Rural settlement of urban dwellers in China: community integration and spatial restructuring

Rural rejuvenation is a top priority in current Chinese governmental policies, with talent renewal especially critical. Beyond retaining local talent, attracting urban talent to relocate to the countryside can bolster agriculture and rural regions. The emergent phenomenon of middle-class reverse urbanization has become a key pillar of rural rejuvenation. In Nanjing, the urbanization rate reached 86.8%, providing momentum for reverse urbanization alongside improved rural infrastructure and narrowed urban-rural gaps due to poverty alleviation and revitalization strategies. As more urban inhabitants become new villagers engaging in employment, entrepreneurship, production, living, and leisure, their production modes, values, and cultural customs increasingly collide and merge with native rural spaces, testing community capacity and raising concerns about development efficiency and equity. The rural Hukou system demarcates agricultural status and has historically constrained access to education, healthcare, and public resources for rural Hukou holders. While reforms have eased some restrictions, urban-rural inequalities persist across regulatory, socioeconomic, and cultural dimensions. For urban-to-rural migrants, the Hukou system both constrains integration and offers avenues for localized assimilation over time; however, integration is a long-term process needing mutual understanding and policy support. Genuine urban-rural integration requires a holistic approach to bridge disparities in status, resources, and opportunities, acknowledging local implementation gaps. Urban-to-rural migration presents opportunities for rural revitalization by facilitating two-way flows of talent and capital and reshaping rural space. Yet it also brings challenges, disrupting traditional rural spatial dynamics. This study centers on Xian Village (Nanjing) as a case study to examine how citizen migration affects rural space, aiming to activate participation by citizens and villagers, enable new residents’ integration, foster rural spatial rejuvenation, and share lessons for similar villages.

The literature spans three dimensions: new villagers, community integration, and spatial restructuring. New villagers: With diversified migration flows (rural-urban, urban-rural, rural-rural), definitions of “new villagers” vary. Three taxonomies dominate: (1) migrant laborers moving from rural to cities and adjacent rural vicinities; (2) urban middle-class families relocating to rural areas; (3) returnees and entrepreneurial actors (family farm owners, new agricultural entrepreneurs). Scholars increasingly integrate these into a unified but heterogeneous conception, encompassing urban or non-native households residing and working in villages for over half a year—outsourcing entrepreneurs, ecological agriculturists, artisans, scholars, freelancers, retirees, and public-welfare actors. Counter-urbanization creative classes cluster in economically developed rural areas, aiding rural tourism but also altering landscapes and lifestyles, sometimes discomforting original residents. Community integration: Community, traditionally marked by shared culture and interpersonal closeness, has transformed with urbanization and digital technology, leading to population mobility, “social atomization,” and new forms of embeddedness and re-embeddedness. Recent studies examine links between well-being, identity, and integration; corporate roles in public service; and value co-creation via embedding, relationships, and resource integration. In China, models such as Urban-Rural Integrated Communities and AI communities have emerged, but local empirical research remains limited and not fully attuned to new integration phenomena. Spatial restructuring: Following the “spatial turn,” Lefebvre’s theory posits space as a social product, integrating bodily space and social production. Space is both consumable and a mode of production, with social relations reproduced within it. Subsequent work emphasizes multiple structures—social, cultural, economic, ecological spaces—requiring balanced restructuring. Globally, spatial restructuring features in initiatives like the Belt and Road, conflict geographies, and trade-environment dynamics. However, China’s rural contexts are understudied, and macro-level analyses often miss micro-level psychology and behavior. Existing research focuses on talent return mechanisms, not integration of new villagers whose “newness” spans roles, identities, and values. This study applies Lefebvre’s production of space to analyze new villagers’ spatial demands, collisions with rural space, and possibilities for spatial restructuring to inform integration strategies and talent revitalization.

Research area and method: Xian Village (Jiangning District, Jiangsu) covers 0.91 km² with over 2600 ha of tea plantations, favorable climate (approx. 300 frost-free days), and a tea tradition since the 1970s. Recognized as a national key village for rural tourism and a traditional village in Jiangsu, it was branded the “First Village of Jinling Tea Culture and Leisure Tourism.” In 2013, a tea culture ecological tourism village was established through collaboration among local entities. In 2020, a resident social work station was introduced, making China’s first “social work village,” where embedded social workers manage public affairs and conflict resolution. Participants: Urban-to-rural migrants who invested in and established stable residences in non-native rural communities, not considering themselves transient. Generally higher knowledge, cultural refinement, and technical proficiency; proactive toward public affairs; contributors to new social networks and public spaces. Sampling and field sites: Interviews with groups across 10 villages surrounding Xian Village (Xian, Feng, Zhang, Tao, Jin, Chimen, Yanzi, Xia, Xiaojia, Wangchang). Respondents formerly lived and worked in cities but shifted focus to rural areas, forming the “new villagers.” Design and data collection: Qualitative approach combining semi-structured sociological and in-depth interviews, participant observation, and symposiums; supplemented by secondary data and archives. Fieldwork from 2021 to 2022 totaled over 50 days with multiple preliminary and follow-up investigations. Access facilitated by local social workers; interviews mainly at respondents’ homes and extended into their social circles. A total of 31 new villagers were interviewed (varied ages, occupations), as summarized in Table 1. NVivo was used for qualitative coding of drivers and integration experiences.

- Influx and composition: Since ~2016, Xian Village has seen steady in-migration from cities (Beijing, Nanjing, Nanchang, Taipei). New residents typically lease existing or vacant houses for 10–20 years. By end-2022, there were >100 new villagers (≈13% of the population), with >50% arriving post-COVID-19 outbreak (≈52%) and ~29% residing >3 years. Predominant ages 38–60; occupations dominated by artists and entrepreneurs; substantial social, economic, and cultural capital. - Typology of new villagers (Fig. 2): (1) Dependent entrepreneurs—own rural property, active in local networks and affairs; businesses tied to local tourism. (2) Outward-oriented entrepreneurs—own property but maintain external markets, limited local involvement. (3) Active new villagers without property—high civic engagement, many retired. (4) Secluded new villagers—no property, minimal participation, isolated lifestyles. - Migration drivers (NVivo-coded, selected nodes): Life stress (14 sources), attraction of immigrant communities (12), ecological environment (12), cultural inclusiveness (11), rural life (9), infrastructure (8), public services (6), food safety (6), job requirements (5). Push factors include urban work pressure, competition, and environmental/health concerns. Pull factors include improved rural infrastructure and logistics, inclusive and diverse cultural milieu (e.g., tea culture), ideals of rural life and safe food, affordable housing/workspace, and existing immigrant networks. - Integration dilemmas across four spaces (Lefebvre-informed): • Living space: Collective ownership of rural residential land limits legal purchase; leasing/purchase practices occur informally, risking disputes and exclusion (e.g., landlord rent hikes and threats). Native villagers’ attachment to long-evolved spatial layouts and familiar relationships can prompt defensive reactions to rapid reconstruction. Yet transfers can be mutually beneficial—lease income for natives; improved public services/cultural life from newcomers. • Production space: Different production logics fragment practices. In agriculture, newcomers emphasize self-sufficiency, environmental preservation, branding/modernization, which may conflict with yield-focused traditional farming. In handicrafts, studios align with tea culture and contribute skills/services but can juxtapose “elegant” vs. Westernized aesthetics with local expressions. In services, newcomers focus on cafes, homestays, entertainment targeting tourists/urbanites; the prevalent “homestay + rural tourism” model shows homogeneity, limiting upgrading and separating urban aesthetics from rural everyday life. • Cultural space: Divergent living habits and communication styles (urban boundary-consciousness vs. rural differential order), different entertainment patterns (diversified, “quiet/elegant” pursuits vs. work-centered, simple leisure), and value conflicts (e.g., feng shui disputes) hinder trust and emotional ties. New villagers prioritize equality and rule of law; natives may uphold clan/patriarchal values and customs. • Social space: New villagers form WeChat-mediated networks—geography-based, occupation/interest-based, and mixed—enhancing intra-group cohesion but exhibiting closure toward native villagers. Some immigrants embed in local networks; few natives enter newcomer networks. Differences in economic/cultural capital, life experiences, and identities reinforce boundaries. - Overall: New villagers’ cultural capital often dominates, yielding both benefits (economic/cultural vitality) and non-structural cultural exclusion, complicating long-term integration and sustainability. Cultural communication, shared values, and spatial restructuring are essential to mitigate divisions.

The study applies Lefebvre’s production-of-space framework—spatial practice (physical), representations of space (mental), and representational spaces (social)—to analyze how urban-to-rural migrants enter and reshape rural spaces across living, production, cultural, and social dimensions. Findings show that community integration dilemmas stem from structural and cultural mismatches: collective land regimes and informal leasing expose newcomers to exclusion; divergent production logics (agro-ideals, handicraft aesthetics, tourist-oriented services) create practical and symbolic separations; lifestyle and value differences heighten cultural friction; and newcomers’ cohesive, semi-closed social networks limit cross-group embedding. These results address the research question by demonstrating that integration is not solely a matter of residency but of negotiated spatial relations and shared meanings. While newcomers’ economic and political capital reduce risks of structural exclusion, their cultural dominance can foster non-structural exclusion and parallel communities. Significance lies in highlighting the need for policies and practices that: (1) legally secure newcomer access to living/production space while respecting collective ownership; (2) mediate production models to align modernization with local practices; (3) promote cultural communication to bridge habits, entertainment repertoires, and value systems; and (4) encourage porous, cross-cutting social networks. Broader relevance includes informing hukou reforms’ local implementation and rural revitalization strategies that balance urban cultural influx with rural traditions to sustain harmonious integration.

Leveraging push-pull and social integration theories, complemented by Lefebvre’s spatial production, the study shows that new villagers—often with stronger economic/political positions—face fewer structural exclusions but are prone to non-structural cultural exclusion and parallel community formation. Without shared integration goals, newcomers may coalesce into embedded yet mechanically bonded groups adjacent to native communities, potentially sparking competition over communication, coordination, and decision-making channels. In weaker rural areas, power transfers may be inevitable; in more prosperous regions, institutional mechanisms and channels critically shape newcomers’ trajectories. Policy implications include: (1) establishing robust systems to safeguard newcomers’ rights and interests in the utilization of underused rural homesteads and dwellings while balancing villagers’ rights; and (2) cultivating a village-level sense of community to build belonging and identity, which is foundational for harmonious integration and social cohesion. Addressing these issues is central to resolving integration dilemmas, ensuring rural social harmony, and advancing rural talent revitalization in the era of urban-to-rural migration.