From Urban Planning to Territorial Spatial Planning: The Evolution of China’s Planning System and the Persistent Barriers to Urban–Rural Integration

Abstract

This paper critically examines the persistent limitations of spatial planning reforms in China in addressing urban–rural integration, despite significant and successive legislative and planning reforms. Through a historically grounded and institutionally informed analysis, the study traces the evolution of China’s planning regimes across three key phases—urban planning, urban–rural planning, and territorial spatial planning (TSP)—highlighting shifting policy logics and the enduring structural challenges that shape rural marginalization. Drawing on national planning documents and authors’ empirical insights from planning practice, the paper identifies four interrelated and persistent constraints: (1) cross-scalar and interdepartmental fragmentation in governance, (2) contradictions in the land system that restrict rural development rights, (3) fiscal dependence on land conversion that distorts planning priorities, and (4) technical and conceptual gaps that reduce rural planning to physicalist and exogenous interventions. The paper contributes by offering a periodized account of China’s rural planning reforms, situating these within global debates on rural marginalization, and evaluating the transformative potential of the TSP framework. It argues that achieving meaningful urban–rural integration requires a fundamental rethinking of planning as a developmental, rather than solely regulatory, practice—one that is territorially embedded, socially responsive, and functionally aligned with endogenous rural revitalization.

1. Introduction

Over the past four decades, China has undergone a profound transformation in its spatial and socio-economic landscape. Fueled by rapid urbanization and industrial growth, the country’s planning system has evolved in tandem with national development priorities. Yet, despite successive waves of planning reform, the longstanding challenge of integrating urban and rural territories remains only partially addressed [1,2]. As urban cores continue to thrive under concentrated investments and institutional support, vast rural areas are often left peripheral—economically, spatially, and, to some extent, politically [3]. Consequently, a large amount of rural land has been expropriated to facilitate urban–industrial growth, resulting not only in a sharp decline in arable land but also in the displacement of many rural residents [4]. These villagers have either entered the urban labor market as low-wage workers or become unemployed residents in urban or peri-urban resettlement neighborhoods [5]. Such processes have placed considerable pressure on national food security and social stability [6]. This persistent urban–rural divide has exposed fundamental limitations in China’s spatial governance system, especially in terms of achieving balanced regional development and holistic spatial planning [7].

In response to these challenges, the Chinese government has repeatedly revised its planning apparatus. From the urban-centered paradigm of the 1989 Urban Planning Law, to the urban–rural coordination aspirations of the 2008 Urban and Rural Planning Law, and more recently, to the 2018 launch of the Territorial Spatial Planning (TSP) system, each reform cycle has aimed to correct structural deficiencies in spatial governance. These transitions reflect an evolving policy ambition to overcome institutional fragmentation, reconcile land-use conflicts, and enhance the integration of development agendas across urban and rural regions [8]. Nevertheless, despite these efforts, the practical outcomes have often fallen short of stated objectives. In many parts of China, rural areas continue to suffer from weak infrastructure, unclear land rights, limited public service access, and inadequate voice in strategic planning [9,10].

Hence, the central research question of this study is the following: Why have successive spatial planning reforms in China struggled to achieve effective urban–rural integration, and what lessons can be drawn for future reforms? It argues that while reform discourses have grown more integrative in language and intent, the institutional logics and policy tools underpinning them have remained constrained by enduring legacies of urban-biased administrative, fiscal, and planning structures. The recent TSP reform represents a conceptual shift towards ecosystem-based, multi-level spatial coordination. Yet, without addressing entrenched structural rural marginalization, the effectiveness of this new planning regime remains uncertain [11].

To address the research question, in terms of methodology, the paper adopts a historically grounded and institutionally sensitive analytical approach. It draws on a combination of secondary policy analysis and qualitative insights from previous empirical work conducted by the authors. These empirical insights are not for primary case study analysis, but as an illustrative evidence base to ground the theoretical critique.

Theoretically, this paper is informed by critical institutionalism [12] and planning theory perspectives that emphasize the interplay between formal spatial governance regimes and political–economic dynamics. It draws on the notion of regulatory fragmentation and path dependency to interpret why successive planning reforms, despite normative aspirations, often fail to produce transformative outcomes. This perspective allows us to position spatial planning not as a neutral technical tool, but as a contested institutional field shaped by structural power asymmetries and administrative logics.

Existing research on China’s planning reforms has offered valuable insights into urban-biased policy legacies [13] and the evolution of statutory frameworks [14]. Scholars have also examined the implications of land-based fiscal systems [15] and the resultant political economy of rural land expropriation [16]. However, relatively few studies have systematically assessed how these institutional and spatial contradictions persist across different planning reform phases, which is argued to have greatly influenced China’s urban–rural integrated development. This paper builds on and extends these debates by offering a periodized institutional critique of planning reforms from the perspective of rural marginalization.

This study makes three key contributions. First, it offers a periodized account of China’s rural planning reform trajectory, identifying critical shifts and enduring continuities and supplementing the urban-centric planning studies in China. Second, it interrogates the administrative and fiscal architectures that shape planning outcomes, framing China’s urban–rural integrated development practices in relation to broader global debates on rural marginalization. Third, it reflects on the potential and limits of China’s emerging territorial spatial planning system as a transformative framework, and proposes directions for future reform grounded in both international best practices and the specificities of China’s governance context. Ultimately, this paper argues that meaningful urban–rural integration requires more than discursive shifts or technical adjustments—it demands a fundamental rethinking of how spatial planning is conceptualized, institutionalized, and implemented in China. By critically examining past reforms and their limitations, this study seeks to inform more adaptive, inclusive, and territorially coherent planning approaches in the future.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 traces the historical evolution of China’s national planning system across three key phases—urban planning, urban–rural planning, and the current territorial spatial planning—highlighting the shifting policy goals and institutional logics underpinning each. Section 3 analyzes the persistent challenges that have constrained the effectiveness of planning reforms, including institutional and governance fragmentation, urban-biased land development rights, fiscal constraints and land finance regime, and knowledge gaps of technocratic planning. Section 4 reflects on the implications of these findings, drawing on international planning practices to propose directions for rethinking spatial governance in support of more integrated urban–rural development. The final section concludes by summarizing key insights and outlining lessons for future reforms.

2. Evolution of China’s National Planning System and Rural Planning Policies

China’s spatial planning system has undergone significant transformation over the past four decades, shaped by broader shifts in national development priorities and evolving rural–urban policy dynamics. While some studies emphasize the TSP reform in 2018 as a watershed moment that formally incorporates rural areas into the national planning system, in reality, rural planning has long occupied a place, albeit with varying degrees of formality and enforcement, within the broader planning apparatus [17,18]. The institutional status, legal authority, and implementation strength of rural planning have fluctuated across different stages of reform.

This paper divides the reform trajectory into three phases based on major legal and institutional milestones: the 1989 Urban Planning Law, the 2008 Urban and Rural Planning Law, and the 2018 launch of the TSP system. It highlights the rationale and limitations of each in addressing the persistent challenge of urban–rural integration.

2.1. Urban Planning Era (Pre-2008)

China’s planning system in this phase, in general, institutionalized urban–rural divides rather than integration, and contributed to land finance-driven industrialization strategies that accelerated the expropriation of rural land without coordinated regional planning. This set the stage for mounting spatial and socio-economic disparities.

The foundation of China’s statutory planning system was laid with the 1989 Urban Planning Law, which codified an urban-focused planning model. While the jurisdictions of local governments in China, such as prefectural or county governments, govern both urban and rural areas, the national planning system in this phase primarily targeted the development and management of fully urbanized built-up areas, particularly city centers [19]. Consequently, rural territories were largely excluded from planning coverage. During this period, urban planning functioned primarily as a tool for managing industrial expansion and urban land development in support of national modernization goals that prioritize urban–industrial growth [20].

This urban-centric paradigm was deeply embedded in China’s dualistic urban–rural governance structure, where rural areas were not only administratively peripheral but also largely excluded from public welfare provision, infrastructure investment, and development opportunities [21]. The result was a spatialized hierarchy, in which cities benefited from state-led investment while rural regions remained structurally disadvantaged.

Despite the exclusion of rural areas from the statutory planning system, the Ministry of Construction, the central administrative authority overseeing planning between 1988 and 2008, issued a series of regulatory documents aimed at providing technical guidance for rural development. Notably, in 1994, the Ministry released the Codes for Town and Village Planning as a mandatory national standard. This code was primarily designed to regulate the planning of villages and market towns, which refer to organically developed rural settlements lacking formal administrative status [22], as administrative towns were already covered by the urban system plan established by the 1989 Urban Planning Law.

The 1994 Code thus served to extend planning principles, albeit in a limited and largely technocratic form, to rural settlements that fell outside the scope of the formal statutory planning regime. This code established a hierarchical classification of rural settlements based on residential population size, distinguishing between villages and market towns, and specified recommended proportions for four categories of construction land: residential areas, public services, roads and squares, and public green space. It also set out basic codes for building construction in these areas, albeit in relatively coarse terms.

Subsequently, in 2000 and 2006, the Ministry released Guidelines for the Preparation of Town and Village Plans and the Provisional Guidelines for the Preparation of Town-and-Village System Plans in Counties, respectively. As a result, a two-tier rural planning framework composed of town-and-village master plans and construction plans was established [23]. The town-and-village master plan serves as a comprehensive framework for guiding development across the administrative area of a township. It defines the overall development objectives of the township and proposes adjustments to the spatial distribution of villages. It also projects the pace and direction of labor transfer from rural to urban areas, provides recommendations for the allocation of public services, and establishes preliminary land quotas and building codes. Building on this foundation, the construction plan translates strategic objectives into concrete spatial arrangements, such as detailed land-use layouts, coordinates the implementation of municipal infrastructure, and sets out principles for land parcel adjustment, building design, and project execution.

While these documents provided further technical frameworks for extending planning practice to rural areas, they remained limited in scope and enforceability. Even though some local governments experimented with these plans for rural areas in the 1990s, these efforts were often ad hoc and typically applied urban planning and building codes to peri-urban areas, leaving most remote rural settlements outside formal spatial governance structures.

2.2. Urban–Rural Planning Era (2008–2018)

During this period, the legal status of rural planning was formally recognized, aligning with a broader national policy shift aimed at narrowing the pronounced urban–rural divide. However, the fragmentation of the overall planning system became increasingly evident. Multiple government departments continued to operate their own spatial planning regimes, and coordination between spatial and development planning remained weak [24]. As a result, under the pressures of rapid urbanization, the national planning system proved largely ineffective in safeguarding rural resources from urban encroachment.

The 2000s witnessed a growing recognition of rural issues within national development discourse, culminating in the 2008 Urban and Rural Planning Law. This marked the first statutory attempt to incorporate rural areas into China’s statutory planning framework, providing a legal basis for extending planning responsibilities to rural settlements. Under the law, a two-level rural planning framework was formally built, including the township plan and the village plan. Under this framework, village plans must be approved through the villagers’ congress, China’s statutory village-level participatory decision-making body, before being submitted to the county-level government for final approval. Importantly, the law does not require universal planning coverage across all rural settlements. Instead, higher-level governments, typically at the county level or above, are authorized to determine which villages should prepare formal plans, based on local socio-economic development conditions. This selective and decentralized approach reflects both the practical resource constraints of Chinese grassroots planning authorities and the uneven development of rural planning capacity across regions.

This institutional shift aligned with the launch of the Building New Socialist Countryside (BNSC) Campaign in 2005, a major central government initiative aimed at improving rural infrastructure and public service provision to meet the basic needs of rural communities [25]. Within this context, township and village planning were tasked primarily with making land-use arrangements and providing development guidance for rural housing, public facilities, and the protection of natural and cultural heritage resources.

The planning reform also introduced regulatory mechanisms for development control. Any construction of township- or village-owned enterprises, public facilities, or rural residential housing within designated township or village planning areas must obtain a rural construction planning permit. This permit is issued by the planning authority of the prefectural or county-level government upon application from the township government. Furthermore, construction within these areas is prohibited from occupying agricultural land unless a formal land conversion procedure, pursuant to the Land Administration Law, is completed. This marked a significant step towards integrating rural development into a formalized planning and regulatory framework, further centralizing the rural land development rights. However, at this stage, rural planning remained narrowly focused on rural settlements, without extending to non-built-up space in rural areas.

However, during this period, rural spatial governance remained highly fragmented, primarily due to the structural disjunctions within China’s spatial planning system. While the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (MOHURD, which succeeded the Ministry of Construction in 2008) nominally oversaw urban and rural planning, other powerful ministries operated parallel planning regimes. These included land-use planning under the Ministry of Land and Resources and main functional area planning under the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). In addition, various departments produced sectoral plans, such as transport planning, environmental protection planning, and agricultural planning, that also directly shaped land development and construction activities. The coexistence of these overlapping planning systems often resulted in inconsistent land designations for the same parcels, resource misallocation, and administrative inefficiencies. Compounding this were development plans, such as the national and local five-year plans administered by the NDRC, which identified strategic local development goals and key state-funded projects — defining what to build and where to invest — often without aligning with the spatial logic or land-use constraints set by statutory planning instruments.

2.3. Territorial Spatial Planning Era (2018–Present)

The launch of the TSP reform in 2018 marked China’s ambitious attempt to consolidate its fragmented spatial planning and governance system. Responding to longstanding problems of overlapping plans and conflicting land designations, the reform aimed to integrate previously parallel planning systems into a unified, hierarchical framework under the supervision of the newly established Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). MNR was formed on the basis of the Ministry of Land and Resources and incorporated spatial planning-related functions from multiple agencies, including the MOHURD.

At the core of this reform lies the central government’s intention towards “multi-plan integration”, ensuring that cross-sectoral spatial planning at the national, provincial, prefectural, county, and town/township administrative levels follows coherent objectives, standards, and implementation mechanisms. Moreover, the previously separate land-use plans, main functional area plans, and urban–rural plans have been consolidated into a unified system of territorial spatial master plan under the leadership of the MNR. In addition, sectoral plans have also been incorporated into this new framework, now subordinated to the territorial master plan, while also serving to guide the formulation of detailed plans that are for everyday development control. As a result, the preparation of master plans in practice requires coordination and approval from multiple local departments to ensure policy alignment and spatial consistency across administrative and sectoral domains.

Unlike earlier systems that primarily targeted either urban built-up areas or sector-siloed land uses, TSP aspires to govern all land across the country, urban and rural alike. It introduces a comprehensive spatial control system based on three zoning redlines—ecological conservation redlines, permanent basic farmland protection lines, and urban development boundaries—to coordinate urban and rural development, agricultural production, and ecological preservation across all territories.

In principle, TSP represents a fundamental shift toward holistic governance of urban and rural spaces, thus creating a more systematic basis for promoting urban–rural integration. First, rural planning, in the form of a village plan, is integrated into TSP as a regulatory detailed plan. Rural areas, encompassing both built-up settlements and non-built-up, ecological and agricultural spaces, are, for the first time, incorporated into a unified national spatial planning system rather than being addressed through separate or ad hoc planning instruments.

Second, the TSP framework, which is grounded in rigid zoning and blueprint-based planning, has been increasingly coupled with technocratic governance tools such as satellite monitoring, drone patrols, and top–down routine inspections. Drawn on international experiences such as the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON), a pan-European platform aimed at supporting evidence-based territorial development through comparative data, scenario building, and spatial analysis, China has been building China Spatial Planning Online Monitoring Network (CSPON), which aspires to create a knowledge infrastructure that informs multi-scalar planning, monitors spatial transformations, and supports policy coordination across sectors and regions. However, unlike ESPON’s bottom–up, research-oriented model, CSPON operates within a highly centralized political system and serves a more technocratic and regulatory function, aligning closely with national strategic objectives. This emerging combination of planning control and new technology has significantly reduced the discretionary space of local planning authorities while reinforcing top–down spatial control, particularly in efforts to prevent the encroachment of urban development into rural territories.

Such strict protection of rural land resources reflects the central government’s broader determination to curb unregulated urban expansion. In the context of a declining real estate market and persistently unaffordable housing prices, unrestrained land development, often driven by speculative motives or as a means for developers to leverage land for financing, has become increasingly unsustainable, posing risks to both economic efficiency and social stability [11]. In parallel, intensifying geopolitical tensions have heightened national concerns over food security [26]. Protecting shrinking farmland resources through stringent spatial controls has thus become a critical priority for the state.

Moreover, the TSP reform is also embedded in the central government’s larger agenda to rebalance urban–rural relations and prevent the one-way extraction of rural resources by urban centers. In the post-pandemic era, as urban employment becomes more volatile, rural areas are expected to play an increasingly important role in absorbing surplus labor. At the same time, improvements in rural living conditions, spurred by the BNSC campaign, have attracted growing interest from urban capital seeking investment opportunities in rural regions. It is in this context that the Rural Revitalization Strategy (RRS) was introduced, one year before the TSP reform. As the successor to the BNSC campaign, the RRS marked a significant shift by placing urban and rural development on equal footing within the national development agenda [27]. It reflects the central government’s ambition to narrow the urban–rural divide and achieve meaningful integration.

Beyond infrastructure and public service improvements, the RRS places strong emphasis on not only rural economic prosperity but also extra-economic dimensions of development, including cultural revitalization, effective governance, and social cohesion. Crucially, RRS institutionalizes rural development as a political task across all levels of party committees, from the five administrative tiers covered by TSP down to village-level party committees [28]. This has mobilized substantial administrative and fiscal resources in support of rural development. Therefore, from a policy perspective, TSP can also be understood as an institutional mechanism designed to support and operationalize the goals of rural revitalization, particularly by offering a spatial governance framework that both safeguards rural resources and enhances rural development capacity in a coordinated, integrated manner.

Nevertheless, recent studies have shown that, despite multiple rounds of reform in both spatial planning and the broader rural development agenda (

Table 1. Evolution of Chinese spatial planning reform and constraints (source: made by authors).

Phase	Legal Foundation	Planning Logic	Spatial Coverage	Key Constraints Identified
Urban Planning (pre-2008)	1989 Urban Planning Law	Urban-centric, industrial growth	Urban built-up areas	Rural exclusion, land expropriation, fiscal urban bias
Urban–Rural Planning (2008–2018)	2008 Urban and Rural Planning Law	Selective rural inclusion	Urban built-up areas + rural built-up areas only	Interdepartmental fragmentation, weak rural-related authority
Territorial Spatial Planning (2018–present)	2018 TSP reform and MNR formation	Integrated but centralized control	All territory (urban + rural)	Technocratic planning, rigid zoning, limited local autonomy, uneven planning capacity, and resources

), the structurally unequal relationship between urban and rural territories has yet to be fundamentally addressed in the everyday practices of spatial governance and development [11]. Urban areas continue to dominate resource allocation and decision-making processes, and the issue of rural marginalization remains persistent.

One key reason lies in the gap between the policy intentions of the planning system reform and the institutional environment it is actually implemented. While recent reforms have promoted a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to rural planning—such as the introduction of zonal access control, which designates varying levels of development permission based on spatial zoning categories, and quota-based regulation, which allocates land development rights according to pre-set quantitative limits—local governments often struggle to operationalize these frameworks due to technical constraints, weak institutional coordination, and insufficient planning capacity. In addition, tensions persist between the central government’s emphasis on strict spatial control and local governments’ developmental imperatives. The centralized, top–down enforcement logic of TSP frequently clashes with the bottom–up demands of local economic growth and rural revitalization, further complicating efforts to rebalance urban–rural relations.

The following section draws on a review of the existing literature and the authors’ empirical insights to analyze the structural causes of these persistent tensions.

3. Persistent Constraints and Contradictions

Building on a critical institutionalist perspective that has been increasingly adopted in Chinese planning studies [29], this section analyzes how deeply embedded administrative structures, fiscal incentives, land development rights, and technocratic logics have constrained the reform potential of spatial planning in China. Rather than seeing these constraints as implementation failures, we interpret them as outcomes of historically sedimented governance rationalities.

3.1. Institutional and Governance Fragmentation

Institutional fragmentation and misaligned governance structures constitute fundamental obstacles to urban–rural integration within China’s spatial planning framework. This section analyzes two interconnected dimensions of this institutional issue. First, it discusses the vertical fragmentation and misalignment between central policy directives and local governmental priorities, highlighting tensions stemming from top–down implementation logics versus local political incentives. Second, it examines horizontal fragmentation characterized by persistent interdepartmental coordination challenges, which result in inefficient governance, redundant interventions, and conflicting spatial planning outcomes. Together, these two aspects demonstrate how structural governance issues compromise the effectiveness and coherence of integrated spatial planning efforts.

3.1.1. Cross-Scalar Misalignment Between Governments

At the core of this fragmentation is the hierarchical yet disconnected structure of governance. China operates a five-tier government structure, ranging from the central to the local level. These include the central government, provincial-level governments, prefecture-level governments, county-level governments, and township-level governments. Village committees, while present at the grassroots level, are formally recognized as self-governing organizations rather than official tiers of government [30].

Central and provincial governments formulate ambitious planning objectives, often emphasizing urban–rural coordination and resource protection. However, at the county and township levels—where plans are implemented—local authorities operate under tight fiscal constraints and are often driven by economic performance incentives. For example, in one township in Shanxi Province, the authors’ analysis of the territorial spatial plan revealed that while the total area allocated for urban and rural construction land increased by approximately 17%, the designated area for rural construction land alone declined by around 25%. This reflects a broader pattern in which rural space continues to serve as a reserve land pool for urban expansion. In such contexts, local governments tend to treat planning not as a framework for promoting balanced territorial development, but rather as a political instrument for meeting upper-level evaluation targets or legitimizing pre-determined investment projects.

Although the RRS has strengthened policy attention towards rural development and construction, its implementation has largely been concentrated in selected demonstration villages. This targeted approach has, in practice, resulted in an uneven allocation of land development rights, effectively depriving non-priority villages of their land-use quotas. In one particular case in Shanxi, over 50% of newly designated construction land in a village was appropriated and converted from construction land originally allocated to other villages—illustrating how certain rural areas continue to serve as land reserves for prioritized zones, rather than benefiting equally from development opportunities.

Moreover, higher-level policies and plans often overlook implementation capacity at the township and village level, leading to a mismatch between planning ambition and administrative capability [31]. The lack of feedback mechanisms between planning and implementation further exacerbates this disconnection, resulting in plans that are either ignored or applied in a symbolic and partial manner. Consequently, rural plans are frequently produced in a top–down, tokenistic manner, with limited attention to actual local needs or feasibility.

3.1.2. Interdepartmental Incoordination

The institutional fragmentation is not only vertical but also horizontal. Although the TSP reform has nominally consolidated planning authority under the MNR, the legacy of bureaucratic silos persists. On paper, the requirement that multiple departments jointly review and approve territorial spatial plans has begun to improve interdepartmental coordination [21]. However, two structural limitations remain. First, as the TSP system is still in an exploratory phase, fragmentation in plan-making and implementation continues to be widespread [32]. Second, and more critically, key central agencies—such as NDRC and the Ministry of Finance—retain control over development plans and fiscal strategies, which are not fully integrated into the TSP system. These agencies often hold higher administrative authority than the MNR, creating institutional hierarchies that hinder genuine policy coordination. As a result, horizontal coordination across sectors remains limited. Interviews conducted by the author in Jiangsu Province suggest that collaboration among departments is often informal, ad hoc, and reliant on personal networks rather than embedded in robust, institutionalized mechanisms. This frequently leads to overlapping or even contradictory interventions—such as ecological conservation plans conflicting with industrial park development priorities—even within the same jurisdiction.

Overall, the persistence of top–down command structures, the divergence between political incentives at different administrative levels, and the sectoral fragmentation of planning responsibilities continue to obstruct efforts towards coherent urban–rural spatial integration. Without fundamental changes to the governance mechanisms that coordinate planning, implementation, and interdepartmental collaboration, the ambition of achieving genuinely integrated spatial development will remain elusive.

3.2. Urban-Biased Land Development Rights

Another major structural impediment to achieving meaningful urban–rural integration in China arises from deeply embedded biases in land development rights and planning practices. This section explores how the institutionalized distinction between urban and rural land ownership—manifested as state-owned urban land versus collectively owned rural land—systematically constrains rural development opportunities. Two core issues are examined: firstly, how the existing land governance framework limits rural communities’ ability to control and benefit from their own land resources; and, secondly, how rural development continues to receive limited attention within spatial planning processes, which predominantly favor urban growth and conservation-driven land-use controls. Together, these dynamics perpetuate uneven spatial outcomes and reinforce rural marginalization.

3.2.1. Constrained Rural Land Development Rights

Another persistent structural constraint to urban–rural integration in China is the tension embedded in the land system itself. This tension stems from competing and often incompatible imperatives: protecting agricultural and ecological land versus accommodating development pressures, especially urban expansion and industrial growth. Despite the recent TSP reform, the land-use tensions remain deeply entrenched and continue to produce uneven spatial outcomes, particularly for rural areas [33].

Historically, China’s dual land property system—distinguishing between state-owned urban land and collectively owned rural land—has institutionalized the segmentation of urban and rural spaces, both legally and administratively. In practice, rural land is often converted into urban construction land through state expropriation, enabling local governments to profit from land sales while facilitating urban development [34]. As a result, large areas of rural land have been appropriated for enterprise zones, infrastructure projects, and speculative real estate development.

The state-dominating legal–institutional framework of rural land development has led to a sharp decline in arable land and the fragmentation of rural territorial integrity, contributing to the marginalization of rural residents who are often displaced or absorbed into urban peripheries without sufficient compensation or stable livelihoods.

3.2.2. Limited Planning Priority for Rural Development

To counter these trends, the TSP system introduced a series of regulatory mechanisms designed to enforce strict land-use control and prevent uncontrolled urban sprawl [35]. While these mechanisms represent a technical improvement over the fragmented zoning approaches of the past, they also risk oversimplifying spatial governance through rigid demarcation. In practice, the redline-based planning control tends to emphasize environmental and agricultural protection without adequately addressing the developmental needs and multi-functional complexities of rural spaces. For example, in the village plan of a township in Anhui Province (Figure 1), the planning content focuses primarily on the physical regulation of the residential settlement area. This includes the spatial layout of construction land, the siting and standards for housing, public services, and infrastructure, as well as controls on the built environment and architectural character. However, with regard to the development of local economic industries—which are crucial to people-based socio-economic revitalization—the plan merely outlines vague directional guidance, without offering concrete strategies or implementation mechanisms. The area designated as arable land, closely linked to the national food security strategy, increased by 10 hectares, while other categories of construction land were either reduced or remained unchanged. Notably, land allocated for industrial or economic development was virtually absent from the plan.

Moreover, land-use tensions are not only about development versus protection, but also about whose development is prioritized. Consequently, inconsistencies between spatial planning and development planning continue to generate land-use conflicts. While spatial plans now restrict land conversion to protect agricultural land, development plans—particularly at the local level—frequently propose urban–industrial projects that require land acquisition. In many instances, these projects offer limited benefits to the rural communities whose land is being repurposed [36]. Instead of supporting inclusive rural transformation, such interventions often displace local populations and entrench socio-spatial inequalities.

Therefore, land in rural areas continues to be viewed primarily as a resource for urban-oriented growth. These competing demands often result in misaligned planning outcomes, where local officials seek to bypass spatial constraints by formally reclassifying land uses or initiating informal planning exemptions [11]. The institutional authority of spatial plans is thus frequently undermined by fiscal and political pressures tied to land development, particularly in regions where land-based finance remains a critical source of local revenue.

In summary, while the TSP reform has strengthened technical mechanisms for rural land conservation and planning control, it has not fundamentally restructured the local state-dominating political economy of rural land use or rebalanced the urban–rural power dynamic embedded in planning practices. Unless rural development is redefined beyond conservation and residual land supply for urban growth, land-use policy will remain a site of contradiction rather than a platform for integration.

3.3. Fiscal Constraints and Land Finance Regime

Fiscal constraints constitute a critical structural barrier to China’s efforts at achieving integrated urban–rural development through spatial planning. This section explores how the dependence of local governments on land-based revenues, also known as the land finance regime, has significantly influenced spatial governance, shaping both the incentives and practices of local planners and policymakers. Two interrelated issues are examined here: first, the institutionalized fiscal reliance of local governments on land sales, which creates structural biases toward urban-centric development; and second, the subsequent distortion of spatial planning practices, which are subordinated to revenue-generation objectives rather than promoting equitable and sustainable rural revitalization.

3.3.1. Local States’ Fiscal Dependence on Land Finance

A structural cause for the urban–industrial-biased development and planning practices in China is the fiscal architecture of local governance. Over the past three decades, local governments have become deeply reliant on land-based financing to fund infrastructure, public services, and local economic development [37]. In this land finance regime, local governments expropriate rural, collectively owned land, demolish villages, and relocate their residents, subsequently converting the land into state-owned construction land [18]. The converted land is then sold at high prices to developers, with the resulting revenues, primarily from land transfer fees from developers, used to fund urban infrastructure projects and subsidize industrial exports.

The origin of land finance stems from the post-1994 tax-sharing reform, which significantly weakened the revenue base of local governments while maintaining their expenditure responsibilities. It is estimated that local authorities account for 54% of the total budget revenue but over 85% of the expenditure in 2021 [38], causing serious local debt issues. In 2024, the State Council released official local government debt statistics for the first time, revealing a total debt exceeding CNY 40 trillion [39].

This fiscal dependency on land revenue has had profound implications for the spatial treatment of rural areas: it incentivizes the commodification of rural land [40], reinforces urban-centric development priorities [41], and ultimately undermines the long-term sustainability of rural revitalization. Village relocation and land consolidation were designed primarily to ‘free up’ development land and fulfill performance targets.

3.3.2. Land Revenue-Facing Planning Practice

Under China’s land finance regime, the fiscal orientation of local governments has significantly shaped the priorities and functions of spatial planning. In many cases, rural planning is reduced to tokenistic documents designed primarily to fulfill regulatory requirements or facilitate the approval of land development projects. Rather than serving as a platform for promoting endogenous rural development or ensuring equitable land use, planning becomes an extension of the land-centered financing model—reinforcing extractive and speculative development logics. The visual upgrading of rural areas, through façade renovation, standardized housing schemes, or reconfigured village squares, is often pursued to increase land value or demonstrate compliance with higher-level policy mandates, rather than to address the actual needs of rural communities or support rural economic transformation [42].

At the national level, policies have encouraged the inclusion of rural economic development within spatial planning. For instance, as early as in the year 2020, the No. 1 Central Document stipulated that no less than 10% of construction land quotas in newly prepared county- and township-level territorial spatial plans should be reserved to support rural industrial development. However, this target has proven difficult to realize in practice. According to the authors’ field observations in multiple counties and townships, construction land quotas at the county and township levels are typically allocated top–down by higher-level plans. Given the overall scarcity of land quotas, priority is almost always given to urban construction needs. Unless rural industrial projects are already clearly defined in terms of location and scale, they are rarely formally designated in plans. Instead, most plans refer to such uses in symbolic or schematic terms—often marking potential locations without specifying spatial boundaries or land area. In practice, land for rural industries is commonly secured during the implementation stage through land consolidation efforts, such as reclaiming inefficient or idle rural homesteads. This ad hoc approach reflects the broader subordination of rural planning to fiscal and administrative constraints and highlights the limited autonomy of rural spaces within the current land governance framework.

Moreover, land finance introduces inter-scalar distortions that obstruct urban–rural integration. County-level governments, which play a key role in rural spatial planning, must simultaneously respond to top–down development indicators, balance local budgets, and compete for private investment. As a result, spatial planning often becomes subordinated to project-driven development strategies [43]. At a broader policy level, this reliance on land finance contradicts the aims of the recent RRS policy and TSP reform. While these central policy frameworks emphasize the urban–rural integrated development, the underlying fiscal system continues to incentivize the conversion of rural land into urbanized assets [21]. The disjuncture between spatial policy intentions and fiscal realities reveals the limits of institutional reform when core incentives remain misaligned.

In summary, land finance has not only shaped the spatial configuration of urban–rural territories but also distorted the institutional logic of rural planning itself. Without a restructuring of local fiscal systems, through more equitable transfer mechanisms, stable rural development funding, and reforms to the land market, the planning system will remain constrained by short-termism and extractive development practices. Achieving meaningful urban–rural integration requires not only spatial coordination but also a fundamental adjustment of fiscal allocation and expenditure between central and local governments.

3.4. Knowledge Gaps of Technocratic Planning

In addition to the administrative and fiscal constraints discussed above—and their distorting effects on planning—China’s rural planning practice also suffers from internal knowledge gaps. These gaps are not merely operational, but reveal deeper limitations in how planning is conceptualized, professionalized, and implemented within rural contexts. Two interrelated challenges are particularly salient: the persistent dominance of technocratic approaches to rural planning and the lack of a coherent understanding of how planning should relate to processes of endogenous rural development.

3.4.1. Persistence of Technocratic Planning Approaches

One of the enduring characteristics of rural planning in China is its overwhelming emphasis on physical layout and spatial form. Although recent policy discourse, particularly under the TSP framework, has embraced multidisciplinary knowledge, including particular attention to ecological systems such as mountains, rivers, forests, farmlands, lakes, and grasslands, this knowledge remains largely grounded in physical management logics [44]. Planning practices thus often focus on delineating land-use zones, controlling building form, regulating setbacks, and enhancing visual aesthetics, while offering limited engagement with the socio-economic foundations of rural transformation.

This physicalist bias is a legacy of China’s technocratic planning tradition, which historically prioritized order, control, and form over social process and participatory development [45]. As a result, rural plans tend to be dominated by technical drawings, land quotas, and typological design standards, with little analytical attention to how spatial interventions relate to livelihoods, industrial renewal, or the restructuring of rural governance. A typical example is found in the first-generation Beautiful Countryside projects implemented in Nanjing. In these villages, planning centered on the physical upgrading of the built environment, including improvements to residential housing, sanitation, infrastructure, and public spaces. Rural dwellings and public buildings were renovated, reconstructed, or repainted according to unified aesthetic standards, depending on their structural condition. The goal was to produce a clean, orderly, and visually appealing village that contrasted with the stereotypical image of rural areas as dirty, chaotic, and backward—thus laying the spatial foundation for developing rural tourism.

While these interventions did produce short-term improvements in village appearance and stimulated some positive economic and social effects, such as tourism development, return migration for entrepreneurship, and increased employment, their long-term sustainability proved weak. The model was widely critiqued for reducing the concept of “beautiful countryside” to physical appearance, overly relying on state-led investment, and failing to establish the institutional and economic mechanisms necessary to sustain the village revitalization [46]. The physical betterment was not accompanied by deeper transformations in the social or economic fabric of the villages, nor by the emergence of endogenous governance structures capable of maintaining the new infrastructure investment [11]. As such, the model’s replication elsewhere often produced homogeneity rather than value-added differentiation, reinforcing the critique that physicalist planning, when detached from rural socio-economic realities, risks generating aesthetic outcomes without developmental substance.

The emphasis on ecological zoning and arable land protection in the TSP reform, particularly the recent incorporation of advanced technologies such as satellite monitoring, remote sensing, and GIS-based spatial analysis, has undoubtedly enhanced the technical capacity of plan-making and planning control [47]. However, without being embedded within a broader framework of territorial development, these tools risk reinforcing a physicalist planning logic. Plans may become increasingly sophisticated in form, yet remain shallow in their transformative potential to address structural socio-spatial disparities between urban and rural areas. Moreover, while the scope of planning expertise has expanded to include domains such as hydrology, forestry, and geology, this has not been matched by a parallel engagement with the social sciences, such as sociology, anthropology, and human geography, thereby reinforcing a technocratic and materially focused conception of what planning is and what it can do in terms of urban–rural integration [48].

3.4.2. Conceptual Disconnection Between Planning and Endogenous Development

A second and closely related gap is the weak conceptual grounding in how planning interacts with, supports, or inhibits endogenous rural development dynamics. While much of the policy discourse around RRS emphasizes endogenous, participatory, and territorial development, in practice, spatial planning remains largely exogenous to the social–institutional processes that sustain rural vitality [11]. There is limited recognition of planning as a development-enabling tool or of rural communities as co-producers of spatial change.

This disconnection reflects a broader epistemological issue in Chinese planning practice: rural planning is often conceived as a technical–rational process executed by professionals and experts, rather than as a socially embedded practice shaped by local knowledge, community agency, and institutional experimentation. As a result, planning frameworks tend to prioritize regulation over facilitation and formality over adaptability. In many village plans, development objectives are framed in vague and generic terms, such as “revitalize local industries” or “increase rural income”, without corresponding pathways, mechanisms, or cross-sectoral partnerships to support their realization. In practice, policy slogans like “rural revitalization” and “urban-rural integration” are frequently included in the general principles and goals of county- and township-level territorial spatial plans, and are also routinely referenced in village planning documents. However, the substantive content on rural industrial development typically centers on township-level economic functions, while the industrial components within most village plans remain highly generalized, limited to broad directives on agricultural modernization or rural tourism.

Based on the authors’ fieldwork and professional experience reviewing county and township spatial plans across multiple regions, it is observed that unless a rural industrial project is already clearly defined and approved for near-term implementation, it is unlikely to be granted a specific land quota or spatial designation in the plan. Instead, such projects often appear as schematic overlays on maps or as indicative lists in annexes, lacking clear boundaries or spatial commitments. This reinforces the broader pattern: rural economic space is not proactively allocated through planning, but passively negotiated at the implementation stage, typically through land readjustment or the reclamation of inefficient homesteads. The authors’ own review of several county-level TSP plans confirms that rural revitalization content is largely operationalized through village classification schemes, infrastructure layout, and symbolic listings of potential industrial projects—rather than through concrete spatial arrangements tied to development strategies.

To address this gap, a rethinking of the relationship between spatial planning and endogenous development is required. Rather than treating planning as a blueprint for controlling rural space, it should be reframed as a platform for coordinating actors, enabling innovation, and supporting locally driven initiatives. This requires not only institutional reforms, such as participatory mechanisms or cross-sectoral coordination, but also a conceptual shift in how rural change is understood: from a top–down delivery model to a place-sensitive co-production process [49]. Although recent innovations in rural planning, such as companion-style or participatory planning approaches, have introduced more inclusive and participatory institutional elements, existing research shows that these practices remain largely confined to a limited number of government-designated demonstration villages and have not been widely scaled up [31,50]. The broader planning system continues to operate in a predominantly physicalist and exogenous manner.

4. Discussion

The preceding analysis reveals that while China’s spatial planning reforms, especially the recent TSP system, have introduced important institutional and technical innovations, they remain constrained by structural path dependencies and barriers in governance, finance, and planning practice (

Table 2. The persistent political–economic challenges facing China’s urban–rural integrated development and planning (source: made by authors).

Constraint Type	Manifestation in Practice	Structural Origins	Implications for Planning
Governance Fragmentation	(1) Cross-scalar misalignment between governments; (2) Interdepartmental incoordination	(1) Multi-tiered and siloed bureaucracy; (2) Unclear central–local division of authority	(1) Fragmented vertical and horizontal coordination; (2) Tokenistic rural plans
Urban-Biased Land Rights	(1) Constrained rural land development rights; (2) Limited planning priority for rural development	(1) Dual land market; (2) State-dominant and urban-biased land regime	Marginalization of rural interests in spatial development and governance agenda
Land Finance Dependence	(1) Local states’ dependence on land finance; (2) Land revenue-facing planning practice	(1) Mismatch between local budget and expenditure; (2) Local state’s reliance on urban land revenue	(1) Extractive land logic; (2) Weakened rural industrial space
Technocratic Planning Knowledge	(1) Technocratic planning tradition and aesthetic-focused rural plans; (2) Lack of socioeconomic strategy and endogenous development	(1) Physicalist planning culture; (2) Weak integration of social science	Plans lack developmental depth and long-term socio-economic and financial sustainability

). This discussion reflects on key tensions and reform opportunities, drawing from the authors’ empirical experience and theoretical reconsideration of how planning should support urban–rural integration in the Chinese context.

4.1. Planning Rural and Urban Together, Not Separately

Historically, rural planning in China has been conceptualized as a separate domain, distinct from urban planning frameworks, governed through fragmented institutional structures. Even within the current TSP framework, rural planning persists predominantly as sectoral or thematic plans, rather than being integrated systematically across multiple administrative levels. As argued by Qian and Wong [7], such persistent institutional isolation reinforces the marginalization of rural issues, thereby undermining integrated urban–rural development objectives. Effective urban–rural integration, therefore, demands a fundamental shift away from these parallel, siloed frameworks [30,32] towards an integrative planning logic that encompasses all administrative levels, from national to provincial, county, and township governments, under a coherent yet adaptive strategic vision.

Rural challenges such as land loss, socio-economic decline, and environmental degradation are inherently tied to broader dynamics of urbanization, industrialization, and territorial governance. The literature on territorial cohesion emphasizes that urban and rural territories must be conceptualized as interdependent rather than separate entities [20]. Rural issues are frequently products of urban-led growth models that systematically exploit rural resources, including land, labor, and natural assets [11]. As observed empirically in Shanxi and Jiangsu provinces, rural communities often function as land reservoirs supporting urban expansion, highlighting the structural interdependence between rural marginalization and urban-centric development policies.

This integrated territorial approach requires technical alignment across planning levels, but, equally importantly, demands functional integration in terms of governance, institutions, and capacities. Institutional structures must evolve to blend rural and urban roles within unified planning processes. Rather than treating rural areas as residual spaces or agricultural backyards [11], planning frameworks should position rural territories as active contributors within broader territorial economies. Cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms, institutionalized joint-planning frameworks, and participatory governance processes are necessary to enable coordinated and inclusive implementation.

Without such an integrative territorial logic, rural plans risk becoming politically peripheral and spatially bounded documents, devoid of transformative capacity. Thus, addressing rural problems demands broader territorial frameworks recognizing the rural–urban continuum as a foundational planning principle rather than a peripheral consideration.

This argument gains further relevance when viewed through the lens of territorial inequality. As Morán Uriel et al.’s work demonstrates, the Heihe–Tengchong Line represents both a symbolic and empirical boundary that divides China’s densely populated, economically developed east from its sparsely populated and institutionally constrained western regions [51]. Spatial planning instruments, which are often designed with uniform standards and procedural logics, tend to overlook the deeply uneven geographies they are applied [45]. For rural regions west of this divide—where fiscal resources, administrative capacities, and community infrastructure are comparatively limited—such standardized tools may not only be ineffective but may also exacerbate marginalization. Incorporating a territorial lens that recognizes these asymmetries reinforces our argument for more context-sensitive planning approaches that are tailored to local governance conditions, institutional capacities, and spatial development logics.

4.2. Aligning State Priorities with Local Realities

A significant contradiction highlighted by this analysis is the disjunction between national-level strategic priorities, such as ecological conservation, food security, and farmland protection, and the socio-economic realities confronting local governments. The central state’s stringent spatial control measures, embedded within TSP’s redlines and quota regulations, reflect strategic concerns surrounding national ecological security and food sovereignty [26,28]. However, these measures often clash with the developmental imperatives and fiscal pressures experienced by local governments, especially at the county and township levels [37].

Empirical evidence from Jiangsu and Anhui provinces demonstrates that local governments frequently prioritize immediate economic survival over long-term rural revitalization goals due to limited fiscal resources and intense economic performance pressures [7]. Many counties face severe fiscal shortages, heavily reliant on land-based finance, thereby reinforcing an incentive structure favoring urban-centric, revenue-generating development projects rather than rural sustainability or socio-economic equity [21].

To reconcile these conflicting incentives, stronger policy instruments must be introduced. Effective urban–rural integration requires institutional mechanisms that incentivize local governments to pursue sustainable rural socio-economic vitality, beyond merely enforcing top–down spatial controls. Potential reforms include performance evaluation adjustments, intergovernmental fiscal transfers explicitly linked to rural development outcomes, and innovative pilot state programs incentivizing local governments to engage in rural development, echoing with Xin and Deng’s [28] emerging research on the institutional foundation of rural revitalization in China.

This alignment between national priorities and local realities also requires strengthening intergovernmental communication and feedback loops. Institutionalizing mechanisms for bottom–up input into central decision-making processes can facilitate policy coherence and better address local realities within central planning frameworks. Without such adaptive governance arrangements, spatial planning frameworks risk remaining rigid, top–down instruments disconnected from the nuanced realities of local rural governance and development dynamics.

4.3. From Regulation to Facilitation: Reframing Planning Practice

The current planning paradigm remains predominantly physicalist and technocratic, prioritizing spatial regulation, visual aesthetics, and built form controls [44,46]. While this approach effectively manages land-use order and spatial compliance, it frequently neglects deeper socio-economic transformations necessary for meaningful rural revitalization. As illustrated by the Nanjing “Beautiful Countryside” program, physical betterment alone rarely addresses underlying structural issues such as employment, livelihoods, and rural governance structures, resulting in limited long-term sustainability.

Reframing rural planning from a purely regulatory instrument to a developmental and facilitative platform necessitates significant shifts in planning practice and knowledge paradigms. Planning must embrace a process-oriented, adaptive governance model that recognizes rural socio-economic transformation as incremental, context-specific, and path-dependent. Such a paradigm emphasizes iterative planning processes, continuous stakeholder engagement, capacity-building, and institutional learning, moving beyond static blueprint-oriented planning traditions [44].

This transition requires expanding the disciplinary scope of planning expertise, integrating insights from human geography, rural sociology, anthropology, and development studies into spatial planning practice [48]. A balanced planning knowledge system must equally value geospatial technologies and socio-economic sciences, recognizing rural planning as inherently multidimensional. Facilitating rural development involves active community participation, embedding local knowledge systems, and creating conditions for endogenous rural agency.

Beyond critiquing the limitations of technocratic and physicalist approaches, it is equally important to explore how rural planning can be transformed through participatory, co-productive, and knowledge-sensitive frameworks. Internationally, models such as the EU’s LEADER programme offer valuable lessons in enabling endogenous development through bottom–up planning, local partnerships, and institutional flexibility [18]. In the Chinese context, experimental practices, such as companion-style village planning and state-supported participatory planning and co-production pilots, have begun to demonstrate how community knowledge, situated experience, and institutional experimentation can be systematically integrated into planning processes [52,53,54,55,56]. However, these practices remain fragmented and often confined to demonstration villages, and the participatory elements in these showcase villages’ planning—such as public hearings and village congress approval procedures—are often tokenistic and limited in scope [11,52].

To realize the transformative potential of rural revitalization, there is a need to formalize mechanisms that scale up these participatory logics within the broader TSP framework, including quota guarantees for community-driven projects, cross-sectoral coordination platforms, and embedded facilitation roles for planners. Such institutional innovations could help shift the planning system from a logic of spatial control toward one of development enablement.

5. Conclusions

This paper has examined the evolution of China’s spatial planning system and its persistent struggles to achieve meaningful urban–rural integration. Through a periodized analysis of planning reforms and a critical evaluation of institutional and implementation challenges, the paper identified four core constraints: (1) cross-scalar and interdepartmental fragmentation in governance; (2) contradictions in the land system that restrict rural development rights; (3) fiscal dependence on land conversion that distorts planning priorities; and (4) technical and conceptual gaps that reduce rural planning to physicalist and exogenous interventions.

While the recent TSP reform represents a step forward in integrating rural space into national spatial governance, its transformative potential remains limited by enduring administrative hierarchies, fiscal disincentives, and a persistent urban-centric planning logic. Rural areas continue to be treated as regulatory spaces to be controlled, or as resource frontiers for urban expansion, rather than as dynamic territories with their own developmental logic and institutional needs.

Ultimately, this paper argues that urban–rural integration cannot be achieved through spatial coordination alone. It requires a fundamental rethinking of planning itself, as a tool not only for regulating land, but for enabling development, shaping institutions, and empowering local actors. Moving forward, China’s planning system should become more inclusive, territorially grounded, and adaptable to the complexity of rural transformation. This means transcending blueprint thinking, fostering genuine institutional integration, and building a planning culture that is not only about form, but about function, process, and purpose.

In summary, this study contributes to the literature in three key ways. First, it provides a periodized and critical account of China’s rural planning reforms, highlighting both institutional shifts and structural continuities. Second, it interrogates the political-economic architecture of spatial governance, linking planning outcomes to broader patterns of rural marginalization. Third, it reflects on the potential and limits of the TSP framework, proposing directions for reform that are both context-sensitive and theoretically grounded.

These findings carry both practical and academic implications. From a policy perspective, the analysis offers insights for improving the territorial effectiveness of the TSP system through concrete governance innovations—such as stronger vertical feedback mechanisms, land quota safeguards for village-led initiatives, and better institutional alignment across sectors. From an academic standpoint, the paper contributes to rethinking planning not merely as a regulatory activity but as a developmental institution embedded in political, fiscal, and spatial structures. By situating planning reform within broader trajectories of state restructuring and rural marginalization, the study informs comparative debates on planning systems in unequal and rapidly transforming contexts.

This study is conceptual in nature and does not rely on primary empirical data. While illustrative examples are drawn from fieldwork and planning practice, the findings are not derived from systematic case study analysis. As such, the arguments presented should be interpreted as analytical propositions rather than empirical generalizations. Future research could further validate the framework presented here through comparative empirical studies of rural spatial planning implementation in different provinces. In particular, more work is needed on how local variation in governance capacity, fiscal structure, and political incentives shapes the real-world impact of territorial spatial planning reforms.