Enhancing Urban–Rural Integration in China: A Comparative Case Study of Introducing Small Rural Industries in Huangyan-Taizhou

Abstract

Strengthening urban–rural linkages (URLs) has been proposed by UN-Habitat within the framework of ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’ to narrow down urban–rural differences via sha** new urban–rural relationships. Like URL, the aim of urban–rural integration (URI) has been promoted by the Chinese government since 2019 to address existing urban–rural divides. This concept underlines the ‘rural revitalisation’ strategy and emphasises a two-way flow of urban–rural development factors. Introducing and upgrading ‘appropriate’ rural industries is crucial to stimulate and facilitate the circulation of urban–rural development factors. This research studied three neighbouring villages, situated in urban–rural interface areas in Huangyan-Taizhou, China, each driven by different types of small industries supported by URI. It analyses the impact of small rural industries on the flow of development factors between urban and rural areas. The results showed that small-scale rural industries have been enhanced URL by decreasing urban–rural differences by creating new job opportunities to attract an in-flow population, increasing investments, and upgrading public services and infrastructure. Indigenous industries demonstrated lower profitability but exhibited greater resilience compared to industries linked to global production chains and rural tourism. Thus, this study demonstrates the imperative to carefully consider the opportunities and potential risks associated with pursuing strategies of URI through rural industry development. By providing empirical insights from URI projects in China, this study contributes to theoretical and policy dialogues concerning the concepts of both URL and URI by exploring the localization of SDGs. Furthermore, it offers valuable practical knowledge and experience for other global regions confronting similar challenges to urban and rural development.

1. Introduction

Enhancing urban–rural linkage (URL) has been gradually recognised as an overarching strategy to guide spatial interventions towards more sustainable and inclusive development [1]. As early as 2012, the United Nations (UN) endeavoured to improve equality for urban and rural dwellers by improving access to basic services, such as housing and mobility. The ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ proposed to “support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning” [2]. It also generalised 17 ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’, and strengthening urban–rural linkage is believed to achieve SDGs by improving urban–rural synergies, including optimising the management of ecosystems and natural resources, conceiving and implementing long-term plans that promote inclusivity for local actors that aim to reduce social, economic and territorial gaps, and provide better accommodation for migrants at multiple scales [3].

Strengthening urban–rural linkages has been developed and evolved through discourse, actions, and practices in a broad range. Today, this strategy covers a wide variety of approaches, including facilitating tangible (e.g., investment, people, and products) and intangible (e.g., technics, information, and knowledge) resource flow, lessening environment pressure, optimising urban–rural governance, and enhancing networks to form better urban–rural and regional/global–local partnerships [4]. It also underlined that “integrated territorial development is crucial for transforming towards sustainable and resilient societies” (ibid).

In China, resha** urban–rural relationships is also built into a national strategy working towards sustainable development. In many regions across the world, it is increasingly hard to identify clear demarcations between urban and rural areas through the built environment, demographics, and industries [5]. Whilst this is also true in China, differences between urban and rural areas remain considerably apparent due to key institutional settings which have set urban and rural regions apart for many years. These relate to differences in land ownership, land use regulations, and household registration (hukou system), which has tied people’s ‘urban’ or ‘rural’ status to their access to social services, housing, and other public amenities [6,7,8,9,10]. Although these institutional structures have experienced different types of reform over recent years, many urban–rural disparities remain, presenting social, economic, and environmental challenges. In 2019, a more substantial national strategy named urban–rural integration (URI) was introduced with the aim of guiding a more integrated approach to urban–rural development in China by encouraging an increased circulation of development factors between urban and rural areas, which is underpinned by rural revitalisation [11]. The URI further explained the aim of enhancing urban–rural linkage in the Chinese context. Rural revitalisation is clearly outlined as the revitalisation of industries, talent, culture, ecology, and governance, which supports the two-way flow of development factors such as investment, population, information, technology, etc. In the past decades, urbanisation in China followed a trajectory characterised by rapid changes in the rural-to-urban population and dual urban–rural policy. The latter encompassed land use policy, household registration (Hukou) policy, and the monetisation of housing distribution. This urbanisation pattern resulted in a widening difference between urban and rural spheres; rural areas suffered from population loss and an under-developed built environment, and ‘hollow villages’ suffered from a lack of investment, which also led to the gradual loss of socio-cultural identities of the local people residing there. Facing these challenges, URI was promoted and aimed to enhance urban–rural linkages. This is to be achieved by promoting a two-way flow of development factors that widely cover investment, labour, talent, knowledge, and policies among others.

This national strategy outlined a distinctive development approach, in comparison with previous rural development policies, recognising that the gap between urban and rural cannot be reduced or eliminated simply by improving the rural built environment, upgrading rural infrastructure, and delivering better public services. It suggested that introducing development dynamics to stimulate new initiatives in rural areas is necessary, and among all the potential approaches rural industry development is identified to be critical. Thus, practices to promote the development of suitable small businesses and forms of rural tourism have been widely explored under URI policies. Ultimately, rural revitalisation—as one of the key strategies within the framework of URI policies—supported the exploration of various means of sha** new urban–rural relationships. URI also echoes the URL promoted by the UN-Habitat to reach the SDGs. URI, therefore, can be taken as a localised strategy in China to achieve SDGs to a certain extent.

Whilst in the academic discourse, the reflection on new urban–rural relationships and the understanding of their interactions in a new stage of urbanisation started long before the global and national strategies. The definitions of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ have been undergoing re-conceptualisation as they were previously derived from the early understanding of urbanisation processes which took ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ as separated territories, standing in opposition to one another [12,13,14]. Meanwhile, the development of technology and multi-dimensional local and global networks enable the spatial flows of develo** factors and population mobilities in a much wider range and higher speed. This also led to the space experience constantly changing within a short time frame, which characterised the current time–space experience [15]. Thus, in current urbanisation processes, urban and non-urban areas have been observed to evolve concurrently, where non-urban areas (e.g., rural regions) actively support the development of urban regions [16]. ‘Urban’ and ‘rural’ are now increasingly perceived as interlinked systems in terms of spatial connections, everyday activities, and material flows [17].

Drawing on the new characteristics of urbanisation and the changing various supportive systems, this study intends to investigate URI and its effects in China. The key research questions are as follows: What types of industries are introduced to rural areas under URI? In what ways did the industries strengthen urban–rural linkage? Did the changes lead to or stimulate a more intense development dynamic for rural regions? Therefore, three neighbouring villages located at the urban–rural interface of Taizhou, Zhejiang province, were selected for a comparative case study after pilot investigations. Three aspects, including local economic shifts, urban–rural population mobility reflected by LBS data, and local resilience reflected by the job opportunities facing national and international economic events, are selected to capture the differences between the three cases.

2. Literature Review: Urban–Rural Linkage and Urban–Rural Integration

In the 21st century, uneven development between urban and rural has played a role in enhancing critical global issues, such as climate change, shortage of resources and land, food, water and energy security, and social and environmental damage [18,19,20]. This has been greatly emphasised by the United Nations. In response, strengthening linkages between urban and rural regions has been considered as a strategy to move towards more sustainable global development [21,22,23]. After the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was released in 2015 [2] and the New Urban Agenda (NUA) was adopted in 2016 [24], research on the relationships between urban and rural areas has increased, particularly relating to rural development [20,25,26]. Among these research studies, rural industrialization has been identified as a strategy to support rural development [27,28,29,30,31,32]. Furthermore, since 2019, UN-Habitat has published official documents to summarise guiding principles, action framework, and best practice case studies with the guiding aim of strengthening urban–rural linkages [4,33,34,35]. These documents have emphasised the importance of localised SDGs and enhancing urban–rural linkages to support more sustainable socio-economic development in various regions worldwide.

In China, urban–rural relationships are currently undergoing a gradual transformation from separation and opposition towards more coordination and integration [36]. Research studies on this topic have indicated three patterns of urban–rural interaction: ‘high urban agglomeration’, where urban and rural areas are rapidly agglomerating; ‘small towns and medium urban centres’, which extend urban services to the villages whilst villages supply food and production materials to cities; and ‘rural peripheral areas’ that maintain slow socio-economic growth and suffer from resource outflows [37]. In more recent years, successive policies have been introduced with the aim of strengthening linkages between urban and rural areas, including coordinated urban–rural development in 2002, urban–rural unity in 2013, and URI in 2017. Among these policies, URI places a greater emphasis on sharing development opportunities and equal status between urban and rural areas, whilst also recognising the unique and endogenous value of rural areas by adopting a ‘rural revitalisation strategy’ as a coordinated policy [38].

The concept of URI has been examined from various specific perspectives, including the microcellular structural analysis of land elements in urban–rural mixed communities [39], empirical studies on new land use patterns and mechanisms [40,41], human settlements based on existing research [42], modelling analysis of upgraded public services distribution [43], agricultural transformation using actor–network analysis [44], and the level of digitalization utilising factor detection analysis [45]. The rural industry has consistently been a critical focus of studies and discussions on the topic of URI. In the study of URL level evaluated by an index, the advancement of new industries was identified as one of the five drivers of URI [38]. The integration of urban and rural industries has been recognised as one of five important features that have the potential to influence the development of URI, studied through quantitative modelling [46]. Empirical studies have also revealed that rural industries are characterised by diversity, and the development of rural industries needs to work closely with issues such as ecological upgrading and improvements in rural governance [47]. Moreover, technological advancements have significantly enhanced mobility between urban and rural areas through better connections to transportation and the internet [48], whilst e-commerce and rural tourism are emerging as new forms of rural industries that contribute to the enhancement of URI by allowing better exchanges (e.g., products, information, and investment) between urban and rural [9,49].

Both URL and URI, which aim to achieve more sustainable development by resha** new urban–rural relationships, are currently under exploration by policymakers, scholars, people who practise with it, as well as other people who are willing to take initiative. In China, the development of rural industries is seen as a promising approach to encourage the flow of development factors such as information, technology, and investment between urban and rural areas. However, there is still a need to further investigate the implications of introducing different types of industries in rural areas and their roles in everyday life.

3. Methods and Case Selection

3.1. Mixed Method Research

This paper focused on URI which aims to promote the circulation of different development factors at differing scales and dimensions to achieve sustainable urban–rural development, among which industry revitalisation is recognised as the key approach by the national strategy of rural revitalisation. Therefore, changes in land, economic transformation (e.g., job opportunities and incomes), and population dynamics are identified as critical aspects of research [50,51].

In addition, people’s mobility pattern has been identified as one of the critical factors because it supports the understanding of the impacts of rural revitalisation by reflecting the influence of emerging industries upon everyday life, as well as resource linkages (in terms of investments, production, and labour) between rural and urban. People’s mobility can be captured by Location-Based Service (LBS) Data (which provides comparatively accurate travel tracks and real-time positions of people anonymously) [52,53]. Commuting travel patterns have been largely affected by local industry development in terms of job opportunities for locals and outsiders, as well as market linkages and material circulations [54]. It is widely employed in research supported by human behaviour patterns. Thus, LBS analysis is applied to reveal the urban–rural linkage reflected by people’s mobility patterns.

This research is also supported by archive study and in-depth field investigations, including participatory observation, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and map**. Field investigation is employed to verify findings from the LBS data analysis, to generate possible reasons behind the travel patterns reflected by LBS, and to assess the output value of rural land transformed and used for rural industries, as well as the jobless rate.

3.2. Urban–Rural Interface as the Focusing Region for URI

This paper selected the urban–rural interface as the focusing region for research as the urban–rural interface is where urban and rural features and dynamics are directly mixed and characterised by hybrid, multifunctionality, and rapid speed of transformations [17,55,56,57]. As the frontier of urban expansion, the urban–rural interface faces both urban and rural challenges including excess industrial areas, housing problems, and land use fragmentation [39]. Urban–rural interface, therefore, showed its distinctions in terms of spatial layouts, everyday practices, development dynamics, and flexibility [54]. In this study, the urban–rural interface is defined as areas of the urban or rural fringe where urban lands (i.e., state-owned land) and rural land (i.e., collective land) are spatially adjacent and mixed with one another. It is attractive to new or alternative initiatives for industries, transportation connections, and various public services. Therefore, these areas can provide more sample cases for a comparative study of different emerging rural industries. The urban–rural interface is also a space where urban and rural spatial fabrics are highly mixed and can provide comparatively numerous samples of LBS data for research. It is also significant that the research region was not chosen for its spatial connections of urban and rural factors, as URI aims towards factors overflow over spatial integration.

It is crucial to recognise that urban–rural linkages can be distinctively perceived in various contexts due to the differing concepts of urban and rural [5,54,58]. In China, urban–rural distinctions are primarily evident in spatial layouts (e.g., landscapes and land use), administrative policies, industry development policies, and land ownership, as well as population metrics like density and numbers. There is no universally agreed-upon definition of urban and rural [5,58].

For our study on URL and URI driven by small industries, we have chosen to define ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ based on official land ownership distinctions in the Chinese context. In this context, ‘rural’ refers to rural settlements on rural lands, whilst ‘urban’ refers to urban settlements on urban land as outlined in the “Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China.” According to this law, rural land is collectively owned, whereas urban land is state-owned [59]. This distinction leads to varying restrictions on industry development in rural China (refer to Section 4 for more details). This definition may not apply to other contexts and the urban–rural can be more complex, but it reflects one of the main differences between urban and rural in China that is closely related to the small industry development in rural.

3.3. Selected Case Region: Taizhou in the Yangtze River Delta

To respond to the research questions, we studied practices that are implicitly or explicitly promoted by URI at the urban–rural interface. After several rounds of field investigations of rural areas driven by URI, Huangyan-Taizhou was chosen for the following reasons.

Firstly, Huangyan-Taizhou stands out as a pioneering region in terms of the implementation of policies relating to URI and rural revitalisation [60]. Situated within Zhejiang Province—a province actively exploring methods and strategies for implementing URI policies [38,44,61,62,63]—Huangyan-Taizhou exemplifies the exploring practices of intense urban–rural interactions [64]. These practices are often regarded as a positive reference of strategies for rural revitalisation and URI in China [10], offering a diverse range of case studies.

Secondly, Huangyan-Taizhou is renowned for its vibrant private economy and industrial development [65]. The local industries, including plastic mould manufacturing and garment production, are intricately linked to global supply chains. Some local industries, such as food processing, are also closely related to local customs which play a role in supporting the everyday life of local communities. Ranging from large-scale industries to small workshops and household enterprises, these diverse industries play a significant role in driving local rural development, showcasing various models of rural revitalisation practices.

Thirdly, Taizhou represents an ‘ordinary’ municipality in the Yangtze River Delta (YRD). This means that its experiences of urban and rural development are relatively adaptable for other areas to draw insights from. Taizhou is a prefecture-level city with 2.5 million households and 6.6 million residents (as of the end of 2020, including the floating population who lived in Taizhou for over 6 months in 2020), of which 61.98% live in urban areas [66]. Compared to other cities within the YRD, Taizhou has not witnessed the highest population flows. The influx mainly consisted of the floating population from under-developed regions like Sichuan (in western China) and Hunan (in central China) [67].

Therefore, the district of Huangyan in Taizhou municipality was selected as the focal point for this study. Moreover, three geographically contiguous villages situated at the urban–rural interface region of the district were chosen after pilot investigations: ** under the singular policy of urban–rural integration; however, the development of each village is driven by differing forces.

5.1. ** demographic structures and increasingly diverse social groups, development initiatives, investments, and growing local identities), which was learned during field investigations.