| 摘要: |
| 城市更新作为城乡规划学科的核
心研究领域，其理论与实践发展具有显著
的政策响应性特征。本研究运用Citespace
科学计量工具，对中国知网（CNKI）数
据库1995—2024 年间城市更新研究文献
进行可视化分析，发现研究演进呈现明显
的政策导向性与延续性。研究识别出三大
持续性热点领域：发达地区更新案例的实
证研究、差异化空间类型的更新路径探
索，以及治理模式的创新演进。伴随新型
城镇化战略的深化实施与城市更新政策的
密集发布，研究呈现出理论多元化与实践
创新性并重的发展态势。基于城镇化发展
阶段与政策演变的交互影响，本研究构建
了城市更新的三阶段分析框架，通过系统
梳理各阶段的政策语境、实践特征与研究
焦点，总结当前城市更新演进趋势与启
示，进一步总结研究不足与未来展望，旨
在为当前城市更新行动提供理论参照与实
践指引， 推动城市高质量发展目标的
实现。 |
| 关键词: 城市更新 研究回顾 发展 知
识图谱 CiteSpace |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20250512006 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:*“十四五”国家重点研发计划课题（2023YFC3804801）；2022 年度江苏省建设系统科技项目（2022ZD042） |
|
| A review and development of urban regeneration research from 1995 to 2024：Based onknowledge graph analysis |
|
MA Chenxi,YANG Jianqiang,LI Zhen
|
| Abstract: |
| Urban regeneration has long constituted a core research domain within the discipline of urban
and rural planning. Over the past three decades, its theoretical evolution and practical development have
exhibited pronounced dynamic characteristics. Drawing on a corpus of 2 875 high-quality articles
retrieved from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for the period 1995–2024, this study
employs the scientometric software CiteSpace to conduct a visualized analysis that systematically
elucidates the evolutionary trajectory and immanent regularities of Chinese urban-regeneration
scholarship. The findings reveal a high degree of coupling between the development of this research field
and China’s urbanization process as well as its policy orientations; knowledge production is marked by
distinct stage-specific attributes and an evident trend toward theoretical deepening.Methodologically, the
study combines bibliometric techniques with content analysis. A composite keyword search strategy was
used to construct the research sample, which was then examined in conjunction with policy documents
and representative case studies in a multidimensional framework. Bibliometric data indicate that annual
publication output has grown exponentially—from sporadic studies in 1995 to a peak of 265 papers in
2024. This growth trajectory parallels the rise of China’s urbanization rate from 29% to 67%. Two policy
milestones—the promulgation of the Urban and Rural Planning Law in 2007 and the launch of the
national “Urban Regeneration Action” in 2021—constitute critical inflection points that precipitated
sharp increases in scholarly attention.Hot-spot analysis identifies three persistent research clusters. At the
empirical level, mega-cities such as Shenzhen and Shanghai have become salient case studies, offering
differentiated pathways for spatial restructuring within high-density built environments. In typological
research, the regeneration strategies of historical districts, industrial heritage sites, and urban villages
have attracted sustained academic interest, yielding taxonomic theoretical frameworks. Governance
innovation has emerged as a recent frontier, with paradigms such as micro-regeneration and public
participation interacting synergistically with analytical tools drawn from property-rights theory and the
theory of spatial production, thereby shifting the research agenda from physical redevelopment toward
socio-spatial co-governance. Viewed diachronically, urban-regeneration research displays clear stagespecific
features. Early studies concentrated on foundational issues of physical spatial transformation. Wu
Liangyong’s theory of organic regeneration provided a conceptual bedrock for subsequent inquiry. With
the implementation of the New Urbanization Strategy, the research agenda broadened to encompass
ecological conservation, cultural continuity, and social governance, fostering an interdisciplinary research
landscape. In recent years, amid the restructuring of the territorial spatial-planning system and deepening
practical explorations, research has further advanced toward refined governance mechanisms and the
application of intelligent technologies, evidencing a virtuous interaction between theoretical construction
and practical innovation. Theoretical formation is characterized by pronounced cross-disciplinary
integration. Spatial disciplines such as urban and rural planning and architecture furnish technical support
fo慲渠摴?浥攠摭楡畴浥?獩楡穬攠摲?捧楥瑮楥敲獡??摯敮瘠敯汦漠灴楨湥朠?摵楩晬晴攠牥敮湶瑩楲慯瑮敭摥?獴琬爠慷瑨敥杲楥捡?猠祳獯瑣敩浡獬?瑳档物潥畮杣桥?椠湳摵散灨琠桡?愠湥慣汯祮獯敭獩?潳映?汮潤捳慯汣?摯敬浯潧杹爠慣灯桮楴捲?獢瑵牴略挠瑩畮牳整獩?慵湴摩?獮灡慬琠楡慮污?慹瑳瑩牳椠扡畮瑤攠獧???敲慮湡睮档楥氠整??楯瑲?楥獳?椠浔灨敩牳愠瑭極癬整?琭潤?敳湣桩慰湬捩敮?牲敹猠敳慹牮捴桨?潳湩?琠桤敯?慳瀠灮汯楴挠慯瑮楬潹渠?潮晲?獣浨愠牴瑨?挠楴瑨祥?瑲敥捴桩湣潡汬漠杣楯敮獮??摡楴杩楯瑮慳氠?瑦眠極湲獢??琊桲敥??湮瑥敲牡湴敩瑯?漠晢?呴栠楡湬杳獯?慦湵摲?捩汳潨略摳?捤潩浶灥畲瑳楩湦杩?楤渠?畮牡扬慹湴?牣敡杬攠湦敲牡慭瑥楷潯湲???摦癯慲渠捡楤湤杲?瑳桳敩獮敧?牣敯獭数慬牥捸栠?摲楡牣整捩瑣楡潬渠獰?睯楢汬汥?晳愮挠楎汯楴瑡慢瑬敹?琠桴敨?挠潬湯獣瑡牬畩捺瑥楤漠湡?潰晬?慣?浴潩牯敮?獯祦猠瑩敮浮慯瑶楡捴?慶湥搊?摮楡牬敹捴瑩楣癡敬?瑩桮敳潴牲敵瑭楥据慴汳—晳牵慣浨攠睡潳爠歲?普潴爭?畡牰戠慴湨?牯敲杹攠湡敮牤愠瑣楯潬湬??祴?獶祥猭瑡散浴慩瑯楮挠慴汨汥祯?浹愔灤灥業湯杮?瑴桲敡?敥癳漠汃畨瑩楮潥湳?漠晳?畨牯扬慡湲?爙攠杣敯湮整牲慩瑢極潴湩?牮敳猠整慯爠捴桨?漠癤敥牶?瑬桯数?灥慮獴琠?瑮桤爠敲敥?摩敮捥慭摥敮獴??瑦栠楩獮?獥瑲畮摡祴?摯楮獡捬氠潴獨敥獯?瑩桥敳?搠祃湵慲浲楥据?椠湲瑥敳牥灡汲慣票?慮浯潮湥杴?灥潬汥楳捳礠?杯畮楦摲慯湮捴敳??灥牶慥捲瑡楬挠慬汩?敩硴灡汴潩牯慮瑳椠潴湨??愠湤摥?瑡桮敤漠牵敲瑧楥据慴氠?楥湳湯潬癵慴瑩楯潮渮??呴桵敤?晥楳渠摯楮渠条獤?摩潮?湳潴瑲?潴湩汶祥?潣景景敲牤?慮捡慴摩敯浮椊捭?牣敨晡敮物敳湭捳攠獲?晭潡物?甠湵摮敤牥獲瑤慥湶摥楬湯杰?瑤栬攠?摡敲癴敩汣潵灬浡敲湬瑹愠汲?灧慡瑲瑤敩牮湧猠?潨晥?畣牡扵慳湥?爠敯杦攠湡敮牤愠瑳楯潬湵?楩湯??栠楴湯愠?扮畴瑥?愭汲獥潧?灯牮潡癬椠摡敮?猠潩浮整?獲甭灤灥潰牡瑲?晭潥牮?灡牬漠浧潯瑶楥湲杮?桮楣来栠?煡畲慲汩楥瑲祳?甠牅扸慩湳?摩敮癧攊汰潥灲浦敯湲瑭???獥?略牶扡慬湵楡穴慩瑯楮漠湳?捳潴湥瑭楳渠畡敲獥?瑳潴?摬敬攠灰敲湥??畭物扮慡湮?牬敹朠敥湣敯牮慯瑭楹漭湯?物敥獮整慥牤挬栠?楥獣?灳潳楩獴敡摴?瑮潧?慤捥桥楰敥癲攠?湯敮睳?扤牥敲慡歴瑩桯牮漠畯杦栠獳?楣湩?瑬栠敥潱牵敩瑴楹挬愠汣?捬潴湵獲瑡牬甠捩瑮楨潥湲?慴湡摮?浥攬琠桡潮摤漊汥潣杯楬捯慧汩?楡湬渠潳癵慳瑴楡潩湮??瑩桬敩牴敹戮礠?捨潥渠瑰牡楲扴畩瑣極湬条?晩畴物瑥桳攠牯?椠湳瑭敡汬汬攭挠瑡畮慤氠?楥湤獩極杭栭瑳獩?瑥潤?畣物扴慩湥?琠牨慡湶獥映潹牥浴愠瑴楯漠湲?慣湥摩?摥攠癡敤汥潱灵浡整湥琠?ttention, resulting in an applicability gap between
“mega-city experience” and “small-city realities.” These shortcomings reflect insufficient depth in interdisciplinary integration and lagging innovation in
research methodologies, thereby constraining the explanatory and prescriptive capacity of urban-regeneration theory vis- à -vis complex practice. Looking
forward, urban-regeneration research must achieve breakthroughs across multiple dimensions. Governance theory needs to construct a coordination framework
adapted to the characteristics of China’s administrative system, providing institutional-design foundations for inter-regional regeneration. Evaluation-method
innovation should establish a multi-dimensional comprehensive assessment system that integrates quantitative analysis with qualitative inquiry. Particular
emphasis must be placed on theoretical exploration of regeneration in small- |
| Key words: urban regeneration research review development knowledge graph CiteSpace |
