| 摘要: |
| 城市更新是国家推动城市高
质量发展的核心战略，但社区更新实
践常面临“精心设计却难以落地”的
困境。其深层原因在于，空间、产权、
制度三个维度的复杂互动被既有学科
研究割裂，缺乏整合性解释。基于此，
提出“空间—产权—制度”三维耦合
分析框架，以空间为治理对象、产权
为治理依据、制度为治理情境，并揭
示其核心耦合机制：空间属性“触发”
并显化产权模糊，制度通过规则、网
络与结构“调适”交易成本，空间对
治理工具的结构化筛选构成“适配”
约束。上述机制循环反馈，共同决定
更新成效：成效不取决于任一维度的
孤立最优，而取决于三者的动态适配
性。基于此框架，建构了核心变量体
系，归纳了五类高频矛盾公共空间的
差异化作用路径，并阐释了从“空间
设计”向“空间治理”转型的核心内
涵。研究为理解中国社区更新的复杂
机理提供了新的理论透镜，并为规划
实践从“经验判断”走向“情境适配”
的治理转型提供了概念基础。 |
| 关键词: 社区更新 空间治理 耦合
框架 产权模糊 制度情境 社区
规划 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20260316001 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金面上项目（52278068）；重庆市社科基金（2024WT23） |
|
| Spatial governance in community regeneration: A “space-property rights-institution”coupling framework |
|
LIU Jiayan,RAN Aobo
|
| Abstract: |
| Urban regeneration has become a national strategy for pursuing high-quality development in
China. Among its various components, the renovation of old residential communities stands out as a critical
field, directly affecting the well-being of hundreds of millions of residents. During the 14th Five-Year Plan
period, over 240,000 old residential communities have been renovated nationwide. However, as regeneration
projects advance toward more comprehensive and upgraded categories, a prevalent dilemma has
increasingly come to the fore: meticulously designed spatial plans frequently encounter significant resistance
during implementation and long-term operation. Elevator installation projects are delayed due to conflicting
interests, parking redevelopment triggers disputes over unfair distribution, and the addition of public
facilities may be opposed by neighboring residents because of privacy or noise concerns. Such phenomena
reveal a deep paradox: spatial designs, no matter how sophisticated, fail to take effect if they do not
adequately respond to the social relations and rights structures embedded in the community. The essence of
community regeneration is thus not a mere engineering activity but a complex social process involving
resource redistribution, rights redefinition, and rule reconstruction. This study argues that the root cause of
this implementation dilemma lies in the deeply coupled nature of three subsystems including space, property
rights, and institutions within communities. Existing research, constrained by disciplinary boundaries, tends
to treat these dimensions in isolation. A systematic review of 754 core Chinese journal papers from 2020 to
2026 reveals that while 41% focus on a single dimension and 47% on two, less than 6% genuinely integrate
all three, highlighting severe theoretical fragmentation. Urban planning excels at spatial morphology but
often simplifies social and rights structures as exogenous conditions; public administration and property
rights economics focus on governance rules but frequently reduce material space to a static container.
Moreover, Western theories often presuppose clear property rights and mature institutional environments,
making them ill-suited for China’s unique context of high-density spatial morphology, complex ownership
legacies, and fragmented grassroots governance. In response, this paper, positioned as a theoretical
construction, proposes a “space-property rights-institution” three-dimensional coupling analytical
framework. The framework designates space as the object of governance, property rights as the basis, and
institutions as the context. It first deconstructs the core characteristics of each dimension: space
encompasses morphological attributes (e. g., integration) and physical-social attributes (competitiveness,
exclusivity, and externality); property rights in China exhibit a triple ambiguity—legal (missing
registration), cognitive (customary rights based on de facto occupation), and operational (execution vacuum
and disorder); institutions function through rule systems, relational networks, and governance structures.
Within this structure, three interconnected mechanisms drive the coupling process. First, the “space-property
rights” triggering mechanism: spatial attributes act as a “trigger” activating latent ambiguities. Highly
competitive spaces (e. g., parking) rapidly expose operational ambiguities in benefit distribution; strongly
external spaces (e. g., elevators) activate cognitive biases among high- and low-floor residents; highly
exclusive spaces (e.g., entrance lobbies) may solidify operational ambiguities into irreversible facts. Second,the “institution-property rights” adjustment mechanism: institutions adjust the resulting transaction costs through three sub-dimensions—clear rules clarify
rights benchmarks, dense neighborhood trust networks “buffer” cognitive frictions, and integrated governance structures “activate” trapped public resources.
Third, the “space-institution” adaptation mechanism: a structural adaptation exists between spatial attributes and governance tools. Fragmented, lowmonitorability
spaces rely more on informal negotiation (networks), whereas highly integrated spaces suit formal voting (rules).Together, these mechanisms
operate in cyclical feedback, endowing the coupling system with three core features: non-linearity (spatial attributes act through the mediation of property rights
cognition and operational status, and regulated by institutions), path dependence (legal ambiguity continuously shapes current cognition), and dynamic
adaptation rather than static optimum. The final outcome depends not on any single dimension’s isolated optimum but on the dynamic compatibility of all three.
Based on this framework, the paper systematizes a core variable system and synthesizes five typical types of conflict-prone public spaces (parking, elevator
installation, commonly owned ancillary spaces, NIMBY facility, and activity spaces), identifying their differentiated interaction pathways. A microdemonstration
case of elevator installation shows how a strongly external space triggers cognitive and operational ambiguities, how the Comprehensive
Governance Center intervenes through rule clarification, relational buffering, and platform integration, and how the adaptation of governance procedures
combined with spatial scheme embedding resolves the deadlock.Finally, the paper articulates the paradigm shift from “spatial design” to “spatial governance”.
It requires planners to transform from standardized technical designers into diagnosticians and adapters equipped with three core capacities: systematic
diagnosis (identifying mismatched nodes), mechanism integration (designing hybrid governance strategies), and process promotion (facilitating continuous
adaptation). This research provides a new theoretical lens for understanding community regeneration in China and lays a conceptual foundation for advancing
planning practice toward context-adapted governance. |
| Key words: community regeneration spatial governance coupling framework property rights ambiguity institutional context community planning |
