Research on the Construction and Practice of an Urban–Rural Integration Planning Model from the Perspective of Element Flow: A Case Study of Xiuzhou District, Jiaxing City

Abstract

Ensuring the healthy movement of urban and rural factors is a key aspect in promoting urban–rural integration. Defining the mechanisms of factor movement and constructing an urban–rural integration planning model are important for the practice of urban–rural integration work. This study considers the movement of urban and rural factors as its entry point and explores the resource endowments and movement paths of urban and rural factors based on the city–town–village spatial system. The urban–rural integration planning model was constructed using spatial and policy dimensions, and six integration design strategies for ecological, population, industrial, land, transportation, and public service factors were defined. Next, considering the Xiuzhou District of Jiaxing City as a case study, this study combines the current characteristics and integration directions of urban and rural factors to propose integration design goals and measures for six key factors. The movement paths of urban and rural factors were delineated, and the specific tasks of each administrative entity in urban–rural integration development were identified at each level to achieve the breakdown and transmission of the overall urban–rural integration strategy. The study integrated current status assessment, integration design, path construction, and goal breakdown, exploring the formulation of urban–rural integration strategies and work pathways. The aim was to address the current gap between urban–rural integration theory and practice, thus providing a reference and inspiration for related research.

1. Introduction

As China enters a new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, unbalanced urban–rural and insufficient rural development have become pressing topics in the country’s economic and social development [1]. The report of the 20th National Congress further emphasized the need to persist in promoting urban–rural integration in China, by facilitating the flow of resource elements between urban and rural areas and outlined the overall development goals and requirements for this process. This provides a reference point and guidance for exploring a uniquely Chinese model of urban–rural integration planning. Historically, the development of urban–rural relations in China has undergone stages of urban–rural dualism, imbalanced development, coordinated planning, and urban–rural integration (Figure 1), thereby highlighting its unique development model [2]. Since the beginning of the 21st century, China’s urban–rural relationships have shifted from a singular focus on urban development issues to a more diversified urban–rural agenda [3,4]. Through the mutual promotion of industry, agriculture, and urban–rural mutual complementation, high-quality urban–rural integration has become an inevitable requirement [5]. It is evident that the discourse systems and development paths of urban–rural integration in China have distinct institutional and historical characteristics. However, several challenges have emerged in advancing urban–rural integration, including unclear endowments of urban and rural factors, incomplete circulation mechanisms, obstructed circulation paths, imbalances in economic, industrial, and ecological development between urban and rural areas, and difficulties in aligning policy reforms with spatial planning. These challenges pose new difficulties for China’s urban–rural integration [6,7,8].

Urban–rural integration refers to the increased level of organization in economic, social, and other aspects between urban and rural areas, enhancing spatial connections and optimizing spatial layouts to achieve cohesive and coordinated development between urban and rural areas [9]. The flow and allocation of resources among cities, towns, and villages within the urban–rural space are key driving forces for integration, influencing not only the economic development of these areas but also directly impacting the adjustment and optimization of the spatial structure. In China, many scholars have incorporated the concept of urban–rural integration into policy research. However, there is a lack of exploration of implementation paths and working frameworks, making it challenging to effectively support urban–rural integration efforts. Therefore, based on the theory of element flow, this study explores the connotations of the spatial and policy integration of city, town, and village resources; it aims to provide theoretical exploration references for urban–rural integration in China, and offers practical methodological support for other countries and regions undertaking urban–rural integration and development initiatives.

2. Literature Review

Broadly speaking, urban–rural integration refers to improvement at an organizational level of urban and rural areas in economic, social, and other aspects, enhancing spatial connections between cities and villages, optimizing spatial layouts, and achieving an integrated spatial form in which cities and villages are mutually integrated and develop in a coordinated manner [9]. It is evident that urban–rural integration development is a crucial pathway for reshaping new urban–rural relations and promoting rural revitalization [10]. Both domestic and international scholars have conducted basic theoretical research on urban–rural integration development, covering aspects such as its connotations, spatial patterns, and evolution mechanisms, with an overall trend of incorporating the concept of urban–rural integration development into urban and rural policy research. For example, Ge and Long [7] explored feasible paths for optimizing the urban–rural structure, improving urban–rural interactions, and promoting urban–rural integration development from the perspective of comprehensive governance of rural spaces’ “material–property–organization”. Liu [11] proposed that urban–rural integration and rural revitalization aim to optimize rural regional systems, focusing on the complexity and dynamics of rural areas, constructing a multi-level goal system, promoting institutional innovation, and realizing rural transformation and development according to the “Five Revitalizations” requirements, while exploring new construction models to address rural issues. From a cultural perspective, Hibbard and Michael [12] explored urban bias and its impact on rural planning, proposing methods and theories to incorporate “bringing the countryside back” into 21st-century planning. Gren and Andersson [13], using Stockholm County in Sweden as a case study, proposed incorporating the perspective of ecosystem services into urban planning, rethinking the urban–rural gap, and promoting the sustainable development of urban–rural landscapes. Liu [14], taking Qiu Xian Village in Beijing as a case, explored development strategies for suburban integrated villages from the perspective of preservation and promotion. Zhang et al. [15], focusing on suburban rural areas, proposed that suburban-type rural complexes serve as innovative platforms and carriers for exploring urban–rural integration practice pathways. Starting from domestic and international understanding and the theoretical evolution of urban–rural integration, Gu and Xu [16] clarified the distinctions and connections between urban–rural integration and coordinated urban–rural development, analyzed its scientific connotations and key content, and constructed an assessment system for the progress of urban–rural integration. Relevant studies reflect scholars’ exploration of spatial planning concepts and methods for urban–rural integration.

In practice, research has gradually shifted from focusing on planning the physical spatial environment to strategies concerning value choices, urban–rural communication, and urban–rural mutual complementation in urban–rural integration. For example, Ji et al. [17] used the water town living room in the ecological green urban–rural integration demonstration area of the Yangtze River Delta as a case study; they identified, extracted, and designed the spatial genes of the Jiangnan water town in terms of ecological background, settlement patterns, settlement texture, and architectural style, while exploring new urban design techniques and methods. Chen and Hu [18], taking Jiangsu as a case study, reviewed the history of rural space governance in Jiangsu, summarized the stages, priorities, logic, and characteristics of rural space governance in three different periods, and analyzed the rural space governance system path of the city, which includes “planning coordination—action collaboration—policy synergy”. Chen et al. [19], focusing on rural spaces at the urban fringe, developed a rural planning approach that included the precise classification of village types, guiding rural contraction development, differentiated policy supply, and full-process construction management. Jiang [20] suggested that the renewal of rural spaces in the suburbs of megacities has certain particularities and complexities. He analyzed the connotations of organic rural renewal, summarized the general characteristics and policy planning of suburban rural areas in Shanghai, and examined the contents and key features of organic rural renewal in these areas. He et al. [21], through a multi-dimensional index evaluation system, took the urban and rural development process of Changsha from 2005 to 2020 as an example and identified the significant impact of urban–rural integration on landscape sustainability. Taking three adjacent villages in the urban–rural fringe of Huangyan Taizhou City as the research object, Huang et al. [22] discussed the impact of rural industrial upgrading, transformation, and the two-way flow of urban and rural development factors. In addition, some local practices also reflect the exploration of urban–rural integration construction. For example, the “Urban–Rural Integration Spatial Strategy Plan for Heze City” not only focuses on urban space but also on rural revitalization by proposing a spatial layout model of a comprehensive “networked composite city” for the entire region; the “Jinjiang Comprehensive Field Landscape Development Plan” explores the rural master planning from multiple perspectives, including the diversification of rural functional value, multi-level spatial patterns, and spatial control, focusing on the transition from point to area and from strategy to implementation.

It is worth noting that at this stage, the planning and control of land resources in Chinese cities and rural areas lacks connectivity. Most urban–rural integration practices focus on urban infrastructure networks, neglecting the development and circulation of other resource elements in rural areas [23]. For governments, owing to the wide scope and extensive content of urban–rural integration development, there is an urgent need for a widely applicable and systematic urban–rural integration planning model and work path to guide related work. Overall, current research on spatial planning for urban–rural integration mainly focuses on policies and strategies [24,25]. At the county and district levels, research on urban–rural integration is mainly conceptual, with evaluations of spatial patterns [26,27]. However, there is insufficient research on the movement of urban and rural factors, integration paths, and related explorations of urban–rural integration planning models and work pathways. To promote high-quality urban–rural integration, it is essential to deeply analyze and develop a scientifically feasible urban–rural integration planning and design model, thus accelerating the in-depth implementation and efficient realization of urban–rural integration development strategies. At the same time, it is necessary to clarify the way to carry out the work. Therefore, this study considers the movement of urban and rural factors as its entry point to explore the integration of urban, town, and rural resource factors in spatial and policy dimensions, and combine these with the work practices in Xiuzhou District, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, to conduct research on urban–rural integration planning models and work pathways from both spatial and policy perspectives. The goal is to provide a reference for the exploration of urban–rural integration theory and offer methodological support for related urban–rural construction efforts.

3. Constructing Urban–Rural Integration Models

The movement of factors and the construction of their network system have always been key focuses in the fields of regional economics, urban–rural integration planning, and human geography. Spatially, various factors have long been in an unequal distribution, leading to potential differences in “factor flows” between different spaces, thereby creating the objective basis and practical demand for movement of urban and rural factors. Meanwhile, the healthy and active movement of factors has a significant impact on the construction of regional economic and urban networks, economic layouts, and urbanization layouts [28]. From a geographical perspective, the movement of urban and rural factors refers to the spatial displacement of movable factors within the urban–rural system due to the imbalance of supply and demand between regions [29]. That is, in different spaces or within the same space, production factors with competitive advantages undergo spatial relocation or a change in ownership or function to maximize returns and achieve complementary advantages, thereby facilitating the exchange and reallocation of factors [30].

In the field of urban–rural integration planning, Wu [31] proposed the rational city planning method of “shaping by flow”, which constructs urban development models based on the movement of factors such as wind, water, heat, and human flow, supporting urban–rural issue diagnosis, urban planning methods, and planning scenario simulation. This is an exploration and attempt to integrate the concept of the movement of factors into urban–rural integration planning. Urban–rural integration should involve planning the elements of cities and villages, urban and rural residents, urban and rural industries, and urban and rural environments as a whole “city–town–village” spatial network structure [32,33,34]. This structure allows cities, towns, and villages to positively interact with multiple entities, breaking away from the traditional urban–rural development dichotomy and promoting the multi-dimensional coordinated development of urban and rural social, economic, and ecological environments, thus achieving the free and healthy flow of various factors between urban and rural areas [35,36]. Among these, clearly defining an effective movement of urban and rural factors is key to promoting urban–rural integration. It is evident that the perspective of the movement of factors can further analyze the characteristics of urban and rural resource endowments, streamline the movement channels of resource factors, and empower urban–rural integration development to provide theoretical and methodological support for constructing urban–rural integration planning models and work pathways.

3.1. Cities Possess a Strong Resource Base

The resource endowments and characteristics of cities are reflected in aspects such as their capital, ideas, standards, and technology. Cities possess large populations, employment opportunities, commercial demand, and industrial resources, all of which contribute to wealth creation and economic growth. Cities also have high-level educational and healthcare resources along with better public facilities that provide residents with high-quality living experience. Economically, cities have essential development factors such as capital, opportunities, and platforms. Their industries and logistics can utilize rural spaces for clustered development and support rural economic construction. Cities have high developmental goals, living standards, and ecological concepts. Their organizational structures, social groups, and research institutions can contribute to rural areas, driving the transmission of civilization to the countryside. In addition, the cities have high-quality development standards and technical construction conditions. Their transportation, infrastructure, and supporting facility standards provide benchmarks for the construction of various types of towns and rural areas, thereby enhancing the quality of their living environments. Simultaneously, the digital and smart infrastructures of cities can serve as references for rural development and construction.

3.2. Towns as the Link Between Cities and Villages

As transitional entities between cities and villages, towns possess a moderate administrative status, population size, and economic development base. They play a key role as links between urban and rural areas, both spatially and in terms of policy. Towns can effectively connect cities and villages, promoting economic, cultural, and social exchanges and integration between urban and rural areas. For example, they attract quality urban resources such as capital, technology, and talent to flow into rural areas, while also facilitating the entry of rural products, resources, and services into urban markets, achieving urban–rural mutual complementation and common prosperity. However, during the process of urban–rural integration, certain development gaps and contradictions exist between urban and rural areas due to historical, geographical, and economic factors. As transitional links between urban and rural areas, towns play a balancing and coordinating role. Through policy guidance, resource allocation, and other measures, they promote balanced development between urban and rural areas, alleviating urban–rural contradictions.

3.3. Rural Areas as the Support and Guarantee for Urban–Rural Development

Compared to cities and towns, rural areas have favorable policy environments and significant investment potential. Rural areas are endowed with abundant natural resources including green spaces, water, forests, and a wide range of agricultural resources that provide ecological services, food, and agricultural products to both urban and rural residents. Rural areas offer vast spaces and natural environments, providing better living conditions and residential settings for urban and rural populations. Abundant spatial carriers, such as rural dwellings, rural environments, and ecological landscapes, can address the specific spatial needs of cities and towns. In terms of land resources, rural areas possess rich land resources that can support the development and construction of cities. Additionally, rural areas are rich in labor resources, which can contribute to the supply of productive labor for cities. Furthermore, in terms of culture, the nostalgia of rural areas carries distinctive and authentic cultural traits, offering spiritual nourishment to urban life and social activities.

3.4. Constructing Urban–Rural Integration Models and Design Strategies

From the resource endowment of the “city–town–village” model, cities have advantages in terms of industrial capital, life philosophy, construction standards, science, and technology, while villages have advantages in terms of land resources, labor output, ecological space, traditional culture, and so on (Figure 2). The movement of advantageous urban factors to rural spaces primarily involves the circulation of resources, capital investment, and technology transfer. This involves injecting urban resources into rural areas through industrial introduction, capital investment, and other means such as real estate and rural tourism. Additionally, through policy support, high-tech and skilled talent is transferred to rural areas, facilitating the flow of urban technology. The movement of advantageous rural factors to urban spaces primarily involves labor supply, agricultural product provision, and support for ecological civilization. The migration of rural residents to cities, along with the relocation of their families and children, leads to population movement and supports urban development through the rural labor force. The vast farmlands and crops produced in rural areas ensure food security and maintain the normal functioning of urban life. Natural landscapes and traditional culture in rural areas provide ecological and cultural support to cities, creating an ecological connection belt between urban and rural areas to further promote the development and construction of urban–rural integration.

It is evident that urban–rural integration involves numerous factors that may pose challenges to practical regional work. Therefore, this study synthesizes the urban–rural factors and their inherent characteristics, aligns with the integration goals outlined in the “National Urban–rural integration Development Pilot Area Reform Plan”, and categorizes urban–rural factors into six major systems: ecology, population, industry, land, transportation, and public services. Population, industry, and land primarily focus on the integration of policy factors, whereas land, transportation, and public services emphasize the flow of spatial factors. Based on relevant practical cases and theoretical research, urban–rural integration has always been a study of policy, system, landscape, industry, and other aspects. The two dimensions of space and policy proposed in this study are based on discussions with experts and the government as well as the research work of departments, towns, and streets. On the one hand, the specific work content of urban–rural integration is clarified through the spatial dimension. On the other hand, the same work is supplemented and improved through the policy dimension, which ensures the operability and macro-guiding significance of the urban–rural integration planning model.

Based on the classification of the six key systems noted previously, the study sets spatial reconstruction, factor allocation, and policy innovation as its overall goals and proposes six urban–rural integration design strategies:

• Develop an integrated urban–rural spatial planning design and propose a new pattern for production, life, and ecology;
• Build an integrated urban–rural security system design and establish new paths for common prosperity, shared benefits, and collaborative governance;
• Intensify the integration of urban–rural industrial development design, forming an efficient and high-quality development system;
• Promote the integration of urban–rural resource circulation design and establish an innovative and interactive development system;
• Advances in the integration of urban–rural infrastructure design, improving convenient and low-carbon travel experiences;
• The integration of urban–rural public service design should be promoted to create an equitable and inclusive service system.

The six urban–rural integration design strategies encompass the integration requirements related to urban–rural planning design, ecological environment, industrial development, resource factors, infrastructure, income generation, resident development, public services, social governance, and community construction; they provide spatial and policy guidance for the movement of urban and rural factors at multiple scales. At the same time, based on the integrated design of the six urban–rural factors, focused thematic research can be conducted to generate policy innovations and supportive measures, thereby providing references and guarantees for the high-quality advancement of urban–rural work.

4. Urban–Rural Integration Planning in Xiuzhou District

Xiuzhou District, located in Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, is one of the first 11 urban–rural integration pilot zones in China. It has provided a solid foundation for urban and rural development. To promote urban–rural integration, Xiuzhou District has undertaken and explored numerous reform initiatives, such as coordinated urban–rural development and rural revitalization, and formulated a series of measures. For instance, it has established the “1 + 5 + N” urban–rural integration reform policy system, initiated five major actions including planning and design guidance, comprehensive land management, and key platform construction, and issued over ten policy documents. Urban–rural integrated communities have developed through comprehensive land management across the region. In addition, Xiuzhou District falls within Zhejiang Province’s Common Prosperity Demonstration Zone, as outlined in the 14th Five-Year Plan and the 2035 Long-Term Goals, providing strong policy support for exploring urban–rural integration models in China. Based on the composition of urban–rural factors, the study analyzed the current resource endowment and development characteristics of Xiuzhou District, constructed an urban–rural integration design, clarified integration measures, and promoted a stratified strategy transmission work path at three levels (Figure 3), establishing the overall framework for urban–rural integration planning practice in Xiuzhou District.

4.1. Current Characteristics of Resource Endowment and Development

Based on the urban–rural integration design objectives with the six factors, data were collected through surveys, interviews, and field research from Xiuzhou District and two streets and five towns from 2021 to 2023 covering dimensions such as ecology, population, industry, land, transportation, and public services. During the data collection and research period, the team was stationed in the Development and Reform Bureau of Xiuzhou District, Jiaxing, and was deeply bound to government departments. The primary data collection methods were department meetings and government interviews. The department meetings were mainly led by the Xiuzhou District Development and Reform Bureau, which organized other relevant functional departments in the district (including the Agriculture and Rural Bureau, Planning Bureau, Transportation Bureau, Business Bureau, etc.), explained the difficulties and demands in the implementation of urban–rural integration, and provided relevant data and materials from their respective departments. The government interviews were mainly undertaken for the research team to visit various streets, villages, and towns, understand their problems in urban–rural integration and relevant solutions, and have in-depth exchanges with villagers and entrepreneurs.

Table 1. Data sources and supporting information.

Data Category	Data Content	Data Source
Ecological	Data from the Third National Land Survey of China; ecological resource statistics; geographical layout data; wetland park planning data; regional topography, geomorphology, and climatic characteristic data; ecological resource value assessment data; river and lake water quality reports; watershed functional zoning data; key lake area planning data; biodiversity statistics.	Conference and Interviews: Collected via coordination meetings with the Development and Reform Bureau, Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning, and Environmental Protection Bureau; compilation of geographic information data; review of superior-level plans and special reports such as the Yangtze River Delta Ecological Green Integrated Development Demonstration Zone Plan, Wetland Ecological Restoration Plan, and Ecological Environment Protection and Green Development Plan.
		Website Downloads: Field investigations and sample analyses [37,38]
Population	Statistics on urban and rural population distribution; data on residents’ income levels and sources; urban and rural social security data.	Conference and Interviews: Sourced from the Development and Reform Commission and Bureau of Statistics (census data), supplemented by field surveys, structured questionnaires on population structure and social security, and community interviews.
		Website Downloads: Five-year statistical yearbooks from governments [39,40], and annual work reports from the Social Security Bureau [41,42].
Industry	Data on industrial output, production value, sales, tax revenue, profit, and industrial scale; key indicators of the socio-economic, agricultural and rural, and industrial economies; economic indicators of enterprises above designated size by sector; self-operated import/export data; major economic indicators of large-scale enterprises; lists and economic data of agriculture–culture–tourism industry chain enterprises; data from the district’s 14th Five-Year industrial development plan.	Conference and Interviews: Obtained through coordination meetings with the Development and Reform Commission and Bureau of Economy and Commerce (industrial development reports); analysis of industrial association reports; field visits to large-scale enterprises; review of special reports such as the district’s cultural tourism development plan and the high-tech zone industrial park plan.
		Website Downloads: Agricultural production statistics from the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Affairs [43,44,45]; Comprehensive Economic Data [46].
Land	Data from the Third National Land Survey of China; current land use status and planning data; special data on comprehensive land consolidation; information on land quota allocation and land transfer.	Conference and Interviews: Acquired through coordination meetings with the Development and Reform Commission, Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning, and Bureau of Agriculture and Water Resources (land use and planning data, collective land transaction platform data); field surveys and mapping investigations; analysis of superior-level plans and special reports such as village demolition and resettlement policy documents, comprehensive land consolidation plans, village consolidation schemes, and the rural revitalization strategic plan.
		Website Downloads: Village demolition and resettlement policy documents [45,47,48,49].
Transportation	Data from the district’s 14th Five-Year integrated transportation plan; urban and rural transportation network layout data; distribution and service radius data of public transportation facilities.	Conference and Interview: Collected via coordination meetings with the Transportation Bureau (current status and planning data of the regional integrated transportation system); review of superior-level plans and special reports such as the district’s 14th Five-Year integrated transportation plan and three-dimensional transportation planning.
		Website Downloads: District’s 14th Five-Year integrated transportation plan and three-dimensional transportation planning [50,51].
Public Service	Data on the configuration and distribution of various public service facilities; coverage of public service resources; quality evaluation data of urban and rural public service facilities.	Conference and Interviews: Field surveys of community public facilities; analysis of special reports such as government public service evaluation reports.
		Website Downloads: Education Bureau, Health Commission, and Social Security Bureau (statistical data) [44,52].

lists the data sources for each dimension.

Owing to the large amounts and numerous types of data, the research team sorted the collected data through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and gradually clarified the focus of urban–rural integration; specific quantitative indicators such as population and economy were included, as well as qualitative requirements for industrial and ecological development. The collected data were then analyzed according to the city–town–village spatial system to outline the current characteristics of urban–rural factors and the direction of urban–rural integration (

Table 2. Current characteristics and integration directions for urban–rural integration in Xiuzhou.

	City	Towns	Rural Areas	Main Current Characteristics	Integration Development Directions
Ecological	Homogeneous: Urban ecological landscape resources are singular, primarily consisting of lakes and urban greenery.	Chaotic: The ecological appearance of towns is mixed, with a distinct urban–rural interface.	Rich: Rural ecological resources combine urban-type landscape features, forming a relatively rich ecosystem.	The layout of ecosystems is dispersed, with weak urban–rural integration of ecosystems and insufficient coordination.	The ecological factors and environment of rural areas can be integrated into the overall development of cities and towns, enhancing the environmental quality of urban and town areas.
				Rural ecological resources have good basic conditions but have not been fully or effectively utilized.
				In some areas, the water quality of rivers and lakes is poor, with insufficient self-purification capacity.
				In some areas, the terrain is low-lying, leading to ecological safety issues.
				Biodiversity needs to be restored.
Population	Dense: Primarily concentrated in Xiuhu New City, with multiple income channels for urban residents.	Moderate: The population mobility in towns is high, with residents’ income mainly derived from retail, subsidies, and agricultural land transfer rents.	Rural Areas: Sparse: The population mainly consists of stay-behind groups, with relatively singular income sources, mainly from farming or agricultural land transfer rents.	The income gap between urban and rural residents is small, but the overall income level is relatively low.	Cities should increase employment opportunities and income channels for rural populations, diversify the economic sources of rural residents, while standardizing social welfare standards for both urban and rural populations, and enhancing the social awareness and ideology of rural residents.
				Unified as urban residents, but there are still significant differences in social security and other aspects.
				Villagers have relatively poor cultural and ideological awareness.
				Rural population loss is severe, with most of the stay-behind population consisting of the elderly and low-end industrial workers.
Industrial	Rich: Focused on traditional industries such as garment manufacturing and product processing, with the establishment of three major industrial platforms.	Normal: Includes small-scale, workshop-style garment production and food manufacturing.	Distinctive: Strong agricultural production foundation, with abundant sightseeing, tourism, and cultural activities in rural areas.	The demand for industrial land is high and	Rural areas can provide a larger industrial hinterland through land transfer, shaping more diverse industrial directions, and enhancing Xiuzhou District’s attractiveness and competitiveness.
				the allocation of capital and resource factors between urban and rural areas is uneven;
				industrial concentration is high, but traditional industries dominate.
				The phenomenon of industrial homogenization is severe, with insufficient innovation drive and great pressure for industrial upgrading.
				The scale concentration of the agricultural industry is low;
				the development trend is slow, and the per-acre output value of industrial land is relatively low.
Land	Tense: Land use quotas are insufficient, restricting development.	Moderate: Sufficient to meet basic construction needs in towns.	Abundant: A large number of land quotas are transferred through comprehensive land remediation.	The land resource quotas are abundant across the district;	Rural areas can continue to intensively remediate land, expand rural hinterlands, and use quotas to support urban development.
				land resource utilization is low;
				the flow of land and residential factors is not smooth.
Transportation	Complete: The transportation system is relatively well-developed.	Complex: The transportation environment lacks management, with poor transportation tools and travel experiences.	Simple: Public transportation is insufficiently provided.	The urban–rural transportation system is incomplete, with significant differences in construction standards;	Refer to urban construction standards to further optimize the transportation environment in towns and rural areas, improving transportation connection systems and infrastructure.
				lacks characteristic scenic roads and signage systems.
Public service	Complete: Commercial and community service facilities are relatively well-developed, but cultural services are relatively insufficient.	Diverse: Similar to urban public service types and configurations, but overall quality needs improvement.	Insufficient: Public services in rural areas are inadequate, and infrastructure configurations are incomplete.	Public service facilities in rural areas are insufficiently configured;	Implement key infrastructure layout for urban–rural areas and improve the infrastructure system; based on urban community life circles, promote the construction of rural life circles, and build an urban–rural polar public service system.
				school and healthcare facilities have limited coverage;
				the overall quality of public service facilities in towns and rural areas is low.

).

The current research results indicate that while Xiuzhou District has a certain foundation in urban–rural integration development, there is still a gap between the six urban–rural factors and the desired urban–rural mutual complementation, deep integration, and common prosperity. Moreover, related urban–rural integration efforts in economic development, population movement, public services, and allocation of resources remain at the policymaking stage, making it difficult to implement specific actions. This has led to challenges in effectively connecting specialized plans and weakening the negative impacts of the urban–rural dichotomy.

4.2. Constructing Factor Integration Design and Defining Integration Measures

Based on the current demands and challenges in urban–rural development, this study applied six urban–rural integration design strategies to clarify the overall goals and measures for urban–rural integration in Xiuzhou District from the perspectives of spatial planning and policy formulation.

4.2.1. Spatial Planning Dimension: Building a Fundamental Platform for Urban–Rural Integration from the Perspectives of Land, Transportation, and Public Services

Spatial planning combines urban–rural integration at the district level in Xiuzhou, Jiaxing City, and at higher levels, including urban–rural spatial planning, facility-specific planning, land resource remediation, transportation system design, and physical and spatial environment construction. It focuses on guiding the healthy movement and reconstruction of urban–rural spatial resources, including land, transportation, and public services, to provide spatial support for future related planning and policy development.

Combining the development advantages of Xiuzhou’s urban areas with the characteristics of rural and town regions, this study first identified three key areas for urban–rural integration development: the High-tech Zone, the Canal Bay New City, and the Airport New City. These areas use large spaces to drive smaller spaces, leverage urban advantages to promote rural and town development, and accelerate the further integration of urban–rural spatial factors such as land, transportation, and public services. Based on its industrial advantages, the High-tech Zone was developed as a green innovation industrial-city integration pilot area, an urban–rural integration and common prosperity demonstration area, and a culturally vital ecological sub-center. Integrating land resources further strengthens the infrastructure of industrial platforms while supporting rural areas in terms of labor policies and industrial upgrades. Canal Bay New City was designed as a technology-innovation development pilot area, an urban–rural integration demonstration zone, and an eco-city at the heart of the canal water village. It integrates rural land and ecological factors to reinforce the concept of nostalgia, facilitating the creation of a localized urban environment in the new city. Airport New City has been identified as an international logistics hub, future innovation hotspot, and a cultural and tourism hub in Jiangnan. Constructing an urban–rural integrated transportation network and public service system, it further strengthens the urban–rural integrated transportation development model. By integrating the urban–rural integration development goals of the three major zones, Xiuzhou District can form a characteristic spatial pattern with mutual integration and coordination of industrial integration, transportation hubs, and cultural exhibition centers (Figure 4). A series of strategic measures will be constructed within the spatial factors of land use, transportation, and public services.

In terms of land factors, the core of urban–rural integration is breaking the division between urban and rural land markets. Currently, Xiuzhou District faces issues, such as low land resource utilization and insufficient land transfer quotas. Therefore, this study, based on the development goals of key urban–rural integration areas, promotes the establishment of a land transfer mechanism, actively releasing land resources, and reserving space for major projects to meet regional development needs. At the same time, the study further clarified the responsibilities and ownership of villages; promoted the consolidation of old, dilapidated, and small villages; implemented demolition and resettlement plans to create new urban–rural integration communities; and built a new model of urban and rural living spaces. In terms of transportation factors, the goal was to achieve equal urban–rural transportation services by optimizing the transportation network layout. Currently, Xiuzhou District faces poor connectivity between urban and rural transportation systems. This study proposes improving the public transportation service network system in urban and rural areas and standardizing the construction of main transportation networks in urban–rural areas around key regional developments. It is also essential to enhance the development of distinctive scenic roads by using transportation infrastructure to drive urban–rural cultural development. In terms of public service factors, urban–rural public service integration is a key component that aims to eliminate the disparity in public services between urban and rural areas. Based on the construction of three key regions, this study suggests that Xiuzhou District should improve its diversified resettlement policies to meet the relocation needs of displaced rural households. At the same time, it advocates the equalization of cultural facilities, building a cultural value system for urban and rural residents, and rationalizing the allocation of community construction resources in urban and rural areas. Simultaneously, it is essential to improve the healthcare security system, establish a two-tier urban–rural public service system, and actively promote the construction of urban–rural community life circles to achieve comprehensive coverage of urban–rural public service development.

4.2.2. Policy Formulation Dimension: Building a Movement of Factors Guarantee from the Perspectives of Ecology, Population, and Industry

Policy formulation primarily aims to establish a sound integration mechanism to smooth the flow channels for ecological, population, and industrial factors. By supporting policy measures, the ecological and population advantages of rural areas are introduced into cities, while industrial opportunities, technical standards, and lifestyle concepts of cities are transferred back to rural areas, thereby addressing imbalanced and insufficient development issues in welfare standards, ideologies, construction levels, and cultural experiences [53].

In terms of ecological factors, the advantages of urban and rural ecological resources are fully leveraged through mutual complementation, forming an urban–rural ecological symbiosis that achieves mutual prosperity and benefits. Xiuzhou District has favorable ecological resource conditions and should undertake ecological project construction, tapping into ecological value, and creating new “three-life” spaces. At the same time, it should build an active mechanism to realize the value of ecological products and accelerate linked development with agriculture, industry, and services. In terms of population factors, Xiuzhou District needs to increase its capacity for rural collective asset appreciation and optimize income channels for rural residents. This could promote the expansion of village collective economic income reforms, develop grassroots self-governance, and establish multilevel consultation and co-governance mechanisms. The urban–rural talent incentive mechanism should be improved to promote talent return and retention in rural areas and to further enhance entrepreneurial opportunities and success rates in rural areas. To address the severe homogeneity of industries, insufficient innovation, and high pressure for industrial upgrading in Xiuzhou District, this study proposes building a platform for urban–rural industrial collaborative development to drive the transformation and upgrading of urban–rural industries. To address the issues of slow development trends and the low per acre output value of industrial land, digital technologies should be utilized to enhance the industrial levels of cities and rural areas, increase per acre output, and promote industrial transformation in cities and rural areas based on regional characteristics. In addition, clear entry standards for related industries should be defined, development indicators and specialized industry platform systems should be proposed, and various industrial chains within Xiuzhou District should be built to enhance industrial resilience and strengthen the ability to resist external risks.

4.3. Promoting Stratified Strategy Transmission and Constructing Work Pathways

Integrating spatial and policy factor integration measures, this study decomposed six urban–rural integration design strategies based on the connections between the levels, scale, and functions of the city–town–village spatial system. It addresses the practical integration needs of various administrative bodies within the Xiuzhou District and constructs a stratified strategy transmission mechanism from the administrative spatial path (Figure 5). The work content of the overall plan for the urban–rural integration pilot area in Xiuzhou District was undertaken through the bridging role of five towns and two streets. Based on the design guidelines for bidirectional land and population flow, green and efficient economic development, comprehensive enhancement of social services, and the integration of ecological and cultural linkages, it promotes the flow and integration of resource factors across three major spatial entities: cities, towns, and villages. This provides theoretical and practical support for the smooth development and implementation of urban–rural integration work.

After formulating the strategy and implementing it, we conducted an evaluation, feedback, and iteration on the effect of the implementation of the plan to achieve dynamic adaptability and continuous optimization. This included regularly monitoring the implementation effect through quantitative indicators, mapping the evaluation results back to the six-element system, identifying bottlenecks and triggering strategy adjustments, formulating new strategies, and incorporating them into the next cycle of planning through cross-sectoral policy coordination and consultation with stakeholders. Based on such a feedback mechanism, we can ensure that the urban–rural integration strategy always matches the dynamic development of urban–rural construction and guarantees efficient coordination of various element dimensions.

Through six urban–rural integration design strategies and the stratified transmission work mechanism, this study achieved the planning and design goals of healthy, precise, and active movement of urban–rural factors in Xiuzhou District, addressing the deficiencies and shortcomings of the current state of urban–rural integration development. In addition, based on the establishment of a stratified transmission work mechanism, this study facilitated the top-down decomposition and implementation of urban–rural integration goals, strategies, and measures, ultimately forming a comprehensive and multi-dimensional urban–rural integration model and practical work framework.

5. Practice Effect and Feedback of Urban Rural Integration in Xiuzhou District

The research results related to urban–rural integration work were reviewed by a government meeting in March 2022 and were approved and officially circulated to all departments to start implementation. They also guided the pilot work of urban–rural integration residents in the Chenjiaba and Torch communities in Xiuzhou District, the construction of the urban–rural integration exhibition hall, the construction of Swan Lake Science and Innovation Park, the construction of beautiful countryside in Xiuzhou District, the construction of the Jiaxing campus of Beijing University of Technology, the construction of outer ring transportation in Xiuzhou District, the transformation of farmers’ land policy, and the increase in farmers’ income channels, some of which were recommended by relevant national departments. These practical studies cover six element dimensions, including the intersection of elements, and generally provide more effective research results. From the perspective of the implementation effect, the problems of urban and rural development in Xiuzhou District, such as the separation of urban and rural development and the lack of urban and rural development power, have effectively improved. Simultaneously, rural pilot reforms in some areas also received helpful feedback from departments and farmers (

Table 3. Practical results of urban rural integration in Xiuzhou District.

Dimension	Measures (as of 2024)	Outcomes (2024 Data)
Ecological	Implement natural system restoration and protect and develop canal wetland culture; establish a mechanism for realizing the value of ecological products to accelerate industrial linkage development.	Achieved 100% compliance of Class III or better surface water quality at the city-controlled level [54]; commenced the comprehensive canal conservation project; approved Jiaxing Canal Bay National Wetland Park; established a canal wetland tour route along the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal.
Population	Optimize farmers’ income channels and promote reforms to strengthen village collective economic income; establish multi-level consultation and co-governance mechanisms; improve the urban–rural talent incentive mechanism to accelerate mutual promotion of industry-agriculture.	The income ratio between urban and rural residents narrowed to 1.42, ranking second in the province; The per capita living consumption expenditure of rural residents reflecting a year-on-year growth of 8.1% [55,56].
Industrial	Build a platform for urban–rural industrial collaborative development to promote the transformation and upgrading of urban–rural industries; develop an airport economy zone and modernize traditional industries through intelligent upgrades; define industry entry standards to enhance resilience against external risks; attract emerging industry projects and oversee the construction of the new campus of BIT Yangtze River Delta Research Institute (Jiaxing); leverage digital technologies to enhance the industrial capacity of towns.	Established a national-level airport economy demonstration zone and the main platform of Xiuzhou National High-tech Industrial Development Zone, forming a new “three zones and two belts” industrial pattern [57]; The modern agriculture innovation and entrepreneurship platform in Xiuzhou Agricultural Development Zone secured agricultural projects in 2024 with a total investment of 570 million CNY, generating an annual output value exceeding 1.3 billion CNY [58]; completed Phase I North Campus of the BIT Yangtze River Delta Research Institute and other projects.
Land	Conduct rational village consolidation, implement demolition and resettlement plans, and create new Urban–Rural Integration communities; implement pilot comprehensive land consolidation across the region with the “comprehensive consolidation + centralized transfer + standard farmland” model to actively release land resources; dispense with the division of urban and rural land markets and establish an urban–rural land transfer mechanism.	Implemented resettlement for the Chenjiaba Urban–Rural Integration community [59]; the comprehensive land consolidation pilots in Xincheng Town and another township were selected among the first 15 typical cases by the Ministry of Natural Resources and recognized as outstanding cases for promoting common prosperity in Zhejiang Province [60]; the district’s “multi-plot consolidation” rate reached 93.97%, ranking top city-wide [61,62]; high-standard farmland was fully constructed, and Xiuzhou was listed among Zhejiang Province’s “Major Grain-Producing Counties” [63].
Transportation	Optimize the transportation network layout to achieve equal urban–rural transportation services; plan the Xiuzhou District transportation and nodal hub system; standardize the construction standards of primary transportation networks in urban and rural areas; plan multimodal hubs (“road-rail-water-air”) and enhance the development of distinctive scenic roads.	Jiaxing Airport was designated as a global air logistics hub and selected as one of the first pilot units for the Postal Special Project of a Transportation Power; the Zhajiangsu Expressway expansion commenced; the Ma Wangtang multimodal transport base was initiated; the multimodal transport center was delivered, with the A6 warehouse nearing completion; integrated passenger transport between urban and rural areas reached the Ministry of Transport’s 5A level, and the rate of high-quality and moderate rural roads exceeded 92% [51].
Public Service	Equip urban and rural communities with well-equipped public service facilities nearby to achieve integrated construction; optimize the service levels of cultural, sports, medical, and elderly care facilities; assist in the pilot construction of the Xincheng Torch Community.	The “Multi-Venue Cultural Facility Socialized Operation” project was recognized as a provincial model experience for common prosperity, establishing a national universal and inclusive preschool education zone; the “Building Modern Urban–Rural Integration Communities and Creating High-Quality Platforms for Farmers’ Urban Transition” project was selected as a provincial best practice [55]; the Torch Community was chosen as a second-batch pilot for high-quality development and common prosperity demonstration in Zhejiang Province and as a model case for integrated village-level reform, implementing an intelligent care model combining medical care, nursing, and elderly services.

).

Throughout the study, the research team ensured consistency in the work dimensions and work boundaries. Regarding the working mechanism, the research team conducted in-depth research and analysis with government departments and finally determined that the Xiuzhou District Development and Reform Bureau was the lead unit of this study. Through comprehensive and in-depth communication and discussion with various functional departments (including the Agriculture and Rural Bureau, Transportation Bureau, Natural Resources Planning Bureau, Construction Bureau, Business Bureau, street and town governments, villagers’ representatives, enterprise representatives, etc.), the research team has held five large-scale expert consultation meetings and more than ten discussion meetings of Xiuzhou District functional departments, including street, town, resident representatives, and enterprise representatives, to dynamically discuss and track the objectives, measures and implementation effects of the project, including the display of work results and work objectives through the network and multimedia exhibition hall. This work mechanism accurately identified the demands and difficulties of Xiuzhou District in urban–rural integrated development planning and ensured the authority of the results of urban–rural integrated planning through the transmission work of the Xiuzhou District Development and Reform Bureau.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Research on the construction and practical application of urban–rural integration planning models from the perspective of the movement of factors is an exploration of urban–rural coordinated development. This study explored the theory of urban–rural integration planning from the perspective of element circulation by utilizing collaborative policy and spatial planning methods. Taking Xiuzhou District in Jiaxing City as an example, this study proposes an urban–rural integration planning model and working path by combining local trends and challenges in urban–rural integration; doing so provides theoretical guidance and practical examples for implementing the concept of urban–rural integration and promoting the execution of urban–rural integration development plans.

As the urban–rural relationship in China continues to evolve, there is an ongoing need to refine the theoretical research and practical exploration of urban–rural integration planning. First, urban–rural integration planning explicitly aims at urban–rural integration. In the future, it will be essential to effectively link this with national spatial planning and detailed planning, and to coordinate it with other specialized plans. Second, in China, the implementation process of urban–rural integration planning is complex and requires the coordination of various forces. Special attention should be paid to how feedback and adjustments can be made based on implementation effects. Integrating feedback and making adjustments based on implementation outcomes are key issues requiring special attention. Third, urban–rural integration development is a systematic project. Achieving multidimensional integration of urban and rural spaces necessitates a comprehensive focus on issues such as population, industry, ecology, and culture.

The study takes Xiuzhou District, Jiaxing City, China, as a case. Its policy environment and administrative hierarchies exhibit distinct Chinese characteristics, making direct replication in other countries or regions challenging. However, the systematically integrated spatial planning and policy innovation model proposed in this research can achieve effective adaptation to diverse socioeconomic conditions or governance frameworks through localization adaptations. When carrying out relevant work in various regions in the future, we can learn from the Xiuzhou District urban–rural integration planning model, that is, through deep binding with the government to form the work demands and collection of various functional departments in the study area and the larger region, to clarify the endowment characteristics of urban–rural elements, and then carry out targeted research and feedback on the implementation subjects, such as streets, communities, and towns. This will enable us to determine the breakthrough point of regional urban–rural integration through qualitative and quantitative analysis and then combine the six integration designs. Of course, based on the actual situation of each region, we can add more dimensions of integration design, formulate the framework and path of urban–rural integration, conduct and implement the work requirements, objectives, and measures through the government “brain”, which will become the basis and reference for each department to formulate relevant work content, and ultimately define the urban–rural elements and ensure the healthy circulation of elements.

Because the urban–rural integration work has the characteristics of wide content, complex working procedures, long duration and so on, and the relevant data are different due to different statistical subjects and different statistical times, they are difficult to obtain. Therefore, the research shows the achievements of urban–rural integration to a certain extent by sorting out the data with high correlation with the previous statistical data of the six elements in recent years. Future research will continue to track the development of relevant data indicators, and research based on the urban–rural integration planning model will further explore urban–rural integration in different regions. This will provide more theoretical support and practical references for urban and rural construction in China as well as methodological and experiential support for related research in other countries and regions.