| 摘要: |
| 城市更新背景下，城中村治理是盘
活存量空间、推进包容性发展与基层治理现
代化的关键抓手。本文以 2006—2025 年77
份中央层面城中村治理政策为样本， 构
建“治理战略—治理战术—政策性质”三维
分析框架，采用文本量化方法系统解析政策
内涵与演进逻辑。研究发现：第一，当前城
中村治理政策体系已形成统筹发展目标、治
理模式与利益主体的战略架构，战术层面以
基础设施与支撑机制为双轮驱动；政策工具
存在“重引导、轻鼓励”的结构性失衡，制
约了市场与社会力量的参与活力；第二，三
维交叉显示，公共服务强制类政策缺位导致
民生保障刚性不足，且政策长期存在重物质
空间改造、轻文化传承与社区认同的“工程
思维”路径依赖；第三，城中村治理历经探
索协调、系统改造、全面提升三阶段递进演
进，驱动机制由维稳兜底转向高质量发展引
领，政策重心虽逐步向精细化转型，但软性
治理维度始终薄弱。据此，本文从文化重
塑、政策均衡、刚性保障、多维统筹四方面
提出优化路径，推动城中村治理从空间改造
转向包容性综合治理。 |
| 关键词: 城市更新 城中村 政策演进 政
策文本分析 综合治理 存量空间 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20260505001 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:厦门市自然科学基金项目（3502Z202473024）；中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目（20720250113） |
|
| From space reconstruction to comprehensive governance: Policy evolution of urbanvillages in the context of urban renewal |
|
ZHANG Yuanlin,ZHANG Ruoxi,ZHANG Weijun
|
| Abstract: |
| Against the backdrop of China’s urban development shifting from incremental expansion
to the improvement and optimization of existing urban spaces, and with urban renewal having been
elevated to a national strategy, the governance of urban villages has become a critical area for
revitalizing existing urban land and space resources, meeting the housing needs of new urban
residents, and advancing the modernization of grassroots governance. To systematically examine the
policy logic and evolutionary trajectory of national-level urban village governance, this study takes 77
central government policy documents on urban village governance issued between 2006 and 2025 as
its sample. It constructs a three-dimensional analytical framework encompassing governance strategy,
governance tactics, and policy orientation, and employs policy text quantification, word-frequency
analysis, and semantic clustering methods to systematically investigate the thematic structure, policy
instrument configuration, and stage-specific evolutionary characteristics of these policies. The study
further reveals the practical foundations and driving mechanisms underlying policy formation and
proposes pathways for policy optimization. The study shows that China’s urban village governance
policies have now developed into a relatively comprehensive and well-structured policy framework.
The governance tactics dimension exhibits a dual-core structure driven by support mechanisms and
infrastructure development. While housing security, industrial development, and living environment
improvement have progressed simultaneously, cultural heritage preservation, accounting for only
2.19% of policy content, has remained a longstanding weak link. The governance strategy dimension
has evolved into a balanced tripartite structure consisting of governance models, development goals,
and key stakeholders. While it highlights multi-actor collaboration and aligns with the objectives of
new-type urbanization, soft governance goals, such as social integration and cultural identity
formation, remain significantly underemphasized. The policy orientation dimension exhibits a
structural imbalance, with guidance-oriented policies accounting for a dominant 68.85%, regulatory
policies serving as a safeguard mechanism at 19.13%, and incentive-based policies remaining
significantly underrepresented at only 12.02%. The three-dimensional intersection of governance
tactics, governance strategies, and policy orientation reveals that the absence of mandatory policies in
the field of public services has weakened the institutional guarantees for public welfare. Moreover,
urban village governance policies have long exhibited a path dependence on an engineering-oriented
approach that prioritizes physical and spatial redevelopment while neglecting cultural heritage
preservation and community identity. Urban village governance has evolved through a progressive
three-stage process consisting of the exploratory and coordination stage, the systematic transformation
stage, and the comprehensive enhancement stage. Across these stages, governance practices have
gradually shifted from sporadic interventions and large-scale demolition and reconstruction toward
integrated regeneration, differentiated policy implementation, and refined urban renewal. Meanwhile,the policy framework has become increasingly comprehensive, and the focus of governance has evolved from the provision of basic safeguards to the
improvement of infrastructure and public services, institutional innovation, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Specifically, from 2006 to 2014, urban village
governance was characterized by an exploratory and coordination phase. Policy support remained limited and was dominated by government-led large-scale
demolition and redevelopment projects, with a primary focus on maintaining social stability and protecting residents’ rights and interests. The principal drivers
of this stage included rapid urbanization, urban-rural structural disparities, and the land-finance-oriented development model. From 2015 to 2021, urban village
governance was in a phase of systematic transformation. The policy system became increasingly comprehensive and shifted toward integrated regeneration and
infrastructure upgrading. The proportion of guidance-oriented policies increased to 71.43%, while incentive-based policies appeared for the first time. At the
practical level, many cities advanced area-wide renewal programs and financing innovations. The principal drivers of this stage included the transition to stockoriented
urban development, the launch of urban renewal initiatives, and changes in demographic structure. Since 2022, urban village governance has entered a
phase of comprehensive enhancement. Governance has moved toward a stage of refined and quality-oriented development, characterized by differentiated
policy implementation, digital empowerment, and industrial transformation. Policies place greater emphasis on high-quality development and multi-stakeholder
co-governance. However, soft governance dimensions, such as cultural heritage preservation and social integration, remain relatively underdeveloped.Although
governance capacity has continuously improved, all stages have been characterized by recurring imbalances, including prioritizing physical development over
humanistic values, physical transformation over social integration, and guidance-oriented instruments over incentive-based mechanisms. Consequently, urban
village governance policies have not yet undergone a fundamental transition from an engineering-centric approach to a governance-oriented paradigm. Based
on these findings, this study proposes four policy recommendations: strengthening cultural governance and community identity; rebalancing policy instruments
through enhanced incentive and benefit-sharing mechanisms; reinforcing mandatory public service provision in areas such as elderly care, education, and
healthcare; and coordinating spatial regeneration, industrial upgrading, social governance, and cultural preservation within an integrated governance
framework. These measures are intended to facilitate the transition of urban village governance from a redevelopment-centered approach to an inclusive,
balanced, and sustainable model of comprehensive governance, thereby providing theoretical and policy support for high-quality urban renewal in the new era. |
| Key words: urban renewal urban villages policy evolution policy text analysis comprehensive governance stock space |
