Renewal Framework for Self-Built Houses in “Village-to-Community” Areas with a Focus on Safety and Resilience

Abstract

Against the backdrop of rapid urbanization, with the expansion of administrative boundaries, some former villages have been transformed from administrative to urban in the sense that they have become special “village-to-city areas”; in this context, the housing pattern, which was previously dominated by self-built houses, is facing many challenges. In particular, the frequent occurrence of safety accidents in self-built houses in the village conversion areas in recent years constitutes an important component of urban spatial vulnerability. However, the ensuing “one-size-fits-all” ban on self-built housing has also raised concerns among scholars. In order to better guide the planning and construction of self-built houses, official safety inspections, planning guidance, and institutional constraints are essential. However, the safety inspection of self-built houses across China is difficult. On the one hand, it is challenging to obtain data on individual buildings (e.g., age, use, building structure ratio, foundation, structural condition, illegal demolition and alteration, and illegal use), and the methods of obtaining such data rely mainly on the basic checking of the safety grids under the responsibility of grassroots safety officers. However, the current organizational system of safety officers is not perfect, and the relevant evaluation training also has limitations. On the other hand, due to the city’s finances, development stage, and other reasons, the agricultural-to-residential areas in the cities of poverty-stricken counties are not likely to be renewed as rapidly as the cities of developed regions but instead may face long-term renewal timelines. Therefore, for the agricultural resettlement areas in the cities of poverty-stricken counties, it is necessary to screen the current problems, systematically study the mechanism and strategy of their renewal based on the management framework of the whole process, and carry out the organic renewal of self-built houses, so as to gradually realize a safe and resilient development mode. This paper establishes a framework for the renewal of self-built houses oriented to security resilience based on the theory of fortress land under the urban form theory of Conzen. Taking Lianhua County as a case study, we analyze the problems and issues related to self-built housing areas through an investigation of the current situation. Then, in response to the existing problems, based on the comprehensive investigation of the safety of self-built houses, we clarify the planning objectives and value orientation and suggest (i) the adoption of hierarchical and classified planning and construction control for the self-built housing areas of villages converted to residences in accordance with the local conditions; (ii) the enhancement of government supervision in the use of self-built houses and the establishment of laws and regulations; and (iii) renewal planning in an orderly manner to enhance the safety resilience of the self-built housing areas. Based on the renewal study of self-built houses in Lianhua County, a systematic exploration of the planning, construction, and governance strategies of self-built houses in China is carried out, which can provide a reference for the decision making of relevant departments.

1. Introduction

In the context of swift urbanization and the enlargement of administrative boundaries, certain areas that were once villages have undergone administrative transformations, evolving into unique “village-to-city areas”. This transition has introduced a set of challenges to the housing model, which was previously dominated by self-built houses. The dynamics of these areas, now designated as “village-to-city areas”, pose distinctive considerations as they navigate the shift from rural to urban structures and services.

As urbanization progresses and administrative boundaries expand, former villages undergo a transformation from rural to urban areas, surrounded by newly constructed collective housing. Simultaneously, factors such as city finances and the stage of development contribute to a slower pace of renewal in farm-to-house areas within county towns that have recently overcome poverty. Consequently, these areas may persist for a certain duration before undergoing comprehensive renewal.

Distinguished from conventional urban and rural regions, the term “village-to-community area” designates regions that have taken shape during the course of local urbanization, primarily due to the non-agricultural repurposing of land. This transformation leads to shifts in the economic and social makeup of these formerly rural areas [1]. In the context of this article, the term primarily pertains to areas where rural housing has not been relocated as a consequence of in situ urbanization, and self-built houses remain the dominant housing model. Some of these areas are situated in close proximity to the urban development boundary, while many still adjoin rural land. Therefore, it has a broader connotation than the familiar “urban village”.

The village-to-community areas straddle the line between urban and rural locations. In these areas, most, if not all, of the agricultural land has been requisitioned, and the residents’ identities have transitioned from rural to urban. The village committees have evolved into community committees, yet the living arrangements, lifestyles, and administrative practices still retain a semblance of traditional rural life. These areas are prevalent in the historical urban cores developed from villages within counties and the so-called “urban villages” on the outskirts of major cities. As economic development and urbanization continue to accelerate, the use of self-built houses for civilian purposes has undergone significant transformations, with self-built houses taking on increasingly commercial characteristics. However, these buildings carry inherent safety risks, making safety concerns a prominent issue.

The ownership of land in village-to-community areas is complex and diverse. Self-built houses in the county can be divided into two types according to their land use nature. The land within urban construction areas is residential land, which belongs to the state. In principle, the homeowner has the property certificate and land use certificate. The land outside urban construction areas is homestead land, which belongs to the collective. It needs to be expropriated before it can be converted into state-owned land, which has a certain impact on the planning, construction, management, and environment of the city. The residential property rights in the self-built housing area are usually complex, involving various types of property rights, such as personal property rights, joint property rights, and collective property rights. This involves a large and complex population. The cost of redevelopment and construction after national expropriation is extremely high, and the challenges in policy guidance and control are numerous. At the same time, as a type of historical legacy residential land, self-built houses include the right to independent living, but with the increasingly prominent problems of urban land waste and the tightening of urban land resources, more and more cities are raising the threshold for obtaining land use rights or prohibiting the construction of self-built houses.

In the midst of China’s rapid urbanization, areas transitioning from rural villages to community spaces have emerged as a unique product of our time within Chinese cities. In some of these areas, self-built houses have become the prevailing housing model. This refers to residents constructing their own homes, which may encompass rebuilding on the original site, renovating and expanding, or building entirely new structures in different locations.

Self-built houses often lead to a variety of civil and administrative disputes and, in some cases, even serious criminal incidents. The elevated occurrence of safety incidents related to self-built houses within village conversion areas in recent years is a significant aspect of the spatial vulnerability in urban settings. A stark illustration of the challenges associated with self-built housing occurred on 29 April 2022, when an aged self-built residential structure in Changsha City collapsed, resulting in 53 fatalities. This tragic incident swiftly garnered widespread attention, raising significant concerns about the safety of self-built houses in densely populated areas, particularly in urban villages. Self-built houses used for commercial and service purposes, in particular, have exhibited lower safety standards and limited oversight.

However, the subsequent implementation of a “one size fits all” ban on self-building has also elicited concerns among scholars. To enhance the guidance for planning and constructing self-built houses, official safety inspections, planning guidance, and institutional constraints are imperative. Nevertheless, conducting safety inspections for self-built houses across China is currently challenging. Obtaining data on individual buildings—such as age, use, structural ratio, foundation condition, structural integrity, and instances of illegal demolition, alteration, and use—is problematic. The primary method for acquiring such data relies mainly on basic checks conducted by grassroots safety officers responsible for safety grids. However, the current organizational system of safety officers is imperfect, and the associated training for evaluations is inadequate. Additionally, due to financial constraints and varying stages of development, “village-to-city areas” in poverty-alleviated counties are less likely to undergo rapid renewal compared to cities in developed regions. Instead, projects may be implemented over an extended period, emphasizing the significance of an organic renewal process.

Housing development typically involves two main construction modes: speculative development and self-builds. Speculative development entails constructing houses without the commitment of users, based on the belief that there is demand for the space and that the houses will be rented out within a reasonable period after completion. Self-builds, on the other hand, broadly refer to any housing in which the first occupants are involved in the construction, encompassing both organization-built and self-built structures. Speculative development and self-builds represent formal and informal behaviors in housing construction, respectively. Self-builds are characterized by their bottom-up nature, distinguishing them from other-built or speculative housing, as well as collective housing, which is top-down.

The question arises: does the rationalization of self-builds still exist within the current urban planning context? Self-built housing can be viewed as a “bottom-up” approach to urban form generation. It is owner-driven, characterized by spontaneity and fragmentation, yet occurs at a scale that generates multiple and complex macro effects. Before liberation, the movement of plots was largely within property rights, with no combination of plots. The property rights and institutional environment were different. In an era of rapid urbanization, institutional intervention and regulation are crucial to prevent self-built housing from devolving into “slums” or becoming hotbeds of urban vulnerability.

In the British “Burgage Cycle” theory, the medieval burgage maintained the basic residential and industrial functions of a city during the period of the Black Death; this became an important cornerstone for the recovery and development of the city. However, during the Industrial Revolution, the peak of the Burgage Cycle, the burgage continued to support the progress of the city while producing a huge negative effect—environmental degradation. The burgage environments deteriorated, with high densities, poorly formed buildings, ill-conceived combinations, and mixed functions. Blind-backed houses inspired the infamous “back-to-back houses”, and the environment of the new workers’ settlements, influenced by the built form of the burgage, was the hardest hit during the cholera period of the 19th century (informality affecting formality). This forced the launch of public health campaigns and housing reforms in Britain, which in turn led to modern, integrated urban planning, urban planning and policies that promote the coherence of the four functions of the city—living, working, leisure, and transportation—through the empowerment of centralized and top-down social control legislation, the establishment of urban management systems and administrations from the central to the local level, and the optimization of technological innovations for the governance of the housing units. Thus, the “Burgage Cycle” plays an important role in the health, resilience, and security of cities.

Given this backdrop, it is imperative to intensify efforts to investigate and rectify safety hazards within self-built houses and enhance the supervision of building quality and safety. In light of these considerations, there is immense importance in conducting an analysis and summarizing the salient issues and potential solutions pertaining to the planning, construction, utilization, and oversight of self-built houses in areas transitioning from villages to community spaces. This paper is grounded in the research on “burgage theory” within the urban form theory of the Conzenian tradition. It formulates a framework for the revitalization of self-built houses, focusing on safety resilience in the transition from agricultural to residential areas in poverty-stricken counties. The paper aims to establish a mechanism for integrating and coordinating formal planning with informal self-built houses. Specifically, it is essential to identify existing challenges, systematically examine the mechanisms and strategies for renewal within a comprehensive management framework, and execute an organic renewal of self-built housing. The overarching goal is to progressively realize a safe and resilient development model.

Section 2 of this paper provides a comprehensive review of both domestic and international theories and practices related to self-built houses in village resettlement areas. In Section 3, the main methodology employed in the study is introduced. Section 4 establishes a framework for the renewal of self-built houses in village conversion areas, emphasizing security resilience. Moving forward, Section 5 utilizes Lianhua County as a case study, examining the historical evolution of the local city, current land property rights, and the distribution of self-built houses, particularly in the county city area that has undergone poverty alleviation. In Section 6, a detailed analysis and investigation of the problems and underlying issues in self-built housing areas are conducted through investigation of the current situation. Building upon a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing safety in self-built housing, the section clarifies planning objectives and value orientation. It advocates for hierarchical and classified planning and construction controls tailored to local conditions. An orderly updating of the planning process is proposed to enhance the safety of self-built housing areas. Section 7 delves into a literature review to discuss and reflect on the findings, highlighting the innovative aspects of the study and its significance for future research, industry, and policy makers.

In 2019, Lianhua County in Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province, successfully shed its designation as a poverty-stricken county, ushering in the dual responsibilities of “enhancing urban functions” and “elevating urban quality”. Lianhua County serves as a representative case for numerous counties that have overcome poverty, reflecting the broader context of the early and middle stages of urbanization in China. Particularly relevant to counties that have recently emerged from poverty, this study is poised to contribute valuable insights and policy recommendations with potential applicability nationwide. By focusing on the renewal of self-built houses in Lianhua County, the study systematically explores planning, construction, and governance strategies, offering a comprehensive reference for decision making by relevant government departments.

This paper selects the planning and construction of self-built houses, a prototypical form of informal housing, as the focal point for community vulnerability research. The choice of research object is innovative, providing a unique perspective. Moreover, this study represents a cross-disciplinary and integrative approach, incorporating community planning theory, urban governance theory, planning decision-making theory, and resilient city theory. This interdisciplinary approach contributes to knowledge updating and refinement within each field, fostering a comprehensive understanding of community vulnerability and resilience.

2. Literature Review

The Burgage Cycle in the UK, a foundational concept in urban morphology within the Korn School, encompasses three dimensions: time, space, and people. The term “Burgage” refers to medieval land, where lords divided their urban land and rented it to citizens. Unlike rental properties, burgage involves renting of the land, not the house. This form consisted of long, narrow strips of land along a street, with houses facing the street. The city and the burgage were pivotal platforms for the decentralization and transfer of power. Cities gained autonomy through charters, while citizens obtained tenure of the burgage through deeds [2].

The “Burgage Cycle” was a historical process involving the construction and demolition of burgage houses, spanning from the middle ages to the Industrial Revolution. Urbanization, viewed as a self-regulation process of housing supply and demand by the people, represents a significant transfer of power from the “top down”. The Burgage Cycle, unchecked by the government, shaped the character and destiny of urban development. It corresponds to key historical epochs, including the Agricultural Revolution, Commercial Renaissance, and the Functional Industrial Revolution, occurring only once. After completing the cycle, the burgage areas become “urban fallow”, cleared for new development, such as commercial development, within the context of urban renewal.

The “Burgage Cycle” plays a crucial role in the health, resilience, and safety of cities. The positive effects included the medieval burgage sites serving as vital residential and industrial anchors during the Black Death, contributing to urban recovery and development. However, there were negative effects, notably during the Industrial Revolution, which marked the culmination of the burgage land cycle and had significant adverse impacts, such as environmental degradation, despite supporting urban progress [3].

Although self-building practices are not predominant globally, they play a crucial role in addressing housing challenges for individuals with lower to middle incomes. Self-building initiatives contribute to the exploration of zero-carbon homes, the development of sustainable communities, the enhancement of marketplace diversity, and the improvement of housing affordability. These positive aspects can be further reinforced through the establishment of a more uniform and equitable post-build registration system. The study by Daniël B. et al. (2018) highlights the dominance of public authorities in formal housing, contributing to housing market inequities. The authors propose increased public participation, especially from lower- and middle-income residents, in self-building initiatives to address these inequalities [4]. Emma H. (2020) emphasizes the suitability of group self-builds as a model for delivering zero-carbon homes, sustainable communities, and affordable housing [5]. Grace S. (2021) advocates for the improvement of self- and custom housebuilding to enhance market diversity, increase housing affordability, and promote sustainable homes. She suggests that addressing uncertainty requires implementing a more consistent and fair system, including supplementary planning guidance documents and a robust support system for approval applicants [6].

3. Methodology

The basic research methods include the literature research method, case study method, and GIS mapping analysis. The establishment of the resilience evaluation index system is grounded in the collection and inductive analysis of extensive information from relevant works. Existing studies in the field provide a robust foundation for this paper. The case study method involves field research where the researcher selects one or several scenarios as the object of study, systematically collects data and information, and conducts in-depth research. This method is employed to explore the dynamics of a specific phenomenon in a real-life environment. To enhance the visual representation and clarity of the evaluation results and single-indicator data, ArcMap10.8 is utilized to import and analyze the data, providing a spatial perspective on resilience assessment.

3.1. Conzen’s Urban Morphological Analysis: Theory of Urban Regionalization

Conzen’s research on urban form based on ownership parcels encompasses an exploration from the local to the whole, as well as an examination of the historical evolution process [7]. The “local to whole” research approach underscores the idea that the intricate whole is composed of simpler elements at various levels. Conzen breaks down the complex urban form into five fundamental elements: ownership plots, streets, building substrates, building forms, and site functions. These elements are intricately nested to create a logically rigorous hierarchical system of material spatial structure [8]. Simultaneously, the emphasis on the historical evolution process involves scrutinizing the development of objective phenomena over time. By extracting historical samples and establishing evolutionary sequences, Conzen identified the early form of title parcel division as a crucial influence on subsequent mergers and re-divisions of title parcels [9].

Building on the study of property parcels, Conzen developed crucial concepts and methods, including edge zones and morphology areas. The British School of Urban Morphology subsequently tested and extensively explored the potential applications of these concepts in planning practice [10]. The edge zone theory, in particular, serves as a valuable tool for understanding urban spatial relationships. Emerging from the historical geographic development and change of urban areas, the edge zone vividly illustrates the characteristics of the overall urban structure on a macro-regional scale [3]. This concept is highly relevant to the research area explored in this paper.

3.2. Urban Morphology Unit Control Method: Design Control Based on Morphology Type

Morphological regions are made up of different levels of morphological regional units, showing the complex historical geospatial structure of urban morphology [11]. Tian Y. advocates that unitized management of urban forms is a crucial approach to address the complexity of cities [12]. He systematically examines the generation, classification, and operation of management units. The proposal suggests that both morphological areas and property rights areas can be divided into multiple levels. The number of divisions depends mainly on the city’s size and the precision requirements of morphological management. Conzen’s morphological area division for the British town Ludlow spans five levels, allowing for a comprehensive recognition of historical culture and precise protection [13]. By employing spatial zoning, temporal phasing, and methodological separation, a classification and grading system is established, capable of fine management. This system contributes to the continuous development of the urban fabric through metabolism, achieving a balance between the protection of individual property rights and interests and development. This, in turn, realizes the healthy resilience of the city, maintaining its enduring vitality and dynamism [12].

4. Framework for Planning and Construction of a Self-built House—Ensuring Safety and Resilience

4.1. Orientation: Prioritizing Livelihood and Emphasizing Safety

The planning and construction of self-built housing areas should align with the overarching objectives of urban development and adhere to relevant benchmarks set forth by the national county-level civilized city evaluation system. The following key considerations should guide this process: (i) strengthening functions: enhance the road network system to alleviate traffic congestion points; increase the availability of parking facilities; improve the overall quality of transportation infrastructure; enhance municipal support facilities, including optimizing drainage systems, improving fire safety infrastructure, and refining the layout of environmental sanitation facilities; (ii) enhancing livelihood: optimize the layout of education and medical facilities; create and maintain green spaces and parks; elevate the quality of cultural and sports amenities.

Building upon the foundation of bolstering functions and improving livelihood, the planning and construction of self-built houses should place additional emphasis on the standards of resilience, governance, and safety. This entails (i) enhancing resilience, which involves developing mechanisms for monitoring, early warning, and management of public health emergencies, contributing to the area’s resilience; (ii) emphasizing governance by strengthening the construction of community governance and service systems to foster a cohesive and well-managed community; (iii) ensuring safety by implementing stringent safety assessments for housing structures, addressing hazardous structures promptly through effective governance and management, developing emergency response and disposal protocols, and introducing rigorous oversight and management measures to maintain safety standards. By adhering to these principles, the planning and construction of self-built housing areas can not only promote functional and livable communities but also cultivate resilience, effective governance, and safety, ensuring a high quality of life for residents.

4.2. Framework: Safety Assessment and Transitional Support

This paper delves into the planning and construction approach for self-built housing areas through a comprehensive process that includes current situation assessment, strategic zoning, diversified renewal, differentiated protection, and orderly progression. The objective is to establish a standardized framework for urban renewal characterized by comprehensive planning, focused priorities, zoning control, and categorized guidance (as depicted in Figure 1). Central to this framework is the core principle of aligning the interests of various stakeholders. The primary method encompasses a holistic renewal strategy complemented by micro-level renovations. This strategy aims to facilitate the reconfiguration of regional space, stimulate industrial advancement, optimize population distribution, enhance governance practices, and preserve the cultural heritage of self-built housing areas. By embracing this framework, the planning and construction of self-built housing areas endeavor to harmonize the interests of all parties involved, instigate comprehensive renewal efforts, and encourage micro-level enhancements. This approach seeks to foster positive changes in regional space, stimulate industrial growth, optimize population distribution, enhance governance practices, and safeguard the cultural legacy of self-built housing areas.

This comprehensive framework for the planning and construction of self-built housing areas comprises the following key components: status quo investigation, policy requirement, promotion of housing safety inspections and transitional support for hazardous renovations, strategic zoning, diversified renewal, differentiated institutional supports, and scheduled promotion.

4.3. Status Quo Investigation

Responsible departments should enhance their information management systems to facilitate a comprehensive investigation into housing safety. This investigation should accurately depict the baseline conditions of self-built houses and the surrounding areas, serving as a valuable reference for government decision making.

The formulation of annual work plans and relevant urban development strategies is essential. Strengthening planning and construction management efforts and the introduction of specific policies and measures should be tailored to the specific circumstances.

4.4. Policy Implementation Requirement

It is imperative to establish a policy for renewals based on an evaluation of the current situation. In alignment with seismic and fire protection planning objectives for construction, it is essential to institute a comprehensive building safety and resilience evaluation index system. The specific components encompass planning layouts, building units, facilities, equipment, site environment, and safety governance. Through a comprehensive assessment of construction scenarios, including super-high-rise buildings, cultural heritage sites, heritage conservation units, older structures, and rural residences, measures to enhance housing construction resilience within the planning region can be explored. Systematic promotion of the renovation and transformation of housing construction should be undertaken to bolster the resilience of urban housing construction (see

Table 1. Evaluation index for building safety and resilience of self-built houses.

Primary Indicator	Secondary Indicator	Primary Indicator	Secondary Indicator
Planning and layout	Land development intensity	Facilities and equipment	Seismic fortification
	Building density		Fire prevention facilities
	Building height		Plumbing and drainage pipes
	Plot Ratio		Circuit equipment
	Percentage of Weak Security Zones		Gas pipeline
Building unit	Construction year	Venue environment	Flood safety
	Building Usage Status		Geological safety
	Building structure proportion		Surrounding construction
	Foundation	Safety governance	Building safety hazards
	Structural condition		Frequency of hidden danger investigation
	Illegal reconstruction considerations		Supervision and inspection of hidden dangers
	Usage Violations		Risk rectification

). Based on the current status of building safety and resilience, we propose a “targeted” and “multistep” renewal strategy. This allows a transition from spatial transformation to connotation and quality enhancement through the introduction of industry functions, upgrades in service support, and improvements in the human settlement environment, all while optimizing the manifold values of the urban system.

4.5. Promotion of Housing Safety Inspections and Transitional Support for Hazardous Renovations

It is imperative to advance safety inspections for housing and provide transitional assistance for hazardous renovations. In cases where there are residential safety concerns arising from precarious dwellings within the confines of urban development, these issues should be promptly assessed and verified by certified housing safety appraisal institutions. Before embarking on complete demolition and reconstruction projects, residences situated within the urban development limits that meet the “one household, one house” criteria and have been categorized as Level C or D hazardous structures can opt to seek temporary housing solutions. These can be in the form of applying for public rental housing or rental subsidies from the housing department based on their specific circumstances. This is to ensure the short-term resolution of their housing predicaments. Houses that have been conclusively deemed hazardous by certified housing safety appraisal institutions and pose a substantial threat to public safety, especially if they represent the sole residential property within the county development boundaries, will be subject to purchase by the county government.

4.6. Strategic Zoning

At the planning level, it is imperative to identify critical areas and explore opportunities for optimizing spatial structures. Urban renewal zones should be categorized based on assessments of their renewal potential, with options encompassing the maintenance of the existing state, comprehensive renewal through functional transformations and reconstruction, small-scale renewals, partial renewals via functional changes, ecological and landscape enhancements, and comprehensive land improvements.

4.7. Diversified Renewal

The selection of various regeneration models should be informed by the specific conditions of each area. Options include building one house per rural household, centralized construction, a combination of demolition and renewal, and organic regeneration. For areas situated beyond the urban development boundary, a combination of individual and centralized construction is recommended, adhering to the one house per household principle and encouraging centralized construction. Within the urban development boundary, the primary approach should be centralized resettlement construction, supplemented by residents’ self-construction and other methods, including organic renewals.

4.8. Differentiated Institutional Supports

Prior to the initiation of complete demolition and reconstruction efforts, tailored residential protection measures should be implemented based on local conditions, zoning management, and synchronized progress. Transitional institutional support should be provided to relevant rights’ holders for households meeting the “one household, one homestead” requirement and whose houses have been designated as Level C or D dangerous buildings.

4.9. Scheduled Promotion

The renewal process should be carried out through defined projects with clear timelines. Work plans and urban development strategies should be developed in an organized manner, with a focus on safety, usability, cost-effectiveness, and aesthetic considerations [11]. Aspects such as housing quality and safety, fire and disaster prevention design, public service facilities, green spaces, and road infrastructure should be prioritized. Collective land in the central city area requires specific measures to ensure efficient renewal projects. The renewal timeline should incorporate both near and distant future considerations, with a planned promotion approach emphasizing near-term implementation.

By following these comprehensive principles, the planning and construction of self-built housing areas can be conducted in a systematic and effective manner, ultimately enhancing safety, livability, and overall community well-being [12].

5. Case Study—Lianhua County, Jiangxi Province, China

The old town of Qinting Town, Lianhua County, Jiangxi Province, China, is developed from the “Lianhuating City” in the Qing Dynasty (Figure 2). In the second year of the Republic of China, Qinting Town was established. Later, the old city wall was gradually destroyed and remains only to the west of the East Lianjiang River. The main functions of the city from the year 1950 to 1958 are still within the old city wall (Figure 3).

Due to the backwardness of the city’s economic development, residents’ housing has long been dominated by self-built multi-story houses; the removal of Qinting Town in 1958 and the establishment of the “Qingshui Commune” meant that the area was changed from a town to a rural area, with Qinting Town re-established in 1983. With the development of the city, the land for urban construction gradually expanded to the north, west, and south (gray area in Figure 4). The self-building behavior of the residents within the old city continues to this day and generally results in poor building quality (yellow area in Figure 5); the residents retain a rural lifestyle. In 2022, the “Management Measures for Individual House Building in Lianhua County Town Planning Area” and the “Measures for Implementing Compensation for Collective Land Expropriation” were issued, and the self-building of housing within the city planning area was prohibited. Types of land titles and house titles in Lianhua County under China’s land system are categorized in

Table 2. Types of land titles and house titles in Lianhua County under China’s land system.

Land Type	State-Owned Land (Urban Areas), Collective Land (Urban Areas), Collective Land (Rural Areas)
House ownership (urban areas)	State-owned houses (state-owned construction land), individual-ownership houses (state-owned construction land), individual-ownership houses (collective land), collective-ownership houses (collective land)
House ownership (rural)	Individual-ownership houses (collective land), collective-ownership houses (collective land)

. As we can see in Figure 4, yellow areas represent the current collective land within urban development boundary (UGB); grey areas represent the current state-owned areas within urban development boundary, which was “Village-to-urban” land in 1980s and the buildings within the grey areas are personal owned; blue areas represent the state owned plots on state-owned land.However, in the context of “new city residents” retaining their traditional lifestyles and collective property rights to land, the remediation and management of the existing self-built houses, especially in the “village-to-residential” areas within the urban planning area on collective construction land (yellow area in Figure 4), has become an important issue (Table 2).

6. Results: Self-Building Resilience Renewal Strategy Based on the Framework

6.1. Status Quo Investigation: Prominent Issues in the Planning, Construction, and Usage Supervision of Self-Built Houses

6.1.1. Chaotic Functional Layout and Disordered Spatial Distribution

The absence of systematic and unified planning for self-built houses in village-to-community areas, predominantly constructed by residents themselves, results in a disorganized functional layout and haphazard spatial distribution. Both new and old houses are densely positioned and constructed in a disorderly manner, contributing to a notably high building density within self-built house regions, occasionally reaching as much as a 70% density. Noteworthy architectural anomalies, such as “handshake buildings”, “face-to-face buildings”, and the prevalence of narrow alleys [12], make it challenging to meet hygiene and fire safety standards, as illustrated in Figure 1. Furthermore, the land use structure often lacks coordination, leading to discrepancies between the supply of public service facilities and the needs of the residential population. Commercial spaces are frequently situated on the ground floor, and there are instances where houses have been constructed on farmland without proper government approval [14].

6.1.2. Complex Residential Property Rights, Renewal Challenges, and Illegal Constructions

Self-built residential areas typically feature intricate residential property rights, with a diverse range of building ages and housing styles, including single-story houses with vegetable gardens, two-story structures, and multi-story houses. The inhabitants of these areas also have a more complex composition, making the process of renewal particularly challenging. Moreover, self-built houses often suffer from prevalent issues related to illegal constructions, such as the occupation of a single house by multiple households, unauthorized building work, and the addition of extra floors without proper authorization. These violations disrupt the daily lives of residents, jeopardize social security, and erode principles of fairness [15] (Figure 6).

6.1.3. Lack of Standard Constraints and Training in Construction Technology

One of the key challenges within the domain of self-built houses lies in the lack of standard constraints and the prevalence of limited construction technology. Due to factors such as limited architectural knowledge, funding constraints, and limited technological resources, those involved in the construction of self-built houses often possess limited technical skills related to building and structural design. In some instances, even the main construction entities lack necessary qualifications, relying primarily on experiential knowledge due to the absence of standardized norms. Furthermore, both owners and construction personnel often exhibit a weak commitment to quality and safety. This results in shortcuts and a lack of rigorous government supervision and management [16]. Consequently, self-built houses tend to exhibit structural defects, weak earthquake resistance, and non-compliance with contemporary fire safety requirements [17]. These issues pose latent threats to housing safety and can lead to a multitude of problems during usage, in turn resulting in high maintenance costs

6.1.4. Rampant Improper Use and Escalating Disaster Risks

The phenomenon of residents illegally repurposing self-built houses is widespread. Some self-built houses have been converted from their original purpose to hotels, shops, KTVs, and other small commercial establishments with dense crowds. These places often grapple with issues like the illegal installation of electrical lines, excessive electricity usage, inadequate fire protection facilities, the use of inflammable construction and decoration materials, and the unauthorized construction of mezzanines. Additionally, such properties fall under the jurisdiction of multiple management departments, leading to intricate fire safety concerns. Prolonged illegal operations have turned these establishments into regional disaster risks in various locations [18]. The absence of relatively stringent regulations for self-built houses used for commercial purposes at the national level has complicated the situation. Furthermore, with the reforms in fire safety supervision, the oversight provided by local police stations has been weakened [19].

6.1.5. Weak Legal Norms and Insufficient Regulatory Oversight

Legal norms at the national level have certain deficiencies. To date, no laws or regulations clearly outline the responsibilities, rights, and interests related to the quality and safety supervision of self-built houses in China [20]. This gap makes it challenging for regulatory authorities to address unsafe practices effectively. During the construction process, self-built houses are managed under the “Building Law”, “Regulations on Quality Management of Construction Projects”, and “Regulations on Safety Production Management of Construction Projects”. However, these regulations do not encompass rural self-built houses that are only one or two stories tall. Regarding usage, the “Regulations on the Management of Dangerous Urban Houses” formulated in 1989 no longer align with the current scenario. Throughout the regulatory process, functional departments often lag behind, and regulatory agencies are understaffed. Concurrently, effective oversight of the legality of house construction approval, house design, construction quality, safety, and the qualifications of construction entities remains lacking, resulting in oversight gaps within the quality supervision of self-built houses.

6.2. Overall Plan: Tailoring Zoning Management to Local Contexts

In accordance with the development requirements specified in city or county planning, it is recommended to employ a strategic approach to renewal that emphasizes local needs, preservation, and tailored guidance. This method ensures a systematic and scientific approach to the promotion of renewal efforts.

6.2.1. Balanced Construction Approaches for Outlying Areas

Encouragement of a balanced blend of individual and centralized construction in areas beyond the urban development boundaries is advised. The planning of villages situated outside urban development boundaries should ensure alignment with national land spatial planning and prioritize the safeguarding of cultivated lands. The strict prohibition of encroachment on essential farmlands and hazards such as geological instability should be enforced, while due care must be taken to avoid harm to historical and cultural relics. It is imperative to underscore the strategic, forward-looking, coordinated, pragmatic, and executable aspects of such planning.

6.2.2. Diverse Strategies for Urban Areas

Within the urban development boundaries, multiple approaches, including complete housing redevelopment and organic renewal, are to be adopted. As a general rule, collective housing construction should prevail within these boundaries. Individual initiatives pertaining to rebuilding, modification (expansion), or new construction on original sites should not be permitted. No new homestead approvals should be granted, and instead, a unified planning and centralized transformation and resettlement construction model should be pursued. The implementation of a “one household, one home” policy should be put in place to gradually phase out urban villages and homesteads within the city.

Centralized housing construction must conform to national land spatial planning and urban construction requirements. It should not obstruct urban development, compromise the urban landscape and environment, hinder traffic, jeopardize fire safety, or encroach upon land demarcated by green, blue, yellow, and purple lines or neighborhood pathways. Furthermore, the intricate interplay between water supply, drainage, electricity, communication, ventilation, and lighting must be effectively managed [21].

Relevant departments are tasked with devising specialized plans for centralized housing construction, annual construction schedules, and detailed construction plans. Thoughtful consideration should be given to land use for centralized housing, municipal facilities, public welfare amenities, and others. The construction design for centralized housing communities should adhere to urban residential community standards, encompassing fundamental information, land acquisition and compensation plans, land use planning, design proposals, benefit analyses, and environmental assessments.

6.3. Planning and Control: Graduated Classification and Enhanced Flexibility

Unit-Based Renewal: It is recommended to establish a comprehensive scope of self-built residential renewals while actively preserving traditional residences of cultural heritage. Defining public boundaries and segmenting neighborhoods into multiple renewal units can provide the foundation for organizing self-construction. Control measures should be instituted for buildings on both sides of each controlled boundary to prevent encroachment on public spaces during the self-construction processes.

Classification and Control: Rigid control should be exercised over spatial layout (plan layout, setbacks, entrances) and individual volume (building height, depth, span, etc.). Elastic control should be implemented with regard to roof form, architectural style (facade, decoration), material colors, component details, wall tile embellishments, and others (Figure 7).

Introduction of “Grey Land” Planning: Certain areas with uncertain future development or adaptable use should be staged for planning. They may be initially designated as “grey land”. Under the regulation of a market economy, various stages of functional transformation can be conducted to accommodate future demand changes and maximize their potential.

6.4. Diverse Renewals: Zone Management and Categorized Guidance

Diverse renewal strategies enhance the transformation process, including the promotion of various renewal models adapted to local conditions and contiguous transformation. Policy guidance based on zoning distinctions should be strengthened to classify and renew existing land resources accurately, enabling precise implementation.

6.4.1. Rural Homesteads: One Household, One Homestead; Improved Living Conditions

Rural villagers situated beyond the urban development boundaries must adhere strictly to the “one household, one house” policy for housing construction. The phenomenon of “one household, multiple houses” is to be eliminated, with new construction necessitating the demolition of old structures. Villagers are encouraged to demolish and rebuild on their original sites, dismantle dilapidated and dangerous houses, and implement hollow village governance. Rational land use, land conservation, and intensive land use are advocated to optimize the layout of village construction land and enhance the rural living environment.

6.4.2. Concentrated Housing Construction: Government-Led and Market Development

The principle of “government-led, unified planning, district-based, and step-by-step implementation” should guide concentrated housing construction. Transforming villages into residential areas may be combined with centralized housing construction as per the situation [22]. Market-oriented development and construction methods should be adopted, with the principle of “developing and transforming one at a time”. For centralized housing construction beyond the development boundary, encouraging policies and measures such as reserving industrial buildings for the collective economic development of the village, synchronously planning and constructing municipal public facilities, and collecting compensation are recommended.

6.4.3. Organic Renewal: Quality Enhancement and Implementation Assurance

Quality Enhancement: Prioritizing livelihood issues is essential. The current status of facility layout and quantitative gaps should be meticulously assessed, maximizing the efficiency of public service resource utilization. Internal and external public facilities should be supplemented to form a precise service system. Differentiated layouts based on demand should also be integrated (Figure 8).

Implementation Assurance: The establishment of a comprehensive urban renewal life-cycle management system is crucial. Key facility enhancement projects should be selected, and the implementation details of renewal should be improved. The approval process is thus optimized, while the quality of renewal project proposals is enhanced, increasing project review efficiency.

6.5. Use and Regulation: Multifaceted Engagement with Institutional Support

Clarification of Government Department Roles: The roles and responsibilities of government departments must be clearly defined to enhance their ability to fulfill their duties. Allocation of relevant management and technical personnel to assist departments in strengthening and improving management is essential. Functional departments should intensify supervision across the entire spectrum of self-built housing, including planning, site selection, survey and design, construction acceptance, and use [23].

The Natural Resources and Planning Bureau (referred to as the “County Bureau”) of each county and city serves as the competent authority for residential construction planning within the county’s planning area. This includes approval of planning land and the acceptance of residential construction within the planning area. The Agricultural and Rural Bureau of each county or city is responsible for rural homestead reform and management across the county. Township people’s governments are accountable for rural homestead approvals and, based on the administrative law enforcement authority delegated by the county people’s government, investigate and address cases of residents violating land management and urban and rural planning laws and regulations when building houses. Other relevant departments should coordinate their efforts in matters related to residential construction.

Regarding the approval and supervision of self-built house renewal and expansion, these projects are generally treated as new construction, and regulatory responsibilities are shared among the county’s land and resources bureau, housing and construction department, and township people’s government. Stringent investigations and penalties should be applied to illegal land use, focusing on unauthorized changes in land use, multi-dwellings for a single household, unapproved construction, and land encroachment beyond approved limits.

In response to self-built commercial buildings with hidden hazards, Hunan province has issued regulations stipulating that county-level governments have the authority to deal with self-built structures used for rental or commercial purposes if they fail to meet housing quality and safety appraisal standards. While some places have outlined regulatory obligations for market supervision departments, regulatory responsibilities remain relatively unclear and necessitate further legislative clarification.

Mobilization of Different Stakeholders: Collaboration to provide standard drawings and promote design, construction, and budgeting according to such drawings is essential. The rectification of rural construction teams by administrative authorities should be strengthened. Furthermore, the linkage between enterprises and house builders should be promoted to provide technical services.

Enhancing Safety Awareness: Government departments can raise awareness of housing quality and safety through various means, such as distributing quality and safety brochures, online policy interventions, and training sessions. These efforts can help underscore the importance of self-built housing quality and safety, enhance residents’ safety awareness, mitigate housing safety hazards at the source, and ensure building safety.

Strengthening Legal Frameworks: Legislative and institutional safeguards should be reinforced. In response to the weak supervision of self-built housing, comprehensive supervision can be added to administrative regulations such as the “Regulations on the Management of Construction Engineering Quality” and the “Regulations on the Management of Construction Engineering Survey and Design”. Simultaneously, laws and regulations on the quality and safety of self-built houses that are practical and implementable can be developed and issued. These should clearly delineate departmental responsibilities and construction quality and safety management. Relevant experiences from various regions should be considered, and local laws and regulations should be formulated to provide institutional safeguards.

Tian Y. suggests that the property rights area and the owners’ community serve as the foundation for the generation and operation of management units, presenting a crucial pathway for public participation. The property rights area involves spatial zoning based on the property rights status of a building, with a property rights area encompassing one or a group of owners [12]. A single-type property rights area pertains to a large owner, such as certain public institutions or units, characterized by larger property parcels. In contrast, a collective property rights area is a grouping of many small owners, organized based on the “commonality of collection” principle, where spatial continuity and property characteristics generally align for multiple small owners to be zoned together. In summary, the ownership area is the outcome of comprehensive considerations, including ownership, property characteristics, spatial distribution, and other factors. The interests of its owners are likely to align, facilitating the formation of an “owners’ community” with a shared will to manage their properties in line with guidelines. This community becomes the final and direct entity responsible for managing the urban form. Through the division of units, the formulation of guidelines, and the clear assignment of responsibilities to various entities, the management unit becomes a tool in the hands of government departments for managing the urban form. Using the unit as the basis for forming an “owners community” enables unified action among owners. This enhances their negotiating power, whether dealing with the government or the market, increasing their ability to participate in safeguarding their rights and interests. This approach helps residents realize the benefits of scale and reduces various expenditure costs. For the government, engaging with the community streamlines the process, avoiding complex negotiations with numerous individual owners, significantly reducing the difficulty of the work. This streamlined process is particularly evident in government-led urban renewal activities. Additionally, developers often play the role of agents, commissioned by government departments or owners to participate in an appropriate way.

7. Discussion

This paper serves as a decision support tool for advancing the planning, design, construction, and management of self-built housing. It offers a crucial resource for decision-makers involved in the renewal of self-built housing areas, providing the means to promptly analyze problems in planning and construction. The proposed countermeasures aim to promote the development of urban resilience. The case experience from Lianhua County sets a paradigm for government-led community renewal of self-built housing, contributing to the evolution of community housing construction in Chinese cities. Drawing from comprehensive studies domestically and abroad, it is evident that guiding residents’ self-building behaviors through legal and technical norms, while moderately encouraging these behaviors with improved systems, is the fundamental solution to the problem. Despite the issuance of the Residential Building Code GB 50368-2005 [24] by the Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China in 2005, the binding effect of the norms is virtually null and void for self-built houses on residents’ residential land due to the lack of a whole-process approval mechanism [25].

In the course of drafting this article, the local government of Lianhua County issued pertinent policy documents. These include the “Implementation Measures for Collective Land Acquisition and Compensation and Resettlement in Urban Areas of Lianhua County” and the “Implementation Measures for Compensation and Expropriation of Houses on State-owned Land in Lianhua County”. These measures aim to regulate the processes of collective land acquisition, compensation, and resettlement, as well as the compensation and resettlement procedures for houses on state-owned land. Additionally, the government released the “Measures for the Management of Residents’ Building in Lianhua County”, which is designed to govern the management of residents’ buildings and ensure the smooth implementation of urban and rural planning. The policy measures for the construction of apartments for new citizens in villages converted to residential areas involve several key principles: Prohibition of Individual Construction: Individuals are prohibited from building houses within the control line of the urban development boundary, and approval for residence bases is no longer granted. Unified Planning and Reconstruction: The construction mode emphasizes unified planning, centralized piecemeal reconstruction, and centralized resettlement, commonly referred to as “new citizens’ apartments”. This approach aims to gradually eliminate urban villages and land (residence bases) within cities. “Safeguard Mode”—Households with a Home: The policy adopts a safeguard mode known as “households with a home”, ensuring that residents have access to secure housing. Reserving Industrial Premises: In areas where the construction of apartments for new citizens takes place, industrial premises may be reserved to promote the development of the village’s collective economy in alignment with national policies and regulations. Land Reserve: The land vacated by the construction of new citizens’ apartments will be unified and controlled by the land reserve department. Phased Municipal Utilities Planning: Municipal utilities within the land area of the new citizens’ apartments are planned and constructed in phases, synchronized with the construction of the project. Compensation for Expropriation: In cases where residents’ houses need to be expropriated for the construction of the New Citizens’ Apartment, the compensation for expropriation includes monetary compensation and the exchange of house ownership rights, provided through two distinct methods.

These policy measures collectively aim to regulate and guide the transformation of villages into residential areas while addressing issues related to individual construction, promoting economic development, and ensuring fair compensation for affected residents. The predominant self-built housing policy of the local government currently involves a gradual renewal approach through compensation and exchange. The key focus is on the phased elimination of individual houses constructed within the control line of the urban development boundary. This policy signifies a strategic effort to manage and transform self-built housing in the region, aligning with urban planning objectives and fostering organized development in line with regulatory frameworks.

A comprehensive review of the international literature on self-built housing reveals that, despite certain incentives in countries like the UK and the Netherlands, the practice is still in an exploratory and experimental phase. The primary goal is to alleviate housing pressure, particularly in the affordable housing sector. In these countries, the Burgage Cycle has evolved to the present day, emphasizing the ongoing importance of formal urban planning and regulated housing construction for creating a livable environment. Nevertheless, the positive effects of spontaneous construction at the outset of the Burgage Cycle cannot be dismissed. Permitting controlled self-construction under official supervision, allowing for a degree of “self-growth”, could contribute to the resilient and healthy development of cities.

8. Conclusions

The safety concerns associated with self-built houses in rural areas, particularly those used for production and operations, have escalated in China. This escalation can be attributed to the absence of proper planning, design, and standardized regulations for self-built houses. The result is a range of significant problems in the planning and construction of these houses, including disorganized functional layouts and haphazard spatial structures. Furthermore, the absence of standardized constraints has led to subpar construction techniques. In addition, there is a widespread disregard for the usage rules of self-built houses, inadequate legal standards, and a lack of supervision. These factors have compounded maintenance issues and have heightened the risk of regional disasters.

Drawing on field research and the relevant literature from Lianhua County, Jiangxi Province, this article underscores the importance of setting planning objectives that prioritize the well-being of residents and emphasize safety. It advocates for a core value orientation based on “resilience, governance, and security”, with an emphasis on balancing the interests of various stakeholders. The article proposes a comprehensive approach to spatial adjustment in self-built housing areas, industrial upgrades, population optimization, governance enhancements, and the preservation of cultural heritage, with particular attention given to the transformation of self-built housing in village-to-community areas.

This study explores a structured approach to planning and constructing self-built housing areas through methods such as current situation assessment, strategic zoning, diversified renewal strategies, differentiated protection measures, and systematic promotion. It aims to create a standardized framework for urban renewal, which accounts for the overall situation, highlights key areas, manages various zones, and guides classification. The key points are as follows: Conduct a comprehensive assessment of safety and housing quality within the jurisdiction, capturing a precise understanding of the state of self-built housing and defining a policy for classified renewals. Promote house safety inspections and provide transitional safeguards for hazardous building transformations. Implement relevant planning and zoning management practices that are tailored to local conditions. In areas outside the urban development boundary, encourage a combination of individual and centralized construction methods, while emphasizing one household, one house, as well as centralization. Within the urban development boundary, prioritize centralized resettlement construction, with residents’ self-built housing as supplementary. Promote various forms of organic renewals. Enhance the guidance of differentiated zoning policies and approach land resource renewal in a classified manner, focusing on “priority differentiation and precise policies”. Promote diversified renewal methods tailored to local conditions. Implement differentiated residential protection for homesteads and self-built houses in conjunction with zoning management, outlining construction methods such as one household, one house, centralized construction, demolition and transformation, and organic renewals in rural areas. Promote the implementation of plans in an organized manner by specifying the details of renewals and their timing. Categorize plans by function and focus on improving environmental quality through block-unit combinations. Finally, this article employs the example of self-built housing around Yizhiqiang Square in Lianhua County to illustrate the implementation of organic renewals for residential and commercial self-built housing transformations. Additionally, with regards to the use and regulation of self-built houses, the following are recommended: Clarify the responsibilities of government departments and enhance their performance. Actively engage social forces to ensure the quality of self-built houses. Strengthen safety production awareness and improve residents’ safety consciousness. Bolster the construction of laws and regulations to enhance the legal framework for construction management.

This article offers a systematic exploration of China’s planning, construction, and governance strategies for self-built houses based on research in Lianhua County. It serves as a valuable reference for decision makers in relevant government departments. Future research endeavors include in-depth studies and analyses of the safety resilience evaluation system for self-built houses and an urban renewal potential assessment system based on multiple data sources. Moreover, this article, while focusing on some areas of Lianhua County, Jiangxi Province, has relevance for poverty-alleviated county towns. Future plans include supplementing case studies of different scales, such as second-tier cities and small or medium-sized cities, to offer tailored decision-making recommendations for government authorities.

This paper offers a resilient perspective on the delicate balance between formal and informal housing construction during the global urbanization process. While issues related to land ownership and housing systems may not be as pronounced in countries with predominantly private land ownership, rapidly urbanizing nations that rely on a different land ownership system may encounter similar challenges.

Spatial changes based on ownership plots are a widespread phenomenon in both China and abroad, exhibiting distinct characteristics in various institutional environments. Examples include the transformation from traditional courtyard houses to larger, mixed courtyards in Beijing, the evolution of bamboo houses to substandard bamboo houses in Guangzhou, and the progression from British courtyards to semi-slums. Each of these transitions has significantly influenced the local urban morphology.

Recognizing and respecting the underlying laws governing these spatial changes and innovating planning and design methods are crucial approaches for the renewal of self-built houses. The evolution from the historical “Burgage Cycle” to the regeneration of historic districts (bridging the past and present) and further to the development of “village-to-community” areas (linking urban and rural domains) signifies a new type of Burgage Cycle, which is notably shorter and can occur at any time, particularly in urban fringe areas.

However, the approach to bottom-up self-built housing varies in different countries. Currently, the UK and the Netherlands continue to encourage bottom-up self-built housing, while in China, such practices are universally prohibited within urban planning areas. In rural areas of China, self-built housing is permitted on homesteads. Considering the Burgage Cycle theory and its theoretical explanation of the “informality” of self-built housing construction, there is a need to explore the optimal timing and appropriate practices for the “formal” behavior of governmental agencies in future studies.