本文旨在从文化地理学的视角搭建一个地名命名评价框架，回答“如何评价地名命名”这一学术问题。地名命名涉及不同主体的利益，在地名命名过程中难免众口难调，以致地名命名争议现象层出不穷。因此，从地理学角度思考地名命名评价框架十分必要。但是，目前地理学者多研究地名空间分布及影响因素，少有涉及地名命名好坏评价的范畴。为了弥补此不足，本文以“地名外部性”为核心概念，从空间视角搭建地名命名评价的框架，判断地名命名实践是否合理。研究意义有二：理论层面，本文提出“地名外部性”这一概念，以此搭建地名命名评价的框架。实践层面，地名命名主体可以是法人代表、行政机构代表、地名命名听众会代表团等，本文可以为他们自评地名命名方案提供参考，引导社会舆论对地名命名现象做出理性判断，为地名管理工作提供建议。 本文的研究结论有三： 第一，地名属于公共物品，地名命名难免会产生外部性，地名命名产生的负外部性是地名命名冲突的根源。地名外部性可划分为交互外部性和单向外部性两类，这是评价地名命名的两个维度。交互外部性往往产生于地名命名主体之间，即两个地理实体的地名命名主体对对方地名命名有不同意见，且互不相让，因此各自的地名命名对对方产生了外部性。单向外部性往往产生于地名命名者和地名使用者之间，即地名命名者的命名实践对地名使用者产生外部性，但由于地名使用者大多无法参与地名命名，只能是外部性的被动承担者。 第二，为了避免地名命名争议，地名命名评价就是要评价命名是否产生负外部性。本文搭建了地名命名评价框架，评价的步骤依次是：分析地名命名涉及的主体（尤其是地名命名者和纯粹使用者），并分析地名之于不同主体的价值；从交互外部性和单向外部性两个维度，评价地名命名是否产生负外部性；若未产生负外部性，则认为命名合理。反之，则认为命名欠合理。以文化共享、文化多元和公平正义为指导的地名命名，能够减少地名负外部性。 第三，立足于文化地理学的空间视角，本框架主要适用于评价以下六种地名命名情形。交互外部性的评价维度主要适用于评价以下三种地名命名情形，分别是跨界地理实体的命名、小区的地名作为大区的专名、跨界地理实体地名作为行政区的专名。单向外部性的评价维度主要适用于评价以下三种地名命名情形，分别是区内地名文化趋同、更改历史文化价值较高的地名、涉及地名空间组合的命名和更名。本文第三、四章以若干相关的案例，展示如何运用本文建立的地名命名评价框架进行评价，亦证明了该评价框架的可操作性和有效性。 在上述结论基础上，本文对我国地名命名和管理提出四条建议：地名命名前应该调查认同该地名的人群所在空间范围，从而保障地名文化的共享性；跨界地理实体的命名应该交由更高一级行政管理部门审批，保障命名的共享性和公平性；若某类地名在区域零星出现时不一定会产生负外部性，但是大规模出现时会产生负外部性，应慎重审批或不予审批此类地名；凡影响到地名空间组合的新地名命名或更名应慎重审批，从而保护地名空间意义的完整性。同时，研究结论呼应了目前已有的两条地名管理规定：目前，国家禁止用跨界地理实体名称作为地名命名理据；变更历史文化价值较高的地名往往容易产生负外部性，目前各地建立各级地名文化遗产名录，禁止更改名录中的地名。

The article aims to propose a theoretical framework for assessing place naming through the lens of cultural geography to answer the academic question of “how to assess place naming”. Place names belong to public goods and involve variegated stakeholders. In the process of place naming, it is sometimes difficult to balance different interests, so that the place naming disputes are endless. Therefore, this paper argues that it is necessary to remake a theoretical framework for assessing place naming from the perspective of cultural geography. However, geographers have mainly focused on the spatial patterns of different kinds of place names and their influencing factors, and little attention has been paid to the place naming assessment. In order to fill this gap, the article builds a theoretical framework for judging whether the place naming practice is ‘reasonable’ or not. Theoretically, this article contributes to existing toponymic studies by putting forward the concept of toponymic externality and by proposing a theoretical framework for assessing place naming. Practically, this article can provide standards for the place namers to assess their own place naming practices, guide the public to make rational judgments on various place naming phenomenon, and provide suggestions for the place naming management. There are three conclusions in this article: First, place naming will inevitably lead to externalities, because most of place names belong to public goods, and the negative externalities of place names should be responsible for the tensions and conflicts during the place naming processes. The externalities of place naming can be divided into two categories: two-way externality and one-way externality, both of which constitute two dimensions for assessing the place naming. Two-way externalities often arise between different place namers, that is, different namers have their own claims on naming and they do not give up to each other, so they impose negative externalities interactively. One-way externalities often arise between place namers and pure users, that is, place namers have negative externalities on the users of place names. However, since most of the users cannot participate in the place naming processes, they could only be the passive bearers of negative externality. Second, in order to avoid tensions and conflicts during the place naming processes, we should judge whether the place naming produces negative externalities. There are three analytical steps. The first step is to identify the stakeholders involved in the place naming, especially the place namers and the place name users. The second step is to analyze the value of place naming for different stakeholders. The third step is to judge whether there are negative two-externalities or one-way externalities produced in the place naming processes. If no strongly negative externality is produced, the place naming could be considered reasonable. The principle of cultural sharing, cultural diversity and spatial justice can guide us to reduce the generation of negative externalities during the place naming processes. Third, this theoretical framework can be applied to assess the following types of place naming. On the one hand, from the perspective of two-way externality, this theoretical framework can be useful to assess the naming of the cross-border geographical entity, the naming of the higher-level administrative region after the place name of lower-level administrative region, and the naming of the administrative region after the place name of the cross-border geographical entity. On the other hand, this theoretical framework can be helpful to assess the renaming of those with high historical and cultural values, the homogenizing of place naming centralized in one region, and the renaming of those spatially linked with other place names in cultural meanings. Drawing on some cases, the third and fourth chapters show how to apply the theoretical framework proposed in this article to assess the place naming or renaming, and demonstrate the impact on others. This article has some implications for place naming and place naming management. it put forward four original suggestions: First, spatially, the groups who identify the place name should be investigated before a place naming, so as to ensure the sharing of the place name. Second, renaming those spatially linked with other place names in cultural meanings should be carefully examined and approved to protect the integrity of their cultural meaning. Third, naming the cross-border geographical entity should be approved by a higher-level manager, in order to prevent the hegemony of place naming. Four, some place name would generate negative externalities when they appear on a large scale. Such place naming should be carefully approved or not approved. What’s more, the research conclusions echo the two existing regulations on place naming management. First, Chinese government has prohibited naming the administrative region after the place name of the cross-border geographical entity. Second, Chinese government has released a list of place names with high historical and cultural values which are regarded as cultural heritage, and it is forbidden to renaming these in the list, because negative externalities might be generated.