Revisiting China’s Urban Transition from the Perspective of Urbanisation: A Critical Review and Analysis

Abstract

Amidst global sustainability challenges across domains such as energy, water, and transportation, China’s urbanisation process presents unique socio-economic dynamics, particularly following the Reform and Opening Up policy. The existing literature has not fully captured the complex interplay between urban growth and sustainability challenges in China, nor has it adequately explored the phased nature of urbanisation informed by evolving policies. This paper provides a comprehensive review of China’s urban transition, emphasising its evolution since the Reform and Opening Up policy. Through systematic analysis, it delineates the multifaceted nature of urbanisation, reflecting on policy impacts and socio-economic shifts. Findings indicate transformative urban growth characterised by new challenges in environmental sustainability, social equity, and urban–rural integration. The research unveils the transition to a human-centric urban development model, highlighting policy shifts towards sustainable practices. The results suggest a nuanced urban–rural convergence, advocating for participatory governance and balanced growth. The unique contribution of this study lies in its empirical and theoretical examination of China’s urbanisation within a global context, offering a critical perspective on policy formulation and sustainable urban development.

1. Introduction

The world currently faces many fundamental challenges to sustainability in several domains, including energy supply, water supply and sanitation, transportation, agriculture, the food system, and education. These challenges are characterised by the rapid depletion of natural resources, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, water scarcity, congestion, and local pollution, among others [1,2,3]. Amidst these myriad challenges, significant economic concerns arise, especially in the context of infrastructure renewal and expansion, which are further compounded during periods of financial crises and public budget overruns [4,5]. Moreover, the global landscape of economics and politics is undergoing a profound transformation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the deceleration in economic growth, an upsurge in unemployment rates, and an escalation of poverty and hunger, with the potential to make an additional 25 million individuals unemployed globally [6,7]. This urgency to address the imperatives of global climate change and other socio-environmental predicaments is paramount, as these issues pose a significant threat to the pursuit of sustainable development on a global scale.

Cities are crucial to global sustainability efforts due to their significant consumption of resources and their contribution to the majority of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions [8,9]. The trend of urbanisation intensifies energy demands, building construction, waste and water services, and industrial processes within and around urban areas [10,11]. In response, there is a worldwide consensus on adopting a low-carbon economy, a goal some developed countries have already achieved [12]. Urbanisation brings about changes in social, spatial, and economic structures, with the urban population rate serving as a key indicator of this transformation [13,14]. Currently, China’s urbanisation rate is indicative of its cities being in a rapid development phase. This rapid urbanisation in China, compared to historical rates in the UK, Germany, France, the United States, and Japan, underscores a swift transition [15]. However, despite this rapid progress, there exists a significant gap in the level of urbanisation between China and developed economies such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1).

In the era of planetary urbanisation, the role of China is pivotal, influencing both domestic and global dynamics. As a dominant force in 21st-century global trends, the urbanisation of China has significant repercussions for both its own and the global economy [18,19]. Historical policy shifts, especially the Reform and Opening Up initiative of 1978, have catalysed China’s rapid urban development. This transformative period has seen the urban population swell from 17.92% in 1978 to 63.89% in 2020, indicating a major demographic shift [16].

China’s urbanisation trajectory has been marked by its dynamic policy landscape since 1949, displaying a complex pattern of fluctuation (see Figure 2). After a period of steady growth in the 1950s, urbanisation rates climbed from 10.64% to 19.75% by 1960, only to be followed by a downturn and stagnation for the next two decades. The implementation of the Reform and Opening Up policy coincided with a decrease in the urbanisation rate to 17.92%, but subsequent policy-driven growth saw it rise to 28.62% in 1994. The growth rate from 1978 to 1994 averaged 0.67% annually, but from 1994 to 2012, it doubled to an average annual rate of 1.33%, reflecting a substantial increase in the pace of urbanisation [20,21,22].

However, standard urban development models are insufficient to neatly categorise China’s unique form of urbanisation, which includes significant rural-to-urban migrant flow and in situ urbanisation—the conversion of rural land into urban areas. The singularity of China’s path in urban development often leads to a disconnection in comparative urban studies, with its unique characteristics being a common refrain [23]. Given these distinctive stages and classifications that define China’s urbanisation, there is a pressing need for a distinct analytical approach. This underscores the importance of this study, which seeks to bridge the gap in the literature that often highlights China as a critical locus for envisioning global urban development [19], but does not fully capture the intricate interplay between urban growth and sustainability challenges specific to China.

This paper embarks on a review and exploration of the urban transition in China, with a particular focus on the comprehensive urbanisation process. It stresses the interconnectedness of land use, infrastructure, demographics, and governance in forming the trajectories of urban development. This exploration includes an analysis of China’s transition to a new-type urbanisation paradigm, bringing to light the unique attributes and challenges of urban development within this country. Through this analysis, this paper aims to provide insights into the various contextual factors that drive urban transitions and support sustainable urban development practices.

Following the Introduction section, this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 delineates the methodology of this study, covering the data collection and analytical strategies. Section 3 presents the results, offering a detailed examination of emerging research topics from a global perspective, China’s urbanisation process, and contemporary China’s urban transition since the new-type urbanisation. Section 4 discusses these findings, situating them within broader theoretical and practical contexts. Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper, summarising key insights and suggesting directions for future research on urban development in China.

2. Methodology

To ensure a thorough exploration of urban transitions, this paper employs the systematic review framework of Xiao and Watson [24], which allows for an iterative process that can adapt to unforeseen challenges. The review can be conducted following eight common steps (Figure 3). It encompasses an extensive examination of literature, theories, and methodologies that inform an understanding of urban transitions. Data collection involved analysing pertinent primary literature and secondary data sources, using electronic databases such as Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CNKI to compile a diverse array of materials, including journal articles and grey literature like conference proceedings, theses, and reports [25,26]. Given that no single database is exhaustive, a systematic multi-database search strategy was implemented to ensure comprehensive coverage and to identify relevant themes, which were iteratively explored to gather a robust set of materials for analysis.

The quality of a literature review hinges significantly on the selection of relevant literature, as the maxim “Garbage-in, garbage-out” underscores [24]. Consequently, the effectiveness of a systematic review is contingent on a methodical and comprehensive literature search. This research employs three primary channels to locate the relevant literature: (1) electronic databases; (2) backward searching; and (3) forward searching. In addition to database searches, a backward searching approach scrutinises the reference lists of identified articles, while forward searching identifies articles that reference the reviewed materials [27].

The process of collating pertinent literature involved the use of keywords such as “urban transition”, “urban planning”, “urbanisation”, “sustainable urban development”, and “urban governance”. Following the initial search, duplicates were meticulously removed using combinations of the aforementioned keywords, resulting in 1068 articles listed as preliminary search results. All of these articles were published before 31 December 2022. By adhering to the specified filtering criteria, this method yielded a unique database comprising sixty-one publications (

Table 1. Summary of data sources and selection.

Data Source	Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CNKI.
Citation Index	SCIE or SSCI or AHCI or CSSCI
Year Published	1990 to 2022
Document Type	“Article” or “review”
Language	English or Chinese
Subject Category	“Urban studies”, “regional & urban planning”, or “Development Studies”
Sample Size	61

Source: The authors.

).

A systematic approach to data analysis was adopted, utilising a thematic data analysis technique. The analysis process employed a two-step iterative method, allowing for in-depth exploration of the data. To further elucidate key and potential topics, a co-occurrence analysis of terms within the title and abstract fields was conducted using VOSviewer. Subsequently, the identified themes were synthesised by examining their interrelationships and points of divergence or convergence [28].

This study employed documentary analysis as another analytical method. Documentary analysis, a systematic approach for reviewing or evaluating both printed and electronic documents, including computer-based and Internet-transmitted materials, serves as a critical tool in qualitative research [29]. This method involves a meticulous examination and interpretation of data to extract meaning, enhance understanding, and generate empirical knowledge (ibid). The analytical process adopted in this research comprised four major steps: (1) the review and analysis of the content found in literature and policy documents; (2) the extraction of main policy targets related to urbanisation; (3) the comparison of these targets with their actual implementation, using corresponding secondary data; and (4) a deeper analysis of the implications, attributes, and outcomes of urban transition. This procedure involved identifying, selecting, appraising, and synthesising the content contained within the documents, subsequently organising this content into major themes, categories, and illustrative case examples.

3. Results

All terms, totalling 2532, underwent filtering, reducing them to seventy-five terms with a minimum occurrence of five times and further narrowing down to forty-five terms based on the relevance of the top 60% (refer to Figure 4). Figure 4 highlights terms with frequencies exceeding ten appearances, illustrating their prominence within the research domain. Notably, terms such as “China” and “region” emerge as central nodes in Figure 4, and they are also high-frequency terms in

Table 2. High-frequency terms in platform research.

Term	Cluster	Frequency	Term	Cluster	Frequency
China	3	23	Framework	2	13
Region	1	17	Governance	2	11
Growth	1	15	Question	3	11
Case	2	14	State	2	11
Economy	1	14	Way	3	11
Practice	2	14	Term	1	10
Research	2	14	Example	2	10
Approach	2	13	Experience	2	10
Data	1	13	World	1	10
Urbanisation	1	13	Impact	3	10

Source: The authors.

. Meanwhile, specific nodes like “mechanism”, “Chinese city”, and “sustainable urban transition” are situated at the periphery.

3.1. Emerging Research Topics in the Global Perspective

In terms of research topics in the urban transition field, the existing studies mainly focus on socio-economic transition and rural–urban population migration. In addition, emerging topics such as cultural heterogeneity and institutional implementation gradually attract the attention of academics.

3.1.1. Socio-Economic Transition and Urban Development

Urban socio-economic transition is one of the various focuses of existing studies. Most of them use a case study to explain this process. For example, the urban transition of Hanoi into a modern megacity is well and truly under way, but the decisions being made are often informal and spontaneous [30]. In contrast, Wu [31] highlights the role of the state by analysing the process of poverty generation in China’s urban transition. The state-manipulated spatial dispersion may not help achieve true and real spatial equality, and well-off spatial equality has to be obtained through a mechanism of marketisation in a relatively advanced stage of urbanisation, helped by the government’s facilitative policies [32]. In addition, the socio-economic transition has been discussed in some specific aspects. Yu and Huang [33] indicate potential in latecomer cities to develop both economic and environmental incentives towards low-carbon innovations because green activities could also be favoured if they are well aligned with local economic development. The process where some cities act as growth engines in emerging economies while others may shrink could happen before the completion of the urban transition [34].

3.1.2. Rural–Urban Population Migration

Many academics have paid attention to population migration between the countryside and cities in urban transition. On the one hand, how to integrate millions of migrant workers into local communities remains a core challenge in China’s urban transition [35]. Wu, Zhang [36], and Chen, Nielsen [37] investigated the corresponding influences on mobility and found that most of the resettled villagers’ social relations are place-bound both before and after resettlement in the process of rural–urban transition. Lin and Zhu [38] also provide an updated and comprehensive study on migrants’ settlement intention and its determinants. Moreover, there is an impact of social and institutional barriers on rural migrants’ consumption as a result of increased social inequality amid China’s urban transition [39]. For resettled rural residents, both the scope and composition of social relations have widened, and those with higher income, increased household assets, or a workplace located within the neighbourhood are experiencing a larger scope of social relations and more diverse subjects of interaction [40]. An example of a contributing factor is the positive correlation between higher education attainment and accelerated urban growth, as it facilitates the transition from rural areas to urban centres for individuals entering the job market [41]. On the other hand, population agglomeration and urban transition are still focused mainly on major cities and their peripheral zones [10,11]. Administrative authority during the urbanisation process is a critical issue to be considered in rapid urban sprawl areas and is as important as the demographic and land-use transition [42]. To cope with these problems, measures to resolve the emerging problems in Chinese cities must consider a fundamental policy shift [35].

3.1.3. Cultural Heterogeneity and Urban Planning

Furthermore, the impact of cultural heterogeneity on the urban transition has been briefly explored. Berry and Okulicz-Kozaryn [43] affirmed that the Asian experience is consistent with the expectations of received theories for regions experiencing the upswing of the urban transition and rapid rural-to-urban migration, while the higher-income Anglo-Saxon experience conforms with expectations about preferences for low-density living close to nature that are traits of that culture. Farrell and Nijkamp [44] suggested a certain degree of heterogeneity among national urban systems in developing countries. This result opens a window for researchers to examine the power relationships involved in urban developments and transitions in a specific social context [45]. Urban transition is influenced by local sustainable urban planning policies and regulations [46]. Institutional implementation has also developed into an important topic in the urban transition field.

3.1.4. Institutional Implementation in Urban Transition

The micro-level institutional interaction and implementation in urban transition have been fully verified. The major research focuses on the relationship between multiple stakeholders and its mechanisms. On a holistic level, Wang, Wang, and Kintrea [47] argued that, rather than being mere technocratic practices, the production and legitimation of distinct discourses of polycentricity is an articulation of multi-scalar power involving various stakeholders. Chen, Zhu, and Yuan [45] illustrated the interrelationship between government, developer, and resident/individual in the process. DiGregorio [48] discovers that, while nearly all stakeholders agree with the goals of development, scepticism over its claims is much higher among those closest to the urban edge. On the individual level, Ibrahim and Salama [49] emphasised the importance of policymakers in analysing the changes in the neighbourhood, with the overarching aim of guiding future growth. Hin and Xin [50] demonstrated how different forms of power relations ultimately assist, imped, or impact the outcomes of urban regeneration in the context of urban transition. They found that local authorities who adopt a diplomatic approach in negotiations and show commitment to supporting the private sector in terms of resources and planning policy tend to establish more sustainable coalitions, while the opposite is true for those lacking such qualities. Zhang, Yung, and Chan [51] called for developing a contextual framework for sustainable neighbourhood development after analysing residents’ subjective perceptions of different neighbourhoods’ sustainability performance during the transitional period. Nieminen, Salomaa, and Juhola [52] further highlighted that more process-focused policy instruments are needed.

Therefore, urban transition is a major change and turning point in urban development with multi-field, multi-level, and multi-perspective characteristics. In the past ten years, although urban transition has been practiced in many aspects of economic and industrial development, such as green and low-carbon transitions in China [53], it is rarely used in institutional theories and policies. The fundamental change in the institution may lead to the overall transition of the city in various fields, such as environment, society, and economy [54]. Urban development should not only examine its continuity from the historical point of view but also its unique particularity from the institutional contexts [55]. The urban transition depends on the time opportunity of urban development reaching an advanced stage, which can realise the transition from quantitative to qualitative change [56].

Meanwhile, two main shortcomings exist in research on urban transition. First, the definition of urban transition with different characteristics at each stage is confused. As the term transition was widely used earlier in the economic field, especially from planned economy systems to market economy systems, the term urban transition as an economic transition has been acknowledged by numerous academics. Nevertheless, it seems difficult to simply refine this term by using the economic one with the emergence of new urban problems. Therefore, its connotation has been amplified, resulting in confusion in its definition to a certain extent. Secondly, there are many cases with a single type lacking a general explanation. The existing research predominantly emphasises the transition of cities experiencing a decline in resources. This type has become the core subject of transition practice because of its large number, extensive influence, and sufficient attention from national and local governments. Although this phenomenon is beneficial to the accumulation of the theory of the transition of those cities, it is still too weak to guide the general urban transition. Overall, the current research is still stuck in its concept connotation, influencing factors, and practical assumptions and lacks systematic thinking.

3.2. China’s Urbanisation Process

In the context of China’s urbanisation process, scholars have sought to delineate its historical stages based on factors such as urban population dynamics and the urban–rural relationship. Bai [57] proposes a six-stage classification to capture the nuances of this complex evolution. The first stage, spanning from 1951 to 1958, witnessed a remarkable average annual growth rate of the urban population at 7.1%, significantly outpacing rural population growth at 1.5%. Subsequently, the second stage, from 1959 to 1966, exhibited fluctuations, with annual growth rates reaching their zenith at 15.4% and nadir at -8.2%. The third stage, covering 1967 to 1977, marked a period of stability with relatively slow urban population growth at 2.1% on average annually, slightly lagging behind rural population growth at 2.3%. Moving forward, the fourth stage, spanning from 1978 to 1986, experienced acceleration in urbanisation, with the urban population’s average annual growth rate at 5.2%, in stark contrast to the rural population’s meagre 0.4% growth rate. The pace of progress slowed during the fifth stage, from 1987 to 1995. However, the final stage, commencing in 1996, witnessed renewed momentum with an average annual urban population increase of 3.3%. Meanwhile, rural populations faced an average annual decrease of 0.6%.

Tang and Zhou [58] present an alternative three-stage classification. The first period, spanning from 1949 to 1957, was characterised by a virtuous cycle of open urban and rural areas, fostering population flow without stagnation. The subsequent phase, encompassing the Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1978, saw rural-to-urban migration spiral out of control. In response, the government initiated measures to regain control, including population flow regulation and the discontinuation of far-reaching urban planning policies. This adjustment phase paved the way for the third stage, marked by steady growth, which commenced with the Reform and Opening Up policy. During this stage, the central government introduced a series of policies in the mid-1990s to promote urbanisation, significantly advancing its development.

Beyond these classifications, other scholars have approached China’s urbanisation process from the vantage point of driving mechanisms and shifting policy ideologies since the Reform and Opening Up [59]. This perspective delineates three distinctive phases. The first, from 1978 to 1984, is characterised as a restorative stage, marked by a notable focus on urban development after initial urbanisation. The subsequent phase, spanning from 1985 to 1991, witnessed urbanisation driven by both township enterprises and urban reform. Moving into the period from 1992 to 2000, comprehensive urbanisation promotion emerged as the dominant theme, underscored by the widespread establishment of economic development zones as the primary driving force.

Further insights are offered by Zhu [60], who divides the process into three stages. The initial period from 1949 to 1957 is regarded as the commencement of industrialisation. However, during the People’s Communes period from 1958 to 1977, the Great Leap Forward inadvertently induced an influx of immigrant farmers into cities, leading to an initial anti-urbanisation phenomenon. The subsequent onset of the Cultural Revolution gave rise to a second wave of anti-urbanisation as educated young individuals were sent to rural areas. However, during the period of Reform and Opening Up from 1978 onwards, simultaneous rural and urban reform efforts ushered in a new phase of urbanisation development.

Zou [61] provides another perspective with a three-phase framework. The first phase, spanning from 1953 to 1958, was characterised by planned urbanisation, with large-scale industrial construction absorbing a substantial rural workforce into factories. The second phase, from 1958 to 1978, witnessed a stagnation in urbanisation efforts due to external disruptions such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Finally, the third phase, from 1978 onwards, demonstrates rapid urbanisation, as evidenced by an average annual growth rate of 0.88%.

Chen [62] contributes a four-stage categorisation since the Reform and Opening Up. The initial stage, from 1978 to 1984, was predominantly driven by rural reform. The subsequent phase, spanning from 1984 to 1992, was characterised by the adoption of economic system reform policies in the mid-1980s. The period from 1992 to 2003 was marked by the establishment of market economic system reform, with intensified institutional transitions and market-oriented reforms, resulting in both positive and negative impacts on urbanisation. The final stage, from 2003 to 2008, marked a pivotal turning point with the introduction of the Scientific Outlook on Development in 2003, reshaping the national economic and social development strategy.

Qiao [63] introduces a four-stage model, beginning with the era of unequal systems based on household registration from the founding of the PRC to 1977. The subsequent stage, from 1978 to 1991, saw bottom-up urbanisation under the dual-track gradual reform. The third stage, from 1992 to 2012, was characterised by mobile urbanisation under the reform of the market economy system. From 2013 onwards, urbanisation enters the fourth stage—new-type urbanisation—under the comprehensive deepening of reforms.

Lastly, Zhang and Zhang [15] offer a four-phase categorisation. The initial phase preceding the Reform and Opening Up in 1978 marked an early era of urbanisation. Thereafter, steady improvement characterised the period from 1978 onwards. As the 21st century commenced, the government shifted its focus towards coordinated urbanisation and development, emphasising responsible land management. This culminated in the proposal of the National New Urbanisation Plan in 2014, signifying a new phase in China’s urbanisation journey.

Several scholars have contributed diverse perspectives on the classification of China’s urbanisation process based on the pace of urbanisation. Jiang [64] delineates five stages in this progression, commencing with the initial development stage from 1949 to 1957. It was followed by the high-speed stage from 1958 to 1961, a period of rapid urbanisation. Subsequently, a reverse stage unfolded from 1962 to 1965, marked by a change in trajectory. The stagnated stage from 1966 to 1978 saw urbanisation losing momentum. Finally, the rapid recovery stage commenced in 1978, signalling a renewed phase of urbanisation.

Alternatively, Ye, Xu, and Yi [65] present a four-stage categorisation. The initial stage, spanning from 1949 to 1978, witnessed urbanisation levels consistently below 20%, accompanied by policies that reflected anti-urbanisation sentiments. The second stage, from 1978 to the end of the 1980s, was characterised by the rapid growth of small towns, primarily in eastern coastal areas, driven by the development of township enterprises, exemplifying a ‘bottom-up’ urbanisation process. The third stage, from 1990 to the end of the 20th century, saw continued urbanisation driven by economic development, capital accumulation, and the deepening of Reform and Opening Up, resulting in an approximately 10% increase in urbanisation levels. The fourth stage commenced in 2000.

Kang [66] offers a three-stage framework for China’s urbanisation process. The first stage spans from 1949 to 1961, encompassing the recovery and initial development periods. The second stage, from 1962 to 1978, represented a period of adjustment and tortuous development. The third stage, from 1979 to 2013, signified a period of reform and accelerated development.

Zhu [67] provides a two-period, four-stage categorisation. The urbanisation rate increased from 10.64% in 1949 to 29.04% in 1995, defining urbanisation before the Reform and Opening Up period (1949–1978). Subsequently, from 1996 to 2012, urbanisation marked the beginning of the socialist market economy, with an urbanisation rate rising from 30.48% to 59.58%. This era ushered in a new-type urbanisation (2013–present).

Despite the differing criteria and perspectives, existing studies find consensus on the historical stages of China’s urbanisation. Notably, the Reform and Opening Up policy heralded a new phase of urbanisation, characterised by rapid growth since 1978, often referred to as “China’s growth miracle”. This post-reform urbanisation experience was unique and defied conventional urban change paradigms [19].

Traditionally, urbanisation has been perceived as a natural outcome of economic development [68]. China’s transformation from a predominantly agrarian-based rural economy to the world’s second-largest economy represents a remarkable evolution [19]. However, reliance on traditional and extensive urbanisation models entailed risks, including slow industrial upgrading, environmental degradation, and increased social disparities, potentially impeding modernisation. In response, the 18th National CPC Report advocated a new approach, emphasising a distinctive path of industrialisation, IT application, urbanisation, and agricultural modernisation [69].

The National Urbanisation Plan (NUP) played a pivotal role in reshaping China’s urbanisation trajectory [70]. It served as a catalyst for economic development and social reform, optimising urban-scale structures and enhancing industry development [71]. This strategic shift towards a new urbanisation model has been instrumental in driving China’s continued growth and transformation.

China’s urbanisation is an evolving and staged process marked by transitions occurring between each stage. As elucidated by Turok and McGranahan [72] and Lang, Chen, and Li [70], the journey of urbanisation is inherently intertwined with urban transition. Since the initiation of the Reform and Opening Up policy, China has undergone a profound transformation, transitioning from a predominantly rural society to one predominantly urban [7,73]. This shift has been underpinned by the establishment of the compensated urban land-use system.

The concept of urban transition from the Reform and Opening-Up period has received robust confirmation from various scholars [10,32,41,43,51]. With a shift in institutional orientation, the advent of new-type urbanisation has engendered a profound transition within Chinese cities [29,74]. Since the comprehensive national policy of new-type urbanisation was introduced in 2012, Chinese cities have embarked on a journey of transition, pivoting from high-speed and resource-based development to an emphasis on high-quality and human-centred development [12,29,71,75,76].

In summary, China’s urbanisation process, unique in its scale and speed, is characterised by several defining features and consequential effects that distinguish it from its global counterparts. A key characteristic is the significant role of state-led policies in shaping the urban landscape, guiding the transition from rural to urban life, and influencing the economic, social, and environmental facets of urbanisation. This process has been marked by rapid urban population growth, fuelled by both natural increases and massive rural-to-urban migration, resulting in the expansion of urban areas and the transformation of China’s economic structure from an agrarian-based to an industrial and service-oriented economy. The effects of this urbanisation wave are manifold. Economically, it has spurred unprecedented growth, elevating China to the status of a global economic powerhouse. Socially, it has led to altered living conditions, demographic shifts, and a new urban identity, albeit accompanied by challenges such as urban–rural disparities, environmental degradation, and the pressure on urban infrastructure and services. The environmental impact has also been profound, with urban expansion exerting significant pressure on natural resources and leading to concerns over sustainable development. In response, the concept of “New-Type Urbanisation” has been introduced, aiming for more sustainable, equitable, and human-centred urban development. This approach seeks to mitigate the adverse effects of past urbanisation patterns by emphasising environmental stewardship, social inclusivity, and balanced regional development. This transition signifies a pivotal juncture in China’s urban development, marking a departure from the previous stage. The profound changes ushered in by new-type urbanisation have set China on a distinct trajectory, characterised by a heightened focus on sustainable, human-centric urban development and a departure from previous resource-driven models.

3.3. Addressing Challenges: China’s Transition to New-Type Urbanisation

With the rapid pace of urbanisation in China, a multitude of challenges began to manifest. Issues such as severe environmental degradation, traffic congestion, skyrocketing housing prices, and urban vulnerability barriers became increasingly pronounced. Among these issues, the urban sprawl facilitated by the land revenue system stands out as a particularly daunting obstacle. This system, which allows local governments to finance their expenditures through the sale of land-use rights, has inadvertently encouraged the expansion of cities beyond sustainable limits. This sprawl not only exacerbates environmental degradation but also disrupts the economic advantages traditionally associated with population and industrial concentration. The mechanism behind this sprawl is deeply rooted in the fiscal incentives provided by the land revenue system. Local governments, driven by the need to generate revenue, are incentivised to continuously convert agricultural land into urban and industrial use. This practice has led to widespread environmental costs, including the loss of arable land and increased pollution, as well as fragmented construction land patterns. These patterns diverge significantly from the expected increase in population density, a trend commonly observed in urbanisation processes in other East Asian countries [77,78]. Instead, Chinese cities have seen a decrease in population density, complicating efforts to achieve sustainable urban development and efficient public service delivery. This sprawling urbanisation model, while initially boosting local economies through land sales, has long-term implications for social equity, environmental sustainability, and the overall resilience of urban areas.

Continuing along this path of urbanisation could exacerbate the lock-in effects of land-use decisions and urban infrastructure choices, leading to further environmental, economic, and social degradation [79]. Recognising the imperative need for policy intervention, China, as a highly centralised state, embarked on regulatory measures to tackle these emerging challenges. In response, the Eighteenth National Congress of the CPC in 2012 introduced the concept of new-type urbanisation, with a strong emphasis on human-centric development. This focus was further reinforced in the subsequent National New-Type Urbanisation Plan (2014–2020) [80]. Both the Nineteenth National Congress and the Central Economic Work Conference acknowledged the transition to a new stage of socialism with Chinese characteristics, shifting from high-speed to high-quality economic development.

The New-Type Urbanisation Plan marked a paradigm shift in China’s urbanisation landscape [70]. It emerged as a pivotal force for economic development and social reform, aiming to optimise the structure of urban areas and enhance industrial development [71]. The significance of this transition is further highlighted in the Fourteenth Five-Year Plan, which prioritises “improving the quality and effectiveness of urbanisation” and “deepening the human-centric new-type urbanisation strategy” from 2021 to 2025. This strategic pivot seeks to address the multifaceted challenges of China’s urbanisation process, steering it towards a more sustainable and human-centred development.

China’s new-type urbanisation has garnered significant attention from scholars and policymakers for its crucial role in the country’s economic and social transformation. Studies have predominantly focused on the status and outcomes of this urbanisation paradigm. For instance, Zhou, Song, and Cui [81] highlighted its significant impact on economic development and social reform. This shift emphasises optimising the structure of urban areas, accelerating the transition and upgrading of industries within core cities, and enhancing urban functions [71], marking not only a new national urbanisation policy but also a distinctive stage in China’s development trajectory [75].

Moreover, the profound influence of policy guidance on China’s urbanisation journey cannot be overstated. Policy directives, serving as behavioural norms closely associated with socio-economic actions [82], play a crucial role as both drivers and safeguards [83]. The impact of policy guidance often surpasses economic factors, primarily due to the decisive influence of political leaders and government macro-management in this process [84]. While the existing literature has extensively explored various aspects of new-type urbanisation policies, certain critical areas remain underexplored.

3.3.1. Interconnected Dynamics: Population, Land, and Industry in China’s Urbanisation

Understanding the intricate relationship between population, land, and industry is fundamental to assessing urbanisation. At its core, urbanisation represents the non-agricultural transition of these three key elements [85,86,87]. Operating as a macro-level system, urbanisation includes meso-level subsystems comprising population, land, and industry. These elements act as the fundamental pillars, conduits, and sources of the transformative process [29,88]. The proportion of the population transitioning away from agriculture relative to the total population signifies different stages of urbanisation [89]. Land, serving as property, living space, economic space, and place, occupies a central role in the urbanisation process [90]. Meanwhile, industrial development, as the foundation, lays the groundwork for modern economic growth, shaping the environmental and social conditions necessary for enhancing residents’ livelihoods and overall quality of life [90]. This intricate interplay between population, land, and industry remains a critical determinant of China’s evolving urban landscape.

Within the realm of urbanisation, it is imperative to recognise that the three pivotal subsystems—population, land, and industrial urbanisation—are not isolated entities but rather intricately intertwined. Existing research underscores the presence of mutual correlations, impacts, and restrictive relationships among these subsystems [88,90]. In particular, the movement of the urban–rural population emerges as a significant driving force shaping the expansion of urban land and the trajectory of industrial development [91]. Land urbanisation, as another key facet, serves as the spatial foundation for accommodating urban population growth and industrialisation [88]. It provides the necessary physical infrastructure for the burgeoning urban landscape. Conversely, industrial urbanisation assumes the role of a precondition for the agglomeration of urban populations and the development of built-up areas [85]. This interdependence is further exemplified by the dynamics of rural population migration, driven by shifts in industrial structure and economic development. Such shifts in industrial composition stimulate the demand for labour, consequently propelling rural-to-urban migration and increasing the need for land for construction purposes [92].

Moreover, an exhaustive examination of urbanisation transcends the lens of historical continuity and calls for a nuanced consideration of its distinct characteristics from an era-based perspective [84]. In this context, China’s urbanisation emerges as a multifaceted process characterised by the agglomeration of population, built-up land, and industry within urban areas [91,93,94]. The focus of new-type urbanisation on integrating the spatial distribution of the registered population, construction land, and secondary and tertiary industries highlights the need for an in-depth understanding of the interactions among these key elements. These interactions provide a foundational perspective for analysing the dynamics of new-type urbanisation, underscoring the necessity of exploring the interplay among population, land, and industry to fully grasp the complexities of implementing China’s new-type urbanisation policies.

3.3.2. Policy Reforms in Population Urbanisation

In the phase of high-speed urbanisation, a substantial influx of rural labourers migrated to urban centres. However, their ability to establish permanent residence was hindered by disparities in the urban–rural regime [89]. This issue, which had long been overlooked due to the focus on the proportion of the permanent urban population (PUP) as the primary assessment criterion for China’s urbanisation objectives, gained recognition with the advent of new-type urbanisation. This recognition led the central government to implement a series of policy reforms targeting population urbanisation. These reforms aimed to revamp the household registration system by easing restrictions on the transfer of registered permanent residence and creating a unified system that encompasses both urban and rural areas. Furthermore, to ensure the successful integration of the labour force and the social mobility of skilled individuals moving from rural areas to cities as permanent urban residents, a suite of policies was formulated to enhance the strategic orientation concerning the quality of this migrating population. These policies were predicated on the principles of equity, participation, development, and security for the floating population—a critical component of the urbanisation process.

In parallel, the established population development regime underwent a transformation. In 2014, the proportions of registered urban population and permanent urban residents stood at 36.3% and 53.77%, respectively, representing a significant 19% gap [95]. By 2019, these proportions had shifted to 44.38% and 60.6%, signalling a narrowing gap of 2.25% over five years. This trend highlighted an increasing tendency for long-term residency and changes in household registration among the floating population upon their urban arrival. The enhancement of individual rights and interests became increasingly central in the context of new-type urbanisation, promoting a more equitable environment for all participants in urbanisation.

3.3.3. From Land Expansion to Sustainable Urban Growth

During China’s phase of rapid urbanisation, it is notable that “population urbanisation” and “land urbanisation” progressed asynchronously. Between 2004 and 2014, the proportion of the PUP experienced a significant rise from 41.76% to 54.77%, an increase of 13.01%. In contrast, the built-up area underwent a remarkable expansion, increasing from 30,406.19 km² to 49,772.63 km², marking an astonishing growth of 63.69% [96]. This discrepancy can largely be attributed to local government policies that promoted population urbanisation alongside land urbanisation, driven by the dual goals of GDP growth and maximising land revenue incentives [97,98]. Additionally, the high-speed urbanisation’s demand for population mobility and the pressure to achieve notable political performance inadvertently led to the inflation of a real estate bubble (the real-estate bubble is a type of economic bubble that occurs periodically in local or global real estate markets and typically follows a land boom [99]), highlighting the complex nature of urbanisation during this period.

The landscape of land urbanisation witnessed a transformative shift, with the initial adjustments manifesting primarily at the policy level. In 2014, a pivotal policy directive acknowledged the imperative of curbing the expansion of newly added construction land. Within the framework of new-type urbanisation, strict limitations were placed on the increment of construction land. Specifically, the aggregate newly added urban and rural construction land was mandated to remain within the confines of 21,707 km² between 2015 and 2020. This marked a fundamental departure from previous practices, emphasising the need for controlled expansion. The rise in rural-to-urban migration necessitated corresponding investments in municipal infrastructure development, leading to a prioritisation in the allocation of newly added urban construction land to meet the needs associated with rural population mobility. Notably, specific policies emphasised securing land for constructing essential public services, thereby supporting the social well-being of urban inhabitants.

Crucially, the policies espoused within the ambit of new-type urbanisation demonstrated a distinct focus on the rejuvenation of existing construction land as opposed to unrestrained land sprawl. This strategic pivot resulted in an increased PUP proportion, which grew from 54.77% to 60.60% between 2014 and 2019, achieving a notable rise of 5.83%. Simultaneously, urban built-up areas expanded from 49,772.63 km² to 60,312.45 km², a considerable increase of 21.18% [96]. This period saw a shift in the growth ratio of PUP to built-up areas from 1:4.9 to 1:3.6, highlighting a strategic move towards optimising existing construction land—a transition from incremental to stock planning.

3.3.4. Catalysing Industrial Transformation

China’s industrialisation journey is intricately intertwined with its urbanisation trajectory [76]. As the world’s largest manufacturing nation, China grappled with inherent challenges characterised by high cost ratios, low value-added rates, and modest profit margins. In response, the paradigm shift initiated through new-type urbanisation precipitated a dramatic transformation in the industrial sector. At the forefront of this transformation was the “Made in China 2025” initiative, which articulated a strategic vision to position the nation as a manufacturing powerhouse. Central to this vision was the imperative to expedite the transition and upscaling of the manufacturing domain, coupled with a resolute commitment to enhancing innovation capabilities. This initiative dovetailed seamlessly with the goals outlined in the thirteenth Five-Year Plan, which underscored the urgency of advancing both advanced manufacturing and strategic emerging industries. A telling indicator of progress was the marked increase in the added value of strategic emerging industries, surging from 8.1% of GDP in 2015 to a commendable 11.7% in 2020—an impressive rise of 3.7% in just five years [96].

The historical evolution of China’s industrial structure reflects a noteworthy transition from industry-centric to service-oriented paradigms. During the 1950s and 1960s, the central government articulated an ambitious vision of achieving national industrialisation and embarked on a policy framework emphasising agriculture-based, industry-led economic development. This visionary approach catapulted China into the coveted position of “factory of the world”. The migration of abundant and cost-effective rural labour to the burgeoning urban industrial sectors was instrumental in realising this vision. Over the subsequent four decades, post-Reform and Opening Up, the nation’s working-age population witnessed rapid expansion, accompanied by the allure of low labour costs. These dynamics fuelled the meteoric growth of traditional industries, underpinned by what came to be known as the demographic dividend—an extraordinary source of robust economic expansion.

However, as demographic shifts accelerated and technological advancements gained momentum, the sustainability of this traditional economic model faced substantial challenges. The ageing population and evolving technology landscape necessitated a strategic pivot towards fostering innovation-based industries and facilitating the transition of the industrial landscape. This juncture ushered in a profound transformation, redefining the contours of China’s economy and setting the stage for the ascension of the innovation-driven economy.

New-type urbanisation policies emerged as a crucial lever in addressing the intricate dilemma facing China’s urbanisation and industrialisation dynamics. Notably, during the twelfth Five-Year Plan implementation, the central government introduced targeted measures to optimise the service industry, setting strategic objectives to increase the added value of the service industry in GDP by 3% and to promote economic growth across primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors. This initiative was fruitful, as evidenced in 2012 when the added value from the tertiary industry exceeded that of the secondary industry for the first time, marking a significant shift in the economic development drivers of China [96].

Subsequently, the thirteenth Five-Year Plan underscored the significance of specialisation within producer services and the imperative of elevating consumer services to attain exceptional quality. These directives align with the overarching goal of optimising and upgrading the nation’s industrial structure. A key indicator of these advancements is the steady rise in the proportion of the service sector’s added value to the GDP, signalling an ongoing structural transformation [100]. By 2020, the service sector’s added value accounted for a noteworthy 54.5% of the GDP, marked by robust growth rates ranging from 7% to 8% [101]. Yet, attaining a high per capita GDP level and establishing a modern, service-oriented industrial system will require continued effort. These aspirations stand as a testament to China’s unwavering commitment to advancing its economic landscape, with new-type urbanisation policies playing a pivotal role in orchestrating this intricate transition.

4. Discussion

In the intricate interplay of urbanisation dynamics, the effects of various policies and factors did not unfold in isolation; instead, they interacted in a complex manner, shaping the landscape of urbanisation (see

Table 3. The transition of the three elements (population, land, and industry) in new-type urbanisation.

	New-Type Urbanisation
	High-Speed Urbanisation	High-Quality Urbanisation
Population	Separation of registered and actual residences	Unity between registered and actual residences
Land	Human–land allometry	Human–land balance
Industry	Traditional dependent industrialisation	Emerging service innovation

Source: The authors.

). Notably, policies related to household registration played a significant role in addressing the challenge posed by the separation of registered and actual residences. These policies sought to bridge the gap between land supply and demand arising from this dichotomy. Moreover, the voluntary and compensated withdrawal mechanisms introduced through the homestead system reform objectively facilitated the integration of individuals migrating from rural areas to urban settings [102]. Furthermore, the rural area revitalisation strategy initiated a notable trend: a considerable number of individuals who were registered in rural areas but had been working in cities returned to their rural origins to embark on entrepreneurial ventures [103]. Remarkably, this phenomenon did not hinder the urbanisation process; instead, it provided a practical solution to the pressing issue of rural populations grappling with the separation of their registered and actual residences. While the urban–rural dual opposition was mitigated to some extent, a new dynamic emerged—the intensification of competition between urban centres. Moreover, it is essential to recognise that local governments, driven by the logic of land revenues, harboured high expectations regarding the economic gains linked to household registration-based urbanisation. This perspective frames household registration as a critical means of local economic input and revenue generation [104]. The reform of the household registration system amplified the role of local governments by granting them more authority, including the power to set local settlement thresholds. Consequently, a political atmosphere favouring the survival of the fittest emerged [105].

While new-type urbanisation aimed for inclusivity and balanced growth, ordinary workers who played a pivotal role in urban construction encountered formidable challenges. These workers often struggled to establish their presence in urban areas as they faced restrictions on property ownership, such as the inability to register as full-fledged citizens eligible to purchase houses and land within the city. Regrettably, their rights and interests were frequently marginalised amidst the pursuit of political achievements and urban development. Consequently, despite clear policy objectives and guidance, the qualitative narrowing of the gap between the registered population and the PUP remained an elusive goal at the conclusion of the New-Type Urbanisation Plan (2014–2020).

Similar to the trajectory of China’s urbanisation, early studies on China’s urban transition predominantly approached it as an economic transformation. These analyses, rooted in the framework of transition economics, aimed to elucidate how China’s urban economic system transitioned from a planned economy to a market-oriented one [106]. For instance, Chai, Chen, and Zhang [107] explored the establishment of the market economy and the evolution of the distribution mechanism, offering insights into the spatial repercussions and societal consequences of these institutional shifts. Chen, Yang, and Tian [108] undertook a quantitative examination of the economic development of Chinese cities from the vantage point of institutional transition. Wang and Cui [109], and Wang, Zhang, and Han [110] scrutinised the spatiotemporal pattern evolution of the effects of the transition in sub-provincial cities and the marine economy in China. Beyond economic transitions, urban evolution encompasses social transformations involving population dynamics, culture, education, healthcare, and technology, as well as ecological transitions that encompass environmental protection and a transition towards a green, low-carbon paradigm [83]. Furthermore, Ye and Tang [111] parsed urban transition into three dimensions: institutional transition, growth and development transition, which spans the shift from planned to market economy, extensive to intensive growth, and a shift from a singular focus on GDP to an emphasis on the quality of economic growth.

The realm of research on China’s urban transition operates primarily at two spatial scales: the urban and regional levels. Scholars have concentrated their efforts on investigating various facets of urban internal space, including the characteristics, influencing factors, and dynamic mechanisms of urban social-spatial structures [112,113,114,115], the relocation of urban industrial spaces [116], emerging industrial spaces [117], and the construction and renewal of industrial parks [118]. Additionally, research has delved into the spatial transformations of service facilities within cities [119], housing differentiation [120], and the spatial patterns of urban land use accessibility [121]. On a regional scale, scholars have proposed models to describe socio-economic development spatial patterns, including the point-axis system and T-shaped strategy [122], the plate development model [123], and the urban agglomeration model [124].

In response to emerging urban challenges and a waning impetus for urban development, an innovative development model has garnered increasing scholarly attention. Building upon the common attributes of “Knowledge Cities”, Dong [125] argued that urban development should forge closer collaborations with local universities and research institutions while emphasising the critical importance of enhancing urban information and cultural “software”. Zhu [126] contended that achieving sustainable urban transition necessitates more than mere technological innovation. Consequently, within the evolving landscape of China’s reforms, the effectiveness of institutional provisions in implanting sustainability and catalysing China’s urban transition remains a pressing concern.

5. Conclusions

This paper has explored the multifaceted nature of China’s urbanisation process, illustrating its unique trajectory influenced by historical, socio-economic, and policy-driven factors. Our findings underscore the complexity of China’s urban transition, highlighting the interplay between rapid urban growth and the imperative for sustainable development practices. We have identified key challenges, such as environmental sustainability, social inequality, and the integration of urban–rural development, which are critical for framing future urbanisation policies. Furthermore, this analysis contributes to the broader discourse on urbanisation in the global context, offering insights into the role of government policy in shaping urban landscapes. As we reflect on China’s urbanisation journey, it becomes evident that addressing these challenges requires innovative, inclusive, and sustainable approaches.

The findings of this paper highlight the pressing necessity for policy reforms tailored to the unique challenges posed by China’s urbanisation. It emphasises a holistic approach to urban transition, advocating for policies that not only prioritise environmental sustainability and social equity but also seamlessly integrate urban and rural development. To effectively mitigate environmental degradation, this paper recommends the adoption of green urban planning practices that are in harmony with nature. Moreover, it calls for the implementation of policies aimed at reducing social inequality and ensuring equitable access to urban amenities and services for all citizens. A significant emphasis is placed on fostering a balanced and symbiotic development between urban centres and rural areas, thus ensuring that the benefits of urbanisation are distributed more evenly across the societal spectrum. Additionally, this paper champions the cause of participatory governance, urging the inclusion of citizens in the urban planning process to ensure that development initiatives are both inclusive and attuned to the diverse needs of all stakeholders. These policy recommendations are designed not only to navigate China towards a more sustainable and equitable urban future but also to serve as a model for other nations grappling with the complexities of rapid urbanisation.

This paper contributes significantly to the existing literature by offering a comprehensive examination of China’s urbanisation from a multi-dimensional perspective, emphasising the complex interplay between economic growth, social change, and environmental sustainability. Its novelty lies in the critical analysis of the phased nature of urbanisation, underscored by policy evolution since the Reform and Opening Up period, which illuminates the distinct characteristics of China’s urban development model. The findings can offer a critical perspective on policy formulation and sustainable urban development.

In acknowledging the limitations of this study, it is important to note that while our analysis provides significant insights into the complexities of China’s urbanisation, it is constrained by the availability and scope of data. This study’s geographical and temporal coverage may not capture all the nuances of regional urbanisation patterns. Additionally, the rapidly evolving nature of urban policy and development practices in China necessitates ongoing research to keep pace with changes. Future studies could benefit from incorporating more diverse data sources, including longitudinal studies and qualitative research, to deepen the understanding of urbanisation’s socio-economic impacts.

While this study provides comprehensive insights into the urbanisation and industrialisation processes of China, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. One notable constraint is the exclusion of data from published books. Books often contain extensive research, detailed case studies, and nuanced perspectives that could enrich the analysis. The absence of this source of data may have resulted in a less comprehensive portrayal of the historical, socio-economic, and policy-driven facets of China’s transformation. To mitigate this limitation, future research could consider incorporating insights from a wide array of published books, particularly those focusing on China’s economic development, urban planning, and industrial policies. This approach would enable a more holistic understanding of the interplay between urbanisation and industrialisation in China, potentially revealing underexplored dynamics that quantitative data alone cannot capture.