旅游大开发前所没有的“商人阶层”，古城社会出现分化，社会构成也更加复杂化，邻里交往显著下降。现阶段，古城社会生成了新的主导性制度计划——商业经营计划。这一计划形塑了商业从业者的日常路径，也影响到居民的地方感：古城被感知为是一个“商业化”的地方；虽然部分居民地方依恋和认同感上升，但同时也出现了“负面”的地方感。伴随着主导性制度计划的重构，古城的权力关系也发生变革，自然的意义得到重塑。古城的全球文化流景观更加明显，并成为地方的构成成分，推动了古城地方的转型，使得古城呈现出“全球地方性”特征，古城景观也成为多主体协商的产物。 综合来看，本研究在一定程度上推进了文化地理学中“地方（性）的形成机制”研究。首先，本文提供了作为地方特殊性的“层”间互动过程的案例研究，归纳了“层”间互动的主要模式。其次，本文对Pred（1984）的“作为历史权变过程的地方”的理论进行了一定的补充，构建了“全球性地方生成”理论框架，并研究了旅游大开发前、后凤凰古城地方变迁和转型特征。最后，凤凰古城旅游地丰富了“地方生成”理论的案例地区域类型。上述三点也是本研究的创新之处所在。

Fenghuang County, located in western Hunan Province of central China, has been a national poverty county for a long time. In 2001, Fenghuang County was listed as a national historic city. Fenghuang historic city (FHHC) is the old center of Fenghuang County. In a few short years after 2001, FHHC has developed from a poor and remote area into a well-known tourist destination in China. What local elements or resources does this change of FHHC (the tourism development) rely on? How are these elements or resources formed? Before and after the tourism development, what changes have taken place in the society and space of FHHC? Place is one of keywords of Human Geography, especially of Cultural Geography. Reviewing existing literature, we find that there are two gap. First, the “layer accumulation” mechanism for forming of particularity of place ignores the interaction process between “layers” as place particularity. Second, Pred’s “place as a historical contingent process” does not attach importance to the role of global factors in becoming of places. Taking FHHC as a case area, this article based on “becoming of place” perspective to complete two research contents, by the research methods of literature analysis, text analysis, interview method, observation method, and so on. First, this paper combed the evolution of placeness and its constituent elements of FHHC since the Qin and Han dynasties, revealed the interaction process of placeness in different periods, and explored the evolution mechanism of the placeness of FHHC. Second, the “Global becoming of place” framework was constructed as a supplement to Pred’s theory, and the characteristics of elements of place changes before and after the tourism development in FHHC were analyzed empirically and the process of becoming of place was revealed. The evolution of the components of placeness of FHHC is characterized by “temporal and spatial multi-dimensions”. The evolution modes include four types: the persistence type (M1), intermittent presence type (M2), disappearance type (M3), and emerging type (M4). The modes of interaction between the “layers” as place particularity include mainly the continuation mode, substitution mode, and adjustment mode. There are also interactive effects in the place’s characteristics of FHHC in different periods. The evolution of FHHC can be roughly divided into four periods: from the Qin and Han to the mid-Ming period, from the late Ming Dynasty to the Qing, from Qing dynasties to the 1990s and since the 21st century. Each period has a different set of placeness. The evolutionary sequence of place’s characteristics is: the marginal areas of the territory of the Miao nationality of Xiangxi, the military center of the junction of the three provinces of Hunan, Chongqing and Guizhou, the center of the Fenghuang County, and the well-known domestic tourist destination. Physical- geographic mechanism, structural mechanism and event mechanism all have an impact on the evolution of the placeness of FHHC. However, the effects of these mechanisms have a scale of time. The factors of physical geography have an influence on the place’s characteristics of FHHC during the entire (research) period and are the long-term determinants of the place’s evolution of FHHC. The structural factors affect the place’s characteristics of FHHC during the corresponding period, and are the mid-term determinants of the place’s evolution of FHHC. The event only affect the place characteristics of FHHC in some periods, and these events are often caused by structural factors. Therefore, the incident has only a short-term impact on the evolution of the place’s characteristics of the FHHC, but it does not have a decisive role. Before the large-scale tourism development of FHHC, the types of land use were dominated by residential land, administrative land, and cultural and educational land. The spatial functions were mainly residential, administrative, and cultural and educational. The spatial distribution of housing and population was relatively spatial even. The FHHC was “a place to reside and live in”, “very few commercial activities”, and “a poor place” in the sense of residents. There is also a certain degree of spatial heterogeneity in the sense of place of residents living in different spatial locations. The spatial feature of FHHC affects the formation and socialization of the individual’s personal experience: frequent visits by residents in neighborhoods, well familiarity among residents, and weak social interaction across trans-local communities, different sense of place of residents in different spatial locations. The occupation structure of residents is mainly employees in factory, and “factory work” is the dominant institutional project for FHHC society. This dominant institutional project dominates the daily path composition of residents and other life project, and dialectically generates a multi-scale power relationship focused on factories. The landscapes of global-cultural flow in FHHC included ethnic landscapes, media landscapes, and ideological landscapes. The local (government) agency are mainly reflected in the consciousness initiation of tourism development, the trans-regional tourism-learning practice, and the formation of the consensus on heritage protection and “developing tourism” pushed by place identity; attempt at tourism operations, and transferring the operating rights of the scenic spot after failure of the attempt. The coupling of local agency and identity, global cultural flow, and placeness, has made FHHC embark on the road of rapid development. At the current stage, the commercial land of FHHC has increased substantially, and administrative and education and research land have been completely converted to other land types, thus the spatial function of FHHC was transformed into the “commercial and residential”. A large number of non-local businessmen have entered, and some of the inhabitants have become “merchants” by collecting rent, forming a new social class: the merchant class, which did not exist in FHHC before tourism development. As a result, the FHHC has undergone social differentiation, its social composition has become more complicated, the neighbor communication between residents has declined significantly. At this stage, the society of FHHC has generated a new dominant institutional project: business project. This project has shaped the daily path of businessman, and it also affects the residents’ sense of place: FHHC is now a “commercialized” place. Although place attachment and identity of some residents have increased, there are also a “negative” sense of place. With the reconstruction of the dominant institutional project, the power relations have also undergone fundamental changes. The physical meaning has also been reshaped: Tuojiang River has become a tourists’ consumption landscape. At this stage, the landscape of global-cultural flow in FHHC is stronger. It has become a part of the place and has also promoted the transformation of the place, making FHHC exhibit a “globalization” feature. The landscape of FHHC has also become a by-product of negotiation among subjects. In summary, this study, to a certain extent, promote the research of formation mechanism of “place/placeness” in Cultural Geography. First, this paper provides a case study of the interaction process between the “layers” as place particularity, sums up the main modes of “layers” interaction, and reveals the comprehensive mechanism of “layer” evolution over time. Secondly, this paper supplements Pred’s “place as a historical contingent process” and its framework, constructs a theoretical framework of “global becoming of places”, and empirically studies the place changes and transition characteristics of FHHC before and after the tourism development. As a result, it has been found that the “global becoming of places” framework that has joined the “landscapes of global-cultural flow” can more fully understand the features of the changes of the place components of FHHC, the initiation of tourism development, and the position of global factors in a place. The framework can provide guidance for becoming or transformation of places in the era of globalization. Finally, the case study of FHHC enriched the type of case area of “becoming of places” theory.