From “Land-Oriented” to “Human-Oriented”: Research on Evolution Features of China’s Industrial Park Planning Standards

Abstract

This paper uses the time-series analysis function in CiteSpace software to systematically review the planning standards of Chinese industrial parks between 1985 and 2021, and then studies the framework, content, regions, and industry characteristics of these standards. The study shows that China’s industrial park planning standards have evolved through a series of developmental stages, namely from being land-oriented, then sector-oriented, and, most recently, human-oriented. The study also shows that through this process, a multi-layered, cross-domain framework of park planning standards has emerged. Due to the challenges posed by reforms in national land and spatial planning systems, the movement to transform and upgrade China’s industrial parks, as well as the rapid development of overseas parks, and the further development of industrial park planning standards, offer important new opportunities. Towards this end, this paper concludes by putting forward several strategies on how to best improve the framework of these standards, which is based upon keeping up with advanced technologies and basing development on practice.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Over the past 40 years of reform and opening up, the dramatic growth of China’s industrial parks, such as the Shenzhen Shekou Industrial Zone, Zhongguancun Science Park, and Suzhou Industrial Park, has played a crucial role in ushering in an era of economic prosperity [1]. China’s industrial park planning is based on the technical systems of urban planning and has undergone a series of distinct developmental stages, from initially drawing on foreign experience, to then innovating technology domestically, and finally exporting Chinese experience and know-how abroad [2]. The current planning system is derived from a comprehensive technical system, which integrates a variety of park planning sub-disciplines, including master planning, zone planning, detailed planning, conceptual planning, comprehensive planning, and industry planning. In addition, distinct technical methods for industrial park planning in various regions have been formed, based on their local features and conditions. As these technical systems and planning methods have gradually matured, the technical standards of industrial park planning, in turn, have steadily advanced, with notable degrees of progress made in various economic sectors and regions. However, an industrial park is a major type of urban space. Its planning technology, as a part of urban and rural planning technology, is not subject to “industrial park planning standards” similar to the planning standards of the Urban Residential Planning and Design Code [3], as in the case of residential areas. The technical standards for industrial park planning exist in many different forms, with various standards and regulations, either in the form of Industrial Land Standards for urban and rural planning industries, or in the form of management measures for development zones and various regulations and policies, or in the form of content in standards for industrial parks in various industries; forming a comprehensive system of planning technical standards of multiple types, forms, and industries. Therefore, how the system of technical standards for industrial park planning is composed and organized is an issue that needs to be clarified.

Alongside the introduction of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the new era of China’s social development, China’s urban planning has entered the stage of territorial spatial planning. On the one hand, industrial parks have emerged as a key vehicle for implementing innovation-driven development strategies and promoting the high-quality and sustainable growth of China’s economy. As an important object of spatial planning, there remains an urgent need for a set of scientific, operations-based, and targeted planning standards that will be able to standardize and guide their construction and development [4,5]. On the other hand, the standardization reform boom brought by territorial spatial planning brings an opportunity and demand for industrial park standard reform [6]. Clarifying the characteristics and problems of industrial park standards and exploring the direction of the future development of park standards can provide a reference and foundation for the establishment of a territorial spatial planning standard system.

In addition, with the in-depth implementation of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), various international cooperative industrial parks, represented by the Eastern Industry Zone in Ethiopia and the China-Belarus Industrial Park, have become an essential part of the BRI cooperation. Technical standards form a vital basis and support for international cooperation projects [7]. The planning and preparation of international cooperation parks faces the difficult problems of the selection and application of standards, and there is an urgent need for suitable park standards to guide them [8]. Exploring the path of park standard evolution and development helps overseas parks select standards suitable for different regional environments at different stages of development, and also helps the localization transformation in the subsequent application of standards, providing a basis for an international exchange of industrial park planning experience.

1.2. Literature Review

As the planning and design of Chinese industrial parks mainly draws from and adopts the models and basic content of urban planning, their standards are constructed within the framework of urban planning standards. To a certain extent, these industrial park standards also originate from the land use quota system developed under China’s planned economy. The available literature on industrial land standards falls into holistic research and index-focused research. The former mainly focuses on the benefits brought by standards; the weakness, features, and problems of standards; and the impact of planning formulation and management on standards [9,10,11]. Moreover, according to these findings, ideas for standard improvement include emphasis being laid on land use regulation and industry guidance, industry classification, and sector subdivision. In addition, by examining the management experience of industrial land in the United States, some experts have proposed reforms to the legal framework, quota setting, and management mode of the standard management of industrial land in China [12]. In contrast, index-focused research targets specific ways of determining and analyzing land use control indicators. The results of this research suggest solutions to better utilize these indicators for industrial construction projects and manufacturing [13,14].

Research on industrial park planning standards focuses on three major areas. The first major area of research is on common disciplines. Typical case studies include analyzing the problems raised by a lack of standards in special parks, such as local parks, logistics parks, agricultural parks, and cultural and creative parks, exploring the significance of park planning development and technical advances in management and service standards [15,16,17], as well as the necessity of and measures for normalized management organizations and a standard framework [18,19]. The second major area of research is on planning. Studies in this field, while centering around spatial planning, land use, and specific projects of specialized parks, explore individual standards and indicators related to park spatial layouts, land divisions, development intensity, and evaluations, and then offer suggestions on how such indicators may be better optimized. Typical case studies include analyzing the standards related to land use evaluation systems of logistics parks and the land development intensity of logistics projects [20]; the evaluation criteria for planning smart [21], ecological, and low-carbon parks [22]; planning and layout standards for chemical parks [23]; and land classification systems for agricultural parks [24]. This area of research also includes studies on planning standards for roads and designs of agricultural parks and the basic service facilities of smart parks [25]. The third major area of research on industrial park planning comes from relevant discipline areas, including information sciences, economics, and the environmental sciences. The research from these varied disciplines focuses on standards for risks in the environment, the circular economy, and digital-technology-based construction. Examples of research from this area include those on risk-based regulation, waste water treatment, and the waste discharges of chemical parks [26], circular economy systems of science and technology parks [27], service evaluation indicator systems for innovation parks [28], digital construction principles, and framework building [29].

In terms of research methods, the study of planning standards is mostly based on a qualitative discourse. In terms of quantitative research, bibliometric analysis and policy evaluation [30] methods are most often applied to the interpretation of standards, regulations, or policy texts. The policy evaluation method is mostly applied to the analysis of the implementation results of a single policy, while the bibliometric method is more suitable for the analysis of a large number of textual contents. CiteSpace is a JAVA-based visual analysis tool developed by Professor Chaomei Chen at Drexel University, USA, based on co-citation analysis theory and the pathfinding network algorithm. It is used to conduct quantitative analysis of scientific and technical literature collections in specific subject areas, in order to explore the key paths of their evolution and important turning points in knowledge [31]. Yiping Lv investigated the dynamics and characteristics of urban and rural planning law research and found a certain degree of closure between planning research, planning practice, and planning legislation, and few studies on regional characteristics [32]. Wu Wenzhi took the national and local regulations related to historical and cultural landscape protection as a research object, assessed the system and internal logic, and found that although there are many laws and regulations on historical and cultural landscape [33], they still cannot solve the problem of local differences sufficiently well. The existing research mostly takes urban planning regulations as the research object and ignores the technical standards, as well as not focusing on the technical standards of industrial space in perspective. This means the existing studies have limitations and a single perspective.

In general, ever-changing social needs encourage the advancement of technology standards and content innovation [34]. Park planning technology is continually progressing, and the types of park planning are becoming increasingly varied, thanks to China’s diverse development of industrial parks. As planning types are advancing, from overall planning, controlled planning, to special project planning, the area of research on park standards has progressed, from park land to special projects planning, and from standardization on park land use to guidance on park ecological and digital development. The current literature on industrial park standards focuses on the materiality, functionality, and engineering feasibility of existing standards, but there remain gaps in the literature on more basic procedural standards. In addition, current research appears overly concentrated on disciplines such as land use and engineering technologies, with little focus put on planning and design. These deficiencies cause the literature to be insufficient regarding fully supporting the construction of a comprehensive framework for park planning standards. In contrast, the bibliometric analysis studies of planning technology regulations ignore the important direction of industrial space technology and the important topic of technical standards. Given these conditions, this paper aimed to systematically review the technical standards of China’s various types of industrial parks and then perform a quantitative and qualitative analysis of these standards, thereby helping contribute to the establishment of a technical standard system for industrial park planning, in line with sustainable development.

1.3. Aims

As an important part of the technical standards related to urban development, the systematic sorting and study of industrial park technical standards can help provide experience and ideas for the technical reform of urban spatial planning and standardization reform in China. Second, at present, the development of industrial parks within China is facing a transformation and upgrading, while international cooperation parks outside China need effective technical guidance, both of which need demonstration guidance and bottom-line constraints from technical standards. Clarifying the relationship between existing standards will help clarify the standard system, make the next research direction clearer, provide experience and research results, and contribute to better domestic application and overseas reference values. From a practical point of view, the methods and findings of this paper are applicable beyond China. In recent years, countries such as Cambodia, Laos, and Ethiopia are paying increasing attention to the development of parks and have started to pay attention to the role of technical regulation construction of the quality and efficiency of park development, and China’s experience can provide a valuable references for the development of park standards, regulations, and policies in other countries.

To this end, a quantitative and qualitative comparison analysis was performed based on industrial park standards at state, industrial, and provincial levels, as well as the relevant regulations. Section 2 reviews the evolution and stages of China’s industrial park planning standards, while Section 3 summarizes the components of standard frameworks related to Chinese industrial parks. Subsequently, discussions and findings are given in Section 4. Section 5 is a summary of our research findings.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The technical system of China’s modern industrial park standards are mainly derived from the industrial planning and layout standards of the Soviet Union during the early years, following the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 [35,36]. For instance, industrial city planning in the early 1950’s followed Soviet-based quota indicators and related criteria [37]. This formed the basis for which the industrial space planning technical standards began to take shape. Responses to the practical needs of park development and the ongoing updating and optimization of diverse planning concepts led the standards for industrial park planning to further evolve into their current form.

Standards are a kind of technical normative document authorized by law; thus, many technical details, which typically would naturally be regulated by standards, are included in associated rules and regulations. Such regulations form “standard regulations” that manifest as technical guidance in character [38]. Inevitably then, the development of park standards overlaps with that of park regulations. Hence, the standards associated with industrial park planning studied in this paper include national norms enacted by competent authorities of the State Council; industry standards issued by industry governing bodies; local standards approved by local (at the levels of province, autonomous region, and municipality) authorities in charge of the standardization or specialty; group standards published by societies, organizations, chambers of commerce, unions, and industry technical alliances; as well as “analogous standards” related to industrial park planning in national and local laws, regulations, and policies.

Data in this paper are from the National Standard Disclosure System (openstd.samr.gov.cn (accessed on12 January 2022)), the National Public Service Platform for Standards Information (std.samr.gov.cn (accessed on 12 January 2022)), the State Council of the People’s Republic of China (www.gov.cn (accessed on 12 January 2022)), and other websites of national authorities and provincial governments. A total of 298 industrial park standards enacted (and repealed) in China between 1985 and 2021 are collected, including 25 national ones, 16 industry ones, 118 local (provincial) ones, 17 group ones, and 122 “standard regulations” related to industrial park standards. Among them, there are 174 non-mandatory standards, 2 directive standards, 4 standard plans in drafting, 1 standard plan that has been cancelled, and 10 standards that have been repealed.

The number of national, industry, and local standards on industrial park planning, in general, reflects the level of standardization in overall development, localization, and professionalization. Figure 1 shows that analogous standards account for 41% of China’s industrial park planning standards, which played a vital role in the early development of industrial parks. The number of local standards heavily outnumber the national and industry ones. This may have something to do with the disparity between the various areas of China in the natural environment, economy level, and industry development. In normative documents, national standards are piloted, and then updated and optimized after local standards are refined and amended.

2.2. Research Tools and Methods

This paper collected data from the National Public Service Platform for Standards Information and performed a word frequency statistics and weight analysis (excluding less relevant keywords) to define the text keywords of 298 industrial park-related standards within the research scope, in order to gain a more intuitive understanding of the development process of industrial park planning standards and the updating of concepts.

CiteSpace, a tool for visualizing literature analysis, gives a visual expression of trends in a knowledge field during a given period; thus, forming the evolution and development process of a research field. In this paper, this literature analysis function was used to analyze a standard text, and cluster analysis and time series visual analysis were performed on park planning standards in China, in an attempt to visualize the evolution of Chinese standards related to industrial parks since 1985. The normative documents of industrial parks were edited in this study based on the CNKI citation index data format, with the author (A1) being the standard issuing authority, the title (T1) being the normative document’s title, the year (YR) being the standard release time, the keywords (K1) being the standard document’s keywords, and the abstract (AB) being the summary of the normative document. Keywords and the abstract were extracted from normative documents, and keywords were merged with synonyms after the first editing, for further analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Evolution Features

3.1.1. Milestones

The number of industrial park standards issued in China shows a general uptrend in time. The Regulations for the Administration of the Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone issued in 1985 were the first regulations related to industrial park standards that involved standard contents such as park planning management and admittance of projects. Before 2003, policies and regulations were primarily responsible for the standardization of industrial parks. Around 1993, China built a number of state-level industrial parks and issued a slew of normative policies and regulations. As the State Council issued the Emergency Notice of the State Council on Suspending the Examination and Approval of Various Development Zones, and the Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Straightening and Rectifying Land Use in Construction of Various Development Zones in 2003, development zones in China were straightened and rectified, and relevant policies on rectification, normalization, and administration came into effect. For example, the Controlling Index for Industrial Projects Construction Land Utilization issued in 2004 was the first national standard related to industries, while the local standard Norms on Industrial Development Zone Construction promulgated in Shanghai was the first standard named after an industrial park. In 2007, “the sustainable and harmonious growth of development zones” and “sound and quick economic growth” were underlined at the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Later, provinces released a vast array of standards, adapted to the growth of local industrial parks, and the number of industrial park standards entered the first stage of growth. The year 2013 marked the second inflection point for industrial standard numbers. The functions of industrial parks were becoming increasingly diverse, as China’s industrial parks approached a transformation stage. Various industrial parks, including industrial new towns, science new cities, logistics parks, and e-commerce parks, mushroomed, and normative papers for park transformation and innovation were issued successively.

3.1.2. Stage Division

Based on the peak and inflection points of the number of industrial park planning standards and the reality of China’s industrial park construction, the development course of park planning standards can be divided into four stages (Figure 2): (1) “Pre-standard” stage of park planning (1985–2002). This stage signals the beginning of development zone construction and the first exploration of industrial park standard development in China. Due to a lack of real normative papers at this time, “analogous standards” of policies and regulations were used to normalize park definitions, management systems, and planning content. During this period, 42 “analogous standards” were identified, accounting for 14.09% of the total number of Chinese industrial park standards studied and 28.7% of the “analogous standards”. (2) Start-up stage of standards (2003–2007). This stage features the norm adjustment of development zone construction and the start of industrial park normative documents in China. The first industrial park standards at both national and local levels came into being. At this time, the standards totaled 33, accounting for 11.07% of the total number of standards studied. (3)Focused stage of standards (2008–2013). This stage marks the peak of development zone construction in China. Normative documents were subdivided, covering various places and fields. Standards totaled 65, accounting for 21.81% of the total number of the standards studied; (4) Expansion stage of standards (2014–to date). This stage represents the transformation and upgrading of development zone construction in China. Normative documents were rising steadily, totaling 158, accounting for 53.02% of the total number of standards studied.

3.1.3. Subject Identification and Evolution

Keywords from standard texts were extracted and synonyms were integrated in this paper. The time span is 1985–2021, with each year representing a time slice. The top 20 terms with the highest frequency in each slice were chosen, to create a knowledge network and to be clustered. The analysis showed that China’s industrial park standards primarily involve planning content, infrastructure, economic growth, intensive growth, circular economy, ecology, investment scale, and chemical parks. The top 10 words most frequently used are management, evaluation, service, recycling, ecological environment, operation, space layout, circular economy, construction planning, and safety. Chemical parks, logistics parks, agricultural parks, smart parks, forestry parks, and ecological parks are the main categories of development zones mentioned in normative documents, according to their frequency of occurrence.

A time series map of industrial park planning standards (Figure 3) was built based on the analysis performed in CiteSpace. The nodes and lines in the time series map reflect the subject terms of the park planning standards and their mutual levels of relational strength, as well as the temporal trajectory of terms in park standards at various stages of development. The stages of China’s industrial park planning standards are as follows.

• “Pre-standard” Stage of Park Planning (1985–2002): Standardizing of the Planning Framework

Driven by China’s reform and opening up policy, the country’s first batch of development zones were established in 1985. As a special industrial space cluster, which is distinct from urban and rural spaces, the types, contents, and administration authorities of development zone planning were undetermined. For these reasons, the national government and local government bodies issued a series of policies for the management of development zone planning, which can be considered the earliest example of “analogous standards” for industrial parks. Subjects with relatively high frequency in the “pre-standard” stage were “organization”, “approval”, “master plans”, “detailed plans”, “environment”, and “regulatory commission” (Figure 4). In these “analogous standards”, responsibilities for organizing and approving park planning were defined and clarified, thereby laying the basis for park planning formulation types and the construction of a park planning framework. This framework was composed of typical statutory planning systems, such as “master plans” and “detailed plans”, and followed those of urban and rural planning frameworks, while also including non-statutory planning systems based on park functions, such as “development plans”, “sector plans”, “annual plans”, and “emerging technology development plans”.

2.

Start-up Stage of Park Planning Standards (2003–2007): Land-oriented Standardization

Between 2003 and 2007, on the basis of confirmed and better clarified planning systems, the first generation of pioneering industrial parks gained rich practical experience in planning procedures, levels, methods, and indicators. Meanwhile, there was a sharp rise in the arrival of new industrial parks, which varied considerably in their quality of development. Correspondingly, there emerged an urgent need for a set of shared park planning methods, in order to guide and give reference to the planning of these second-generation parks and special parks. As a result, many fundamental planning standards for planning contents and demands were produced. Subjects with relatively high frequency in the start-up stage were “land use”, “evaluation”, “space layout”, “check and acceptance”, and “ecological environment” (Figure 5).

The standards were mainly designed for guidance on park internal space and land planning. They defined indicators for planning formulation, emphasized the layout, scale, infrastructure and environmental protection of industrial parks, and standardized industrial land classification and calculation methods and units; bearing testimony to the “land-oriented” feature of park planning standards at that time. Increasingly, emphasis was put on laws and regulations regarding ecotope, as environmental problems arose from industrial development [39]. Norms for ecological evaluation and indicators at both national and local levels came into effect, which developed park evaluation index systems from aspects of technical innovation, entrepreneurial environment, development, contribution and internationalization, and defined the content, requirements, and processes for the assessment of industrial parks’ impact on the regional environment. As park planning standards remained in an early stage of development, national standards were dominant and served as a preliminary park planning framework. On this basis, several pioneering industrial parks, such as the parks in Tianjin and Shanghai, partnered with water conservancies, agriculture, and other sectors and proceeded to issue industrial and local standards with respective priorities.

3.

Focused Stage of Park Planning Standards (2008–2013): Sector-oriented Standardization

From 2008 to 2013, due to the saturation of land use by industrial parks and the trends of park integration, the development mode of such parks shifted from expansion to one of intensification. This transition in development focus led parks away from solely focusing on spatial expansion, but to rather focus more on economic growth and the growth of their associated industries. As such, several industrial parks were faced with the problem of how to effectively increase their average output value of the ratio of their units of land use. Subsequently, high-quality planning guidance became necessary for economic industry growth, operation, and management. These needs, in turn, encouraged the formulation of standards for economic industry planning, intensive development planning, and park operation and management. Subjects with relatively high frequency in the focused stage were “classification”, “scale”, “economic growth”, “intensivism”, “investment”, “environmental protection”, and “space layout” (Figure 6).

Park planning standards during this period can generally be divided into those for planning formulation and those for park management. Among the former category, most standards focused on increasing the contents and requirements related to park positioning, economic and industrial development, park investment benefits, and park operations. In particular, two important standards related to intensive land use were developed, namely the Regulations for Evaluation of Intensive Land Use in Development Zones and Database Specifications for Evaluation of Intensive Land Use in Development Zones. Additionally during this stage, the focus of park ecological planning also shifted from environmental protections to circular economies and energy conservation. To some extent, this shift reflected a transition in the park planning standards of the time, i.e., from being land-oriented to sector-oriented. In addition, as the technical concepts of planning continued to advance, information construction, vertical layout, utility tunnel planning, and other concepts became essential and critical elements of the standards.

Standards focused on park management mainly had two further subcategories: management content standards and management method standards. The former, dominated by park safety management, were in a transition towards service management. A typical example of this can be seen in the 13 park management standards that Shandong Province issued in 2008, 10 of which aligned well with park planning standards in terms of the managing of park infrastructure’s extensions, conversions, and construction. Many standards for park classification at national and local levels were established to help facilitate park management, which then proceeded to evolve into park classification standards and appraisal standards. Park classification standards were primarily based on the leading industrial sectors of their parks, while park evaluation standards utilized rigid indicators, such as those for infrastructure, building scale, and economic industry growth. With the rise of specialized industrial parks, including those for logistics, agriculture, culture, and smart parks, the demand for associated park planning standards arose. Subsequently, several major governmental bodies began proposing planning contents and construction needs for special parks, including China’s National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration, National Technical Committee for Logistics Standardization, as well as local authorities such as the Bureau of Quality Supervision and Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry.

4.

Expansion Stage of Park Planning Standards (2014–2021): human-oriented Standardization

Since 2014, as industrial parks across various regions have developed and matured, competition between parks has shifted, from industrial competition, to competition between securing talents and enterprises. The rise of service-oriented parks, such as those focused on cultural and creative industries, has also forced parks to put more consideration on what is called their “soft environments” or “intangible infrastructures”. The job that industrial parks should accomplish in this stage was to better serve the firms and employees in parks, while minimizing various risks to the park economy and environment for sustainable growth. Subjects with relatively high frequency in the expansion stage were “management”, “risk”, “circular economy”, “public service”, “information service”, and “operation” (Figure 7).

The changes seen across the demands of the park development stages had then shifted the focus of park standards away from the construction of tangible infrastructure (“hard environment”) towards that of intangible infrastructure. Various park evaluation standards were included the construction of public service facilities, policies, platforms, etc., as key indicators. Park management standards were mostly centered on service, and value innovation, talents, finance, as well as the planning and operation of science and research platforms. Industrial park planning standards were subdivided and diversified in response to advances in emerging industries, such as the Norms on the Construction and Operation of E-Commerce Demonstration Bases (Parks) and the Guidelines of Construction for Smart Chemical Industry Parks.

Sustainable development is always a key point emphasized by China’s industrial park standards. At this stage, China’s complete framework for industrial park sustainable development began to take shape. A series of standards were enacted, covering various aspects, varying from sustained economic development, environmental protection, and resource utilization, to safety management, such as the Guideline for Diagnosis of Circular Industrial Chains in Industrial Parks, the Guideline for Evaluation of Green Chemical Industry Parks, the Norms on Risk Evaluation of Chemical Industrial Parks, and the Data Interface Specification for Circular Economy Informatization Platform of Industrial Parks.

3.2. Overall Structure of the Industrial Park Planning Standards Framework

Within the framework of the current park planning standards, a three-level structure has formed, which involves the components of formulation, management, and appraisal. Formulation includes content requirements, technical methods, and data acquisition related to the plan. With an emphasis on the content of master plans, the framework’s purpose is to lead various stages of the park development stages, including site selection, planning, and management. Planning appraisals involve determining park classifications and relevant indicators. There is often a common overlap between the contents of park planning standards, urban and rural standards, park rules and regulations, and the related standards of other industrial sectors. Most basic standards are derived from those of urban and rural planning, while planning management standards are also commonly found in the analogous standards of urban and rural planning (Figure 8).

3.3. Features of Current Industrial Park Planning Standards

3.3.1. Content Features of Industrial Park Planning Standards

For current industrial park planning standards, the content and methods are mostly based on preparing master plans, and include limited contents about the spatial construction and planning of parks. In practice, these standards are mostly based on the relevant parts of urban and rural planning standards. In terms of content, these standards focus on classifying parks based on type and grade, using three main categories, namely, the planning content formulation and implementation management, planning evaluations, and technical methods. Logistics parks and agricultural parks are mainly classified according to type and grade, and the type of an industrial park is determined by its leading industry. Planning standards set requirements for the site selection, economic sector development, space layout, and tangible and intangible infrastructure construction. Norms on plan implementation and management correlate with those on plan evaluation and technical methods, with an emphasis put on evaluations of plan implementation and management; but with little attention given to planning techniques. Additional aspects that industrial standards take into account are infrastructure and platform construction, operation and service management, and assessment of land use efficiency, industry development benefits, and impacts on the ecological environment.

3.3.2. Regional Features of Industrial Park Planning Standards

The analysis of regional standards suggests that there are regional differences and trends among China’s industrial park planning standards, and that these are strongly associated with the growth stage of parks. At first, industrial parks in China were mainly located in the eastern and coastal regions and major industrial cities, but later they western and inland regions were chosen for further development. Pioneering areas have more industrial parks, with advanced development stages, where local standards pay more attention to the standard implementation and management of parks, and standards regarding planning formulation value guidance on parks’ soft environment construction and investment invitation plans. In contrast, industrial parks in western and inland regions are less developed, and standards focus more on planning formulation for parks and guidance on space layout and the infrastructure planning of parks (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Moreover, the types of parks that the standards tend to focus on are closely related to the development of regional industries. Standards of cultural and creative industry parks are most common in regions with obvious cultural industry advantages, such as Shanghai, Beijing, and Hunan Province. Meanwhile, Shanxi Province, Jiangsu Province, and other provinces who lead in manufacturing have promulgated various chemical park planning standards; Fujian Province and Zhejiang Province have issued local standards for e-commence parks; and Hebei Province and Henan Province have enacted standards regarding agriculture parks.

3.3.3. Sector Features of Industrial Park Planning Standards

According to the analysis of the industrial sectors that the standards target (Figure 11), park planning is most commonly related to standards in the following sectors: environmental protection, logistics, agriculture, water conservancy, tourism, communications, and trade. Among them, environmental protection has the most standards, with the Ministry of Water Resources, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other local authorities and institutions issuing standards related to ecological parks, water conservation parks, and circular economy parks. Meanwhile, this year, logistics, agriculture and electronic information sectors became a new hotspot for park standards. Current park planning standards can be divided into those issued by government authorities, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Land and Resources, and National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration, and those issued by non-government organizations, such as the Logistics Standardization Committee (Figure 12). As each park planning standard involves multi-sector complexity, different sectors may share certain contents and topics, but the standards may be issued by different departments and have little overlap in references and benchmarks. To some degree, this has led to a pattern where the park planning standards in different fields have high correlations but fewer benchmarks.

4. Discussion

China currently has over 176 industrial park standards and 122 park “analogous standards” at national, industrial, and local levels. At both national and provincial levels, these standards cover comprehensive parks, such as high-tech development zones, economic and technological development zones, and specialized parks, such as ecological parks, logistics parks, and chemical parks. These standards have played an important role in developing a typology for industrial parks, as well as their associated planning formulation, management, and evaluation. Standardization summarizes and explores the rules and science of Chinese park planning development, and, thereby, helps promote and optimize models and the experience of the typical park development and management.

Throughout the development of park standards, this study found that the evolution of park standards followed a pattern of mandatory management-oriented standard regulations, followed by guiding technical standards. With the diversity of park types and different stages of development, different themes such as planning and construction, type classification, evaluation, and services emerged successively. The evolution of park planning standards is closely linked to the transformation of industrial parks and the development of planning technologies. The study by Hu Liang et al. [40,41] supports the results of this paper by suggesting that the transformation of industrial parks is closely linked to the promotion of relevant policies and the exploration of planning technologies, from the exploration of balancing planned economy and market demand, to the integration of planning contents based on urban planning frameworks, and then to planning focusing on development and operations. This is in line with the development of industrial park standards, both of which have experienced a shift from the exploration of the nature, structure, and management and construction of development zones, to a focus on elements such as scale efficiency, land use composition and ratio, assessment of intensive land use [42,43], and attention to environmental protection planning [44], as well as to an emphasis on industry-city integration and flexible planning [45,46]. The evolution of standards for the park and other areas of the city (e.g., settlement, etc.) is also consistent, which is supported by the results of studies on the development of urban planning standards and settlement standards by Zhao Wanmin [47] and Zhang Dawei [48]. On the other hand, the evolution of special park standards is also in line with this rule. Taking logistics parks as an example, China’s logistics parks emerged around 2000, and standards and policies and regulations, such as the Several Opinions on Accelerating the Development of Modern Logistics in China (2001) National Standard for Logistics Terms (GB/T 18354-2001), were promulgated at this stage, to define and set basic requirements for logistics parks. From 2003 to 2005, logistics parks entered the adjustment phase, regional logistics systems were formed [49], and the National Standard for Logistics Terms (GB/T 18354-2006) was updated again. After 2006, with the rapid development and diversification of the types of logistics parks, the Classification and Planning Fundamental Requirements of Logistics Park (GB/T 21334-2008), Design Specifications of Grain Logistics Park General Plan (LS/T 8009-2010), Logistics Park Service Specification and Evaluation Index (GB/T 30334-2013), Business Logistics Park Construction and Operation Service Specifications (SB/T 11198-2017), and other standards were released successively. In addition, in line with the study of Zhou Yajie et al. [50], changes in global forms have also had an impact on the subject of standards, and the sustainable development of industrial parks is also an important new issue in the development of parks after the introduction of the Sustainable Development Goals; and relevant standards have been introduced in chemical parks and various integrated parks. Under the influence of COVID-19, the group standard COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention and Control Protocol for Logistics Parks (T/LSC 001-2020) stipulates the organizational leadership, prevention and control management, emergency response, and information and management reporting for the implementation of pandemic prevention and control in logistics parks.

Comparing the promulgating agencies of standards horizontally, this study finds that the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology are the three departments that promulgate the most park standards, and each agency has its own tendencies in the content of promulgated standards, which is also consistent with the findings of the World Development Bank’s study on ecological park standards [51]. Consistent with the technical and regulatory system of urban and rural planning, the park standards promulgated by the National Development and Reform Commission are all “analogous standards”, embodied in the form of regulations and policy documents, and mostly oriented toward park management and economic and industrial development, in terms of content [52]. As a special urban space and development model, industry and environmental protection are also important themes. The standards promulgated by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment are mostly environmental evaluation standards for ecological parks, while the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology divided the standards into two categories: one with the theme of park information services and infrastructure construction; and the other focusing on the evaluation of special parks, such as chemical parks. In contrast, the standards of the Ministry of Water Resources, Agriculture, and Food are mostly oriented toward the planning and construction basis of special industry parks. In terms of specific indicator settings, they also differ. Take the evaluation indicators for sustainable development of a park in the industry standard Comprehensive Eco-Industrial Park Standards, issued by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment in 2009, and the industry standard Green Chemical Park Evaluation Guidelines, issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in 2010, as examples. From the perspective of the green indicator system (see

Table 1. Comparison of sustainable development evaluation indicator systems in industrial parks.

Indicator Type	Indicator Breakdown	Number of Indicators (Green Chemical Park Evaluation Guidelines)	Number of Indicators (Comprehensive Eco-Industrial Park Standards)
Resource utilization	Land utilization	5	1
	Energy utilization	1	2
	Water resources utilization	3	4
	Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste	×	1
Environmental protection	Hazardous substance discharge and treatment	5	2
	Setting elastic coefficients	×	2
	Wastewater discharge	×	1
	Solid waste disposal and utilization (including hazardous waste)	×	3
	Compliant environment quality	3	×
	Eco-friendly investment ratio	1	×
Infrastructure	Water supply and wastewater treatment facilities	2	1
	Waste treatment facilities	1	1
	Domestic waste treatment facilities	×	1
	Centralized heating facilities	1	×
	Public corridor facilities	1	×
Park management	Environment management system and capability	2	2
	Information platform building	2	1
	Green development system and capability	4	×
	Business management system and capability	×	1
	Establishment of a project access and exit mechanism	1	×
	Public engagement and employee care	1	2
Economic industry	Economic development	1	2
	Industry green development	3	×
	Clean production	1	×
	Construction of key projects	1	×

), the indicators released by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology put more emphasis on environmental protection infrastructure, economic development, and other aspects, focusing on the linkage between industry and clean production, while the indicators of the Ministry of Environmental Protection focus more on resource utilization and environmental protection. For example, the indicators of reclaimed water recycling were detailed to three; in addition to the discharge of harmful substances, a certain number of elastic coefficients were set on solids and wastewater. The results of the comparison of specific indicator content are also consistent (see

Table 2. Comparison of sustainable development evaluation indicator systems in industrial parks.

Indicator Type	Indicator Type	Green Chemical Park Evaluation Guidelines	Comprehensive Eco-Industrial Park Standards
Land yield rate	100 million yuan/km2	≥30	≥9
Energy yield rate	10,000 yuan/tce	≤cee	≤cee
Industrial water reuse rate	%	≥nd	≥nd
Reclaimed water reuse rate	%	≥ec	≥ec
Industrial solid waste recycling rate	%	≥li	≥li

), under the same indicators, the standards from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology are somewhat more demanding, in terms of economic data such as output rate, while the Ministry of Environmental Protection is more demanding in terms of the reuse rate of various types of wastewater and wastes.

Regarding the different levels of standards, the same types of standards differ in their indicators and degree of requirements in national standards, regional standards, industry standards, and groups [6]. This study found that the structure of park standards follows the process pattern of top-down universal standard enactment at the national level, and a bottom-up adaptive personalization of local standards [53]. In the geographical breakdown, there is great variability in the type and number of parks in different provinces. In terms of quantity, the eastern coastal provinces of Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shandong, Hebei, and Fujian are home to 30% of the parks in the country, while the western provinces of Ningxia, Qinghai, and Tibet account for less than 1% of the national ratio [54]. There are huge differences in the types of industries in the east, middle, and west, with technology-intensive, labor-intensive, and capital-intensive industries dominating regions [55], and with the overall degree of industrial concentration in the central and western regions being significantly lower than that in the east. On this basis, local standards supplement and adjust national standards, often based on differences in economic development, climatic environment, type of park industry, park scale, and degree of park development. Taking the classification standard of logistics parks as an example, the national standard Classification and Basic Requirements of Logistics Parks was promulgated in 2008, and in 2012, Shandong released a Classification and Evaluation of Logistics Parks in Shandong Province on the basis of this standard; and in 2016, Yunnan Province released a Classification and Evaluation of Logistics Parks. This study took as an example the differences between the three standards in the three indicators, settings of park size, investment intensity, and land use ratio. The investment intensity standard was not included in the national standard, mainly due to the variability between regions in China, where land prices and labor costs vary greatly, and it was not appropriate to make uniform regulations on the investment intensity of logistics parks, which is also considered in the interpretation document of the standard drafting group [56]. Shandong and Yunnan both made provisions for investment intensity, with Shandong’s minimum total investment being 0.005 billion yuan and Yunnan’s 0.12 billion yuan. The difference in investment intensity requirements between the two provinces is to some extent related to the higher degree of regional integration of logistics parks in Shandong, where there are not only national and provincial, but also many municipal logistics, parks, while Yunnan’s logistics parks are dominated by national and provincial key parks. As to the scale of the park, the national standard takes into account the agglomeration scale effect of the logistics park and the cascade war to regulate the social logistics system (three-tier structure of logistics park, logistics center, distribution center), and the scale of a park is recommended to be ≥1 km². The preparation of local standards takes into account the development of small logistics parks at provincial and municipal levels, and their scale bottom line is smaller than the national standard; with 0.2 km² as the bottom line in Shandong Province, and 0.06 km² in Yunnan Province. Inter-provincial differences are to some extent influenced by the geographical environment and the degree of development of logistics parks in the two provinces. Finally, in terms of land occupation indicators, the national standard takes into account the exemplary role and stipulates [57] that the area of office, commercial, and living service supporting land for productive and/or operational logistics parks should be not more than 10% of the total land area of the parks, and not more than 15% for trade and integrated service parks, under the premise of preventing loss of logistics land, promoting the intensive use of resources, and ensuring the smooth performance of logistics functions. The Yunnan standards, in consideration of national standards and the actual local situation, stipulate that the area of supporting land should be ≤12% for the best usage and 25% for the bottom line, while Shandong takes 20% for the bottom line.

5. Conclusions

Industrial parks serve as the main arena for innovation and development in China’s new era. The study of park planning standards satisfies the two-pronged requirements of time and technology; thus, driving the proliferation of parks; promoting the construction of high-quality tangible and intangible park infrastructure; boosting parks’ capability for management, innovation, and competition; and contributing to the innovative development of parks.

As a special kind of aggregated production space, industrial parks, similar to residential space, are an important urban functional space. Existing studies tend to ignore the special characteristics of the standard system of industrial parks and incorporate them into the study of the technical regulation system of cities [32,52]. This study fills the above-mentioned research gap in the existing literature and systematically composes the existing standard system for industrial parks by analyzing the topics and types of 298 industrial park-related standards that were introduced (including those repealed) in China during 1985–2021. It was found that, although the technical standard system of industrial parks was born from the technical regulation system of cities, the standard system is still defective in terms of planning types and levels compared with the technical regulation system of cities, and it has not formed a common legal planning system. On the other hand, the park standard integrates various aspects, such as economy, transportation, infrastructure, environment, and management, forming a diversified and comprehensive park standard system. Second, in the study of existing park standards, the inquiry about specific indicator is an important issue [20,21,22,23,24,25]. By clarifying the relationship among different levels of standards, such as national standards, local standards, and industry standards, this paper compares and studies the differences in content, indicators, and the relationship between standards on the same subject from different regions and industries, which helps clarify the interaction between different standards and the motives for the differences in indicators, as well as providing a basis for the interpretation and subsequent study of park technical standards. In addition, in terms of application, this study can also provide a reference for the construction of park standard systems and policy formulation. Policy and standard makers can pay more attention to the improvement of the standard framework for park planning and compensate for the lack of specifications for the preparation of park spatial construction planning and the lack of planning technology methods in the existing standards; strengthen forward-looking research based on practical problems; closely link it with the development stage of the park, the characteristics of the environment in which it is located, and the practical problems it faces; and strengthen the connection with emerging and international cutting-edge technologies in aspects of sustainable development, health and safety management, wisdom, and internationalization of parks.

The current study is subject to some limitations that can be used as a starting point for future research. As the data sources of the paper are mostly the standard texts themselves and relevant policy documents, there is less information obtained from during the preparation of the standards, and comparative studies between the various types of standards are mostly based on the analysis of the content of the text, lack understanding of the controversies and modifications that arise in the preparation process, and can only be indirectly inferred from the pattern summaries and results. A follow-up study could strengthen this with interview research of standard writers, to understand the process of standard preparation and analyze more directly and deeply the connection and differences between the standards of parks. Second, existing studies fail to analyze the effects of the application of the standards, both in different regions of China and in international cooperation parks outside of China. Future studies could implement enhanced and comprehensive field surveys of parks and interviews with relevant personnel, to further reveal and validate the implementation mechanisms and effects of industrial park standards in China.