Rural Land Management and Revitalization through a Locally Coordinated Integrated Master Plan—A Model from Germany to China

Abstract

Land management has its local dimension in rural, peri-urban, and urban perspectives. Recently China adopted rural revitalization in response to the rapid rural–urban migration and the emergence of hollow villages, characterized by declining and ageing populations, limited economic and social opportunities for residents, and depleting natural resources. It covers political, cultural, social, and ecological progress issues for speeding up local development in rural areas. By taking a specific cross-country approach, this study presents the evolution of adapting the experience of Bavarian rural revitalization to Sichuan, China, through the coordinated, integrated master plan approach. It frames an approach to rural revitalization in China by drawing on Bavarian experiences in rural development. The study is based on a pilot project in the Sichuan Province of China undertaken by the Hanns Seidel Foundation to strengthen the Chinese rural revitalization strategy. It addresses the rural development complexity in China through a locally coordinated, integrated master plan based on adapting rural development principles from Bavaria (Germany) to China. It shows that, at the local level, Germany’s rural development principles can be applied to China. It contributes to cross-country, future-orientated support for rural revitalization, strengthening communities, nature protection, and improving the living conditions of rural people.

1. Introduction

1.1. Rural Revitalization in China for Narrowing the Rural–Urban Gap

Rural–urban migration remains a big problem in China [1,2,3]. The scale of the rural–urban income gap is one of the prime factors Chinese workers consider when migrating from the countryside to cities. The trends in rural–urban migration are characterized by the emergence of hollow villages characterized by declining and ageing populations, limited economic and social opportunities for residents, and depleting natural resources. Additionally, China’s per capita income and consumption levels are increasing yearly. Hence, urban residents’ income and consumption levels are significantly higher than rural residents, and the gap is widening yearly [2,4]. As a result, many villages have either emptied or are mainly inhabited by those who have been “left behind” in China’s migration movement. These are mostly older people, children, and people with disabilities [5]. In addition, the expanding cities have swallowed up other villages, destroying valuable farmland and leaving millions of peasants landless [5].

“Although levels of urbanization differ across developed and developing countries, the expansion of cities can be seen across the board” [6] (p. 2). The urbanization process has rural implications around the world. In China, increasing urbanization has reshaped the country’s geographical landscape, leading to a high scale disparity in development between urban and rural areas. With uneven development, various social and environmental challenges related to unequal rural–urban development have emerged [7]. Rural revitalization, which is influenced by socioeconomic policies and land-related practices, requires renewed reanalysis as rural (re)development has become a national concern. The Chinese term, Three Rural Issues (sannong wenti), sums up the urgent need for China to modernize its agriculture, improve farmers’ socioeconomic situation, and develop basic infrastructure in rural areas [2]. Modernization in terms of these three rural issues cannot rely on industrialization and urbanization [2]. For any change to happen, rural agriculture, rural areas, and residents must be prioritized for development [8]. It is also vital for industries and urban areas to back-feed agriculture and rural areas [8]. Therefore, the key to solving the “three rural issues” is to maintain steady development of agriculture, increase peasants’ income, and reduce the gap between the urban and rural areas and between regions [4].

1.2. The Objective and Approach of This Study

The history of Chinese and German cooperation dates to 1861 when Prussia and the Qing Empire signed the first Sino-German treaty (during the Eulenburg Expedition), which was later inherited by the German Empire a decade later [9]. The two countries have sought a partnership despite the somewhat unstable relationship between China and Germany over the past century. In recent times, this partnership has taken various forms. For example, the Hanns Seidel Foundation (HSF) has been in the People’s Republic of China for over 40 years, and its activities have covered land development and the strengthening of rural areas for more than 30 years. During this period, the organization undertook and implemented various projects within the development cooperation.

This study is based on an HSF pilot project in China’s Sichuan Province to strengthen the Chinese rural revitalization strategy. The pilot project addresses the rural development complexity in China through a locally coordinated, integrated master plan approach considering the possibilities of adopting rural development principles from the German state of Bavaria to China. This study draws from the adaptable experience learnt from the Bavarian experience in rural development to frame an approach to rural revitalization in China, focusing on ecological assessment and landscape planning at the field level. Going forward, this study is organized into six sections. The current section (i.e., Section 1) defines the objective and approach to the study. Section 2 provides the conceptual understanding of rural revitalization to pave the way for practical knowledge of rural development. To give a general understanding of the application of the concept, this section also explores the Chinese perspective of rural revitalization and the European context of rural development. Section 3 explains the methodology of this study. Section 4 presents the Bavarian experience of village revitalization. Drawing from the experience learnt from the state of Bavaria in Germany, Section 5 frames the locally coordinated, integrated master plan as a renewed approach to rural revitalization in China. Finally, Section 6 provides a conclusion on the way forward.

2. Rural Development through Revitalization as a Land Issue: Conceptual and Practical Understanding

In all its ramifications, rural areas are heterogeneous geographies. They are dynamic everywhere but not always dystopic everywhere. “Rural research has often been carried out from a single perspective like politics, economics, sociology and geography” [6] (p. 2) but not within specific or agreed rural theories. This situation poses both a challenge and an opportunity. It is challenging because it problematizes rural development and situates rural studies within a blurred research or discipline genre. Yet, it is also an opportunity because its blurred disciplinary boundaries offer researchers the freedom to embrace—by borrowing, using, and adapting theories of anthropological, sociological, political, geographical, economic, and humanist theories—experiences across other disciplinary borders. This allows rural scholars to produce cross-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary analytical tools for evidence-based studies. On this basis, learning rural experiences (from theoretical and practical perspectives or across countries and regions) offers opportunities for revitalizing rural situations towards positive developments.

The rural areas of this world (whether in Asia, Eastern or Central Europe, South America or Africa) “require answers to urgent structural and economic questions; and problems of location” [10] (p. 21). Answering this highly critical development question requires a conceptual understanding of rural revitalization. Furthermore, it requires an analytical view of rural development as a science and practice that envisions the rural area as “an important development domain or unit consisting of living space, environmental place, people and identity” [11] (p. 66). Hence, it is a concern that has social, cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions. As a matter of scientific norm, this makes it necessary to present definitions and other associated concepts to ensure an adequate grasp of its embedded practical issues. Together, the terms rural development and rural revitalization evoke a need to sustainably manage rural spaces within municipalities and regions in ways that improve the living conditions of the people who live there and the environment in which these people inhabit. Both terms embrace the planning, ecological and landscape aspects of development at the local levels. In addition, rural development entails the “overall effort to ensure equivalent conditions of life and work throughout a whole” municipality or region considered as rural in any country [12] (p. 58).

Many scholars have researched and contributed to the rural development discourse as land management and policy concerns. The issue is not limited to geography. In Asia, [13] (p. 1) have noted that “women’s access to and control over land can potentially lead to gender equality alongside addressing material deprivation”. In Australia, Higgins et al. [14] reported research in the market instruments and the neoliberalisation of land management in rural Australia. In Europe, Lange et al. [15] explored the issue of sustainability in land management in rural northern Germany. In Africa, rural land is an object of concern because land presents opportunities for balancing the power dynamics between men and women in socioeconomic spheres. In North America, Fligg et al. [16] probed the issue of informality within Indigenous land management, focusing on a land-use study at Curve Lake First Nation in Canada. Petrescu-Mag et al. [17] explored rural transformation in Romania with an emphasis on the smart technology dimension of the scenario. As rural land issues evolve geographically, they have a cultural dimension that can lead to difficulties in experience sharing between geographies. In this regard, Chigbu [18] (p. 336) has reviewed land issues from culture-based rural land management and vigorously argued for “culture repositioning” as a means of improving women’s access to land. Cao et al. [19] deconstructed the Chinese experience through lessons from implementing a Land Certificated Program in rural China. From South America, Caravaggio [20] investigated economic growth in the context of rural forest transitions. Various other studies cover diverse issues in thematic patterns [11,21]. To tackle the land challenges in rural areas, de Vries and Chigbu [11] considered them from a responsible land management lens hinged around territorial approaches. All these studies recognize the need to share knowledge and experiences in rural land management, with caution on the mode of transferability (direct from-point-A-to-point-B knowledge application) or adaptability (indirect or from-point-A-to-point-B knowledge localization).

2.1. Reiterating Rural Development

Rural development literature is rich with many definitions, descriptions, and explanations of what rural development entails [11,22]. From a general perspective, the “overall development of rural areas” can be referred to as rural development [23] (p. 20). From the urban–rural linkage context, rural development is an activity-based development concern that enables life in rural areas to adjust to acceptable standards [11] or a quality-of-life issue for rural people to meet their needs [24]. It can also be understood from a continuum perspective, meaning that rural development is a linkage activity that enables socio-spatial connectivity with urban areas [24]. The inference from all these perspectives (and many not mentioned here) of rural development is that the concept is multidimensional. It can mean the same thing in different places but be described differently.

In fact, “contemporary issues such as sustainability, governance, globalization and climate change are some of the factors that have broadened the scope of rural development” [25] (p. 12). Moreover, with the incursion of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis from 2020, the scope of rural development continues to expand. Hence, within the context of this study, rural development is best described, rather than defined. By way of explanation, this study views rural development as a term that portrays an array of development indices (including activities, policies, and governance decisions) necessary for ensuring improvements in people living in rural areas (be it in villages, municipalities, or regions). Put differently, rural development can also be viewed as “all activities done (including decisions made) for improving the socioeconomic conditions of all rural people and the environmental conditions of their locality” [25] (p. 12). This definition shows that, irrespective of whether it is in China or Germany or any other country around the world, rural development is about improving the living conditions of people in rural areas.

2.2. Rural Revitalization from General and Geographical Perspectives

What then is rural revitalization? Put simply, rural revitalization is a strategy for achieving rural development objectives. The concept emerged from the recognition that it is impossible to solve global rural problems without strengthening the power of rural areas [26]. However, like many other spatial development terminologies, rural revitalization is known by many different names in various parts. Therefore, this study recognizes multiple ways in which rural revitalization is known around the world.

In a world in which the most impoverished population live and work in rural areas, efforts at improving their living conditions should be a cardinal part of the policies and programs of governments at all levels. Therefore, rural revitalization is generally viewed as a transformative approach to rural development that focuses on making rural areas conducive for people (both present and future generations) to live and work. It entails “scale up rural non-farm economic opportunities and build capacity for employment” [27] (p. 16). It can also be described as a rural transformation to sustainability and competitiveness of rural areas for solving the principal socioeconomic and ecological problems the region faces in a specific period [2]. It is a strategy constructed upon a foundation of different dimensions of equality between urban and rural areas. However, rural revitalization includes rural areas and townships, which reflects the overall development of villages, towns, and cities [28]. In addition, it generally aims to develop urban–rural integration and shows the concept of urban–rural mutual promotion and integrated development [28]. Some key features of rural revitalization are territorial and area-based development, and the promotion of integrated rural–urban development and village development. Others are village renewal, improvement of rural governance, economic growth and consumption, empowerment of rural people, and urban–rural land linkages [11,27,29,30].

Various perspectives of rural revitalization are available in the literature. How rural revitalization efforts are described or performed can vary (and in most cases do vary) from country to country or regions within countries. Regarding rural America, Clugston [31] referred to rural revitalization as a synonym for socioeconomic growth. It will depend mainly on improving the farm economy, supplemented, when possible, by improving climate, business, and efficiencies in a range of supportive industries [31]. In Europe in general, and Germany in particular, it is commonly described using village renewal [29,32,33]. Village renewal as a form of rural revitalization involves the upliftment of the rural philosophy of development (as well as its culture and physical façade) in Germany [29,30]. Nolten [32] identified reconstruction and renovation activities of the structural fabric of rural areas as the critical elements of village renewal in Germany. In the context of Bavaria (also in Germany), Magel [29] noted that it involves the performance various measures to regulate and develop village land and communities to strengthen agricultural non-farm productive activities to improve the living conditions of rural people. In Africa, this can be referred to as village development, which is a critical component of rural revitalization [25]. Steiner and Fan [27] identified its applicability with the term rurbanomics. The use of the term “revitalization” instead of “renewal” (or any other competing terminologies) is common in North America (the USA and Canada) in both urban and rural contexts. Irrespective of the variations in the use of the concept (and differences in how the idea is applied), the objectives are generally the same. Regardless of geographical contrasts and methodological applications, Steiner and Fan [27] note that the following initiatives can lead to achieving rural revitalization:

• Investing in rural economies: While agricultural productivity sparks non-agricultural rural activities, additional investments in innovation, incubation centers, industrial parks, and special economic zones can help boost rural enterprise development.
• Investing in ICTs: Complementary investments in input markets and financial services are required to ensure that markets function efficiently and equitably. In addition, promoting small and medium rural enterprises that use new technologies could have a differential impact on youth, given their capacity to use Information Communication Technology.
• Investing in education: Enhancing rural education systems and matching training to local needs and opportunities can ensure that educated youth do not leave for the city and propel growth poles and corridors across rural areas. Education is critical to providing rural people with knowledge and skills to improve their livelihoods. Investments include, first and foremost, improving primary and secondary education.
• Supporting rural health: Investments in health services can serve as a linchpin to improving labor productivity, nutrition, and quality of life for generations to come. For example, creating rural health education systems, training nurses to carry out procedures traditionally reserved for physicians, and safe motherhood programs have great potential in rural revitalization.
• Fostering sustainability and a healthy environment: Rural areas can contribute to rural and urban environmental quality through sustainable practices to manage ecosystem resources and protect biodiversity. Improvements in resource tenure systems and removal of distortionary subsidies can create better incentives for sustainable resource use. Adopting community-based management systems for water and forests can also offer opportunities for shared prosperity, environmental sustainability, and social cohesion.
• Encouraging devolution and people-oriented governance: A decentralized system of participatory, transparent, and accountable and balanced fiscal powers with assigned functions is better positioned to promote sustainable rural revitalization. Moreover, good governance is a prerequisite to rural revitalization in the sense that functioning and responsive local governments act in the people’s interest and provide high-quality services.

Rural revitalization is considered a way to overcome the challenges that rural areas face. Therefore, to achieve rural revitalization at a broader level, understanding how rural communities can revitalize themselves to diversify their socioeconomic base, enhance their living conditions or quality of life, and reinvent themselves for new functions and roles is essential. Furthermore, as this study focuses on the adaptability of a Bavarian (German and European) context to China, it is crucial to deconstruct the Chinese context of rural revitalization and the European perspective of rural development.

2.3. Rural Revitalization from General and Geographical Perspectives: Chinese Context

In 2018, China celebrated the 40th anniversary of its rural reform and framed a new ‘Rural Revitalization Development Strategy’ “to reduce persistent and concentrated rural poverty and promote the vertical and horizontal integration of its agriculture” [34] (p. 266). In the context of China, rural revitalization is a tool for the development of rural regions in the new era in China [4,35,36]. So, what does rural revitalization entail when viewed from the lens of China? In answering this question, Wang and Zhou [4] asserted that it includes sound urban–rural integration and policy system designed to accelerate the modernization of rural areas by maintaining ecological livability, rural civilization, industrial prosperity, affluent lifestyle, and effective governance. They also asserted that rural revitalization is already considered a rural development strategy in China [2] (p. 3). This is true, according to Liu et al. [37] who reported that:

“To speed up the modernization in rural areas in China, a rural revitalization strategy was adopted during the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China on October 18, 2017. It is a response to the rural challenges, which pursues balanced economic and agricultural development. The report of the 19th National Congress pointed out that, “We must prioritize the development of agriculture and rural areas. To build rural areas with a thriving business, pleasant living environment, social etiquette and civility, effective governance and prosperity, we need to put in place sound systems, mechanisms and policies for promoting integrated urban-rural development and speed up the modernization of agriculture and rural areas. The Document Number One’ of 2018, which reflects the top priority of the central Government, also draws a roadmap for China reaching three goals: significant progress in rural rejuvenation by 2020, agricultural modernization by 2025, and a strong agriculture sector and full realization of farmers wealth by 2050. In response, the Ministry of Agriculture is looking at a more scientific approach supported with local data collected from villages across China.”

The rural revitalization strategy in China considers major issues such as environmental sustainability, employment and livelihoods, territorial development connecting rural areas with intermediate cities/towns and large urban areas, rural services, infrastructure, and connectivity [38,39,40]. In this respect, the Director of the Rural Development Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said, “When we talk about farmers, villages and agriculture, the mindset should go beyond the relationship between the three. We should view it from a broader perspective [2] (p. 2). For example, we should consider the distribution of national income, public administration and governance mechanisms” [41]. However, the realization of the “Rural Revitalization” program is not to copy the entire “rural areas into a modern city, but to learn from each other’s strengths, to introduce modern ideas and technologies to the rural” based on “maintaining rural cultural characteristics, creating a socialist modern new countryside” [4].

Liu et al. [37] (p. 1925) describing the rural development stages throughout time and future steps. It shows the way from pure agricultural approaches to a multi-functional rural system finally leading to an integrated urban–rural system to archive overall prosperity. It is covered by the politics of establishing a rural household system (1978), construction of a new socialist countryside (2005), and overall construction of a welloff society (2020). Based on this, they came up with a theoretical framework for urban rural integration. An analysis of keywords regarding the rural development in China also shows the development to a broader development paradigm [42].

All the above-mentioned theories and approaches are based on scientific discussion on the need for rural development and exegeses of political statements. Additionally, the outcomes of different pilot projects in China have been used. Finally, on 29 April 2021, on CGTN [41], the Chinese Government enacted, from the standing committee, The Rural Revitalization Promotion Law coming into force on June 1st of the same year. It aims to outline a rural revitalization assessment system and an ecological compensation system among other issues. The law comprises the following fields that need to be covered to gain rural revitalization: (1) industrial prosperity (industry), (2) development of human resources (qualified personnel), (3) cultural aspects and heritage (culture), (4) ecology (ecological livability) and (5) organizational development of rural areas (effective governance). HSF has covered all those fields since its engagement in the land sector in 1989.

2.4. Rural Revitalization from General and Geographical Perspectives: European Context

Rural areas cover 52 per cent of the EU’s territory and are home to 112 million people [43]. They find employment in the agricultural sector, food industry, and tourism, which employ nearly 15 million people [43]. However, a shrinking population has become the typical trajectory for many rural regions over the past decades. As a result, agriculture has been restructured, and people and employment have become increasingly concentrated in urban centers. The European Commission report on Poverty and Social Exclusion in Rural Areas identified the exodus and ageing “problem, the remoteness, the lack of education facilities and the labor market issues (such a lower employment rates and seasonal work) as the four main factors to determine the risk of poverty and social exclusion” [44]. Rural development has, therefore, become an increasing priority for EU policymakers.

The EU’s Rural Development Policy has followed a different path and has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. It did not explicitly emerge in the EU until the late 1980s, with a double objective: (1) externally, improving the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) perception by a third of the countries and (2) internally, proposing measures to mitigate internal socioeconomic effects of a CAP reform necessary within the framework of evolution toward the economic and monetary union in need of a significant regional policy [45]. The situation changed in 1988 with the publication of the European Commission document: “The Future of the Rural World” [45]. This report gives rise to debates, reflections, and contributions on the objectives, the mechanisms, and the effects of intervention for the rural environment, with a new approach to overcome the rural [45]. The EU’s New Rural Development Policy for 2014–2020, as a second pillar of CAP that reformed in 2013, aims to strengthen and improve the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector, the environment and the countryside, the diversification of the rural economy, and the quality of life in rural areas in general. It has laid down the following six priority areas for rural development to implement these goals, on which at least four of these EU Member States must base their rural development support programs on [46].

• Fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas;
• Enhancing the competitiveness of all types of agriculture and farm viability activities;
• Promoting food chain organization and risk management in agriculture;
• Restoring and preserving an ecosystem dependent on agriculture and forestry;
• Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in agriculture, food, and forestry sectors;
• Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction, and economic development in rural areas.

Rural development is a national concern in Germany. It is managed on a decentralized basis by the central administrative regions of the country through rural development programs (RDPs) [10,12,25]. RDPs and national contributions are funded under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Germany’s Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture [47] is committed to developing the country’s rural regions. The aim is the sustainable development of rural areas with good quality of life, sufficient basic supplies, and efficient infrastructure, upkeep, and conservation of cultivated landscapes and natural resources [47]. Although there are regional variations in the priorities outlined, the 2014–2020 Rural Development Program for Germany focuses on improving the competitiveness of the agricultural sector, preserving ecosystems and efficient use of natural resources, and creating conditions for the economic and social regeneration of rural areas [47] (p. 3). Furthermore, promoting climate change adaptation and risk prevention has a high financial significance in the German programs [47]. Considering these measures embedded in EU and German rural development approaches, this study focused on deconstructing specific experiences learned from German rural development approaches and further adapting them to rural challenges in Sichuan in China.

3. Methodology

3.1. Pilot Study Areas and Methods

One of the most recent research projects on the cross-continental knowledge of rural land management is research conducted by Jiang et al. [48] who investigated a comparative land consolidation experience between Europe and China. This study takes a specific cross-country (between Germany and China) approach and is based on a pilot project conducted by HSF. Its relevance is the model of a locally coordinated integrated master plan approach which considered critical adaptations of rural development principles from Bavaria (German). Being a project-based study to draw adaptable experience from Germany to China, it is qualitative in its overall design. It was undertaken in Baoping, Yilong county and Jinyuan, Xichong county in Nanchong in Sichuan Province in People's Republic of China, between 2016 and 2021 by the HSF, and facilitated by the Sichuan Department of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Figure 1 shows the location of the pilot project’s areas.

Nanchong City is in the northeast region of Sichuan Province, which has jurisdiction of nine counties. The projects were executed in Jinyuan and Baoping in the counties of Xichong and Ylong in Nanchong.

HSF chose to conduct a pilot project in Nanchong as the region is experiencing the problems of hollow villages because of the increase in rural–urban migration. The region lost 86 per cent of its rural population. The province is undergoing a transition from traditional to modern agriculture. Agriculture’s contribution to GDP is only 15 per cent, and 30 per cent of the total area is abandoned cropland. Furthermore, this region faces the challenge of land-cover changes due to a significant increase in urban expansion. These substantial land cover changes in and around habitats are critical for biodiversity across the province and call for an urgent need to integrate biodiversity conservation into urban and rural development strategies. In implementing the pilot project, different stages allowed for data collection, leading to the study presented in this article. The main steps taken in conducting the survey include (1) conducting an in-depth theoretical exploration of existing rural development scenarios in China and Germany; and (2) identifying, through desktop investigations and direct engagements with German experts, relevant aspects of rural development practices from the State of Bavaria in Germany. Further, a preliminary perspective of this process was presented at the International Federation of Surveyors Conference in 2019 to decipher global perceptions about the approach presented in this article—see Masum et al. [2]. These were then followed by adopting Chinese experts’ recommendations based on feedback from their visits to Germany to interact with German rural development experts.

Being qualitative in design, all selection techniques involved a purposive selection of experts from the German (n = 3) and Chinese (n = 7) sides. While the German experts were engaged to confirm the procedures of Bavarian rural development against what is available in the literature, the Chinese experts were engaged to identify the problems in China. These two datasets were reconciled to ensure adaptability in terms of experience sharing. In addition, field visits were employed to gain immediate impressions and experiences of rural development in both countries. Although these steps have been presented here in a linear sequence, iterations and overlaps exist between them. The outcomes of observations and experiences discerned from the entire process were analyzed by way of content analysis, which led to this study’s results. That outcome being an understanding of the critical issues in the rural development in Bavaria (Germany), which was then used to design the locally coordinated integrated master plan approach adopted in the pilot project in Sichuan (China).

3.2. Challenges Encountered and Limitations That Influenced This Study

There were experiences that posed limitations to this study. A main methodological limitation is that there was little or no prior research on this subject from the context of rural China. As this study focused on knowledge and the practical transferability of knowledge, intra-China comparative studies were not necessary for achieving the study objectives. Rather, a Sichuan–Bavaria cross-study enabled the attainment of its outputs.

This study encountered challenges due to weaknesses posed by the researchers’ lack of knowledge of the Chinese language. This problem was resolved as one of the researchers is a native Chinese speaker and helped by directly interviewing key informants and working as a translator and interpreter during the research.

3.3. Grasping the Scenario of Rural Land Challenges in Nanchong by Listening to the Voices of the People

Evidence from selected narratives on rural land challenges enabled an understanding of the rural development scenario in Nanchong. Through one-on-one interactions via interviews with different stakeholders in Nanchong, it was possible to draw a key list of allusions about rural development. From these allusions (

Table 1. Allusions of rural life from selected key informants in Nanchong.

Description of Key Informants	Quotations from Key Informants	Context of Remark
High-level staff (HLS) participating at a lecture event to prepare the ground for the pilot project	“We must continue from now, we must think more deeply.”	An HLS is someone holding a management position in a government ministry. This informant views the land challenges in rural areas with urgency, and thoughtfulness.
Party secretary (AS)	“We must shift our thinking. The more fundamental, the better.”	AS is the leader of the Chinese Communist Party organization in a province, city, village, or other administrative region. AS is the de facto highest political office of its area of jurisdiction. This AS considers the rural issue both a philosophical and ideological concern.
Party secretary at an event involved high-level staff and politically responsible individuals in the area	“We do not have to work based on the Chinese Speed in implementation. It is like a building. It works better with good foundations. We must use the pilot project as a field for experiments.”	This AS calls for the need to avoid a rushed approach to their rural land problems. In doing so, he is critical of the typical Chinese approaches which sometimes prioritize speed over quality.
8-year-old whose parents are migrant workers	“I want to stay in countryside.”	This child indicated he would like to remain in the village rather than join his migrant parents in the city. This reflects the fundamental longing for young people to live in their rural towns and villages.
Migrant worker	“Where my home is, there is no work, where the work is, there is no home.”	This migrant worker emphasizes the rural problem of unemployment and the urban problem of livability.
HLS participating in a lecture event to prepare the ground for the pilot project	“The biggest problem is the lack of human resources since most local villagers have already moved away.”	This HLS is concerned about the high rural–urban migration which has left her village deserted without a skilled work force for rural land management.
HLS invited from an actual responsible decision board as an advisor to the project	“In the process of urbanization for 40 years, Chinese cities have been depriving rural areas of their most valuable resource-human resources.”	This HLS reflects on the negative urban development impacts which result in urban–rural migration. Thereby, drawing professionals away from rural areas.

), it was possible to decipher the meaning of rural development to community members in the context of China and the tone of the ongoing discourses about rural development (in the context of land management in the region).

These reflections on the rural living conditions of people in Nanchong are related to scenarios observed in Bavarian villages in some ways. For instance, Magel and Miosga [49] (p. 148) have questioned the future of rural life in Germany by asking, “does countryside now have a future again?” This question resonates with some of the comments received as the Chinese experts described the situation of rural areas in their countries. This question, which relates to ways to keep tackling the declining and ageing populations rural areas face in Germany, is not different from those alluded to by the key informants in Nanchong. Magel [50] (p. 65) has also bemoaned the potential unequal development rural areas face in Bavaria (Germany) and called for “territorial justice for urban and rural” in that region of Germany. In general, in a pandemic period (such as COVID-19), rural areas in one way or the other face uncertainties that surround liveability [51].

Putting these into consideration in its development of concepts and model projects for the development of rural areas, the HSF focused on ways to improve the living and working conditions of the rural people in Nanchong (following the Bavarian experience in Germany). The HSF aimed at a framework that can balance rural and urban areas while considering the ecology and broad citizen participation. On this basis, the HSF engaged in a model from Germany to China in revitalizing Nanchong through a locally coordinated, integrated master plan. The following section reflects on what the process entailed.

4. Adapting Bavarian Rural Revitalization Knowledge to Sichuan: Key Issues

“Recent development literature provides a narrative of three worlds, which are sometimes socioeconomically divided into thriving urban areas, semi-thriving peri-urban areas and declining rural areas. The extent to which this narrative is true depends on whom you ask and where you are” [24] (p. vii). This situation is different in Germany. Bavaria (and the whole of Germany) considers urban and rural areas equally important in ensuring that all citizens have access to adequate living conditions. As a result, rural development receives high priority in Bavaria at both the policy and development levels. This is because Bavaria (as expected from other German states) supports and protects the equivalent standard of living and employment in all its territory.

Consequently, rural development objectives combine both the concept of sustainable and multifunctional development. Sustainable rural development is concerned with integrating sustainability principles into the rural development process. In contrast, multifunctional development of rural areas relates to measures of renewal that support the citizens and municipalities through to the structural strengthening of villages, landscapes, and regions. Therefore, rural development in Bavaria follows an integrated development process through which various stakeholders from the economy, authorities, associations, and unions are brought together, informed, and motivated with the members of parliament and the active citizens of the communes [52] (p. 56). Thus, it brings together diverse interests in rural areas. It is, therefore, very well equipped for linking the economic, ecological, and social demands through extensive observations—as set out in United Nations’ Agenda 21 [52] (p. 12). Furthermore, its trusted implementation instruments, such as land consolidation and village renewal, provide a more cooperative union of development [52] (p. 11).

Rural development in Bavaria consists of several vital elements from both integrated and non-integrated (singular project) approaches. The major ones include village renewal, land consolidation, rural infrastructure provision/development, and regional management. In the context of China, integrated approaches are relevant as a singular project are highly common in China. Therefore, this study identified village renewal (i.e., Bavaria or Germany’s perspective of rural revitalization) and land consolidation as the two critical measures in Bavaria’s rural development that are high-value additions to rural development practices in China.

4.1. Dorferneuerung (Village Renewal): The Bavarian Context of Rural Revitalization

Village renewal is a popular approach to rural development in Germany and has historical roots in Bavaria, where it has been applied for over a century. As a practice, it is used as a tool for strengthening the capacities of rural communities. As a concept, it is referred to as dorferneuerung (directly translated in English to mean village renewal) [30]. The vision to apply village renewal in China was long identified by Magel [29] (p. 247), who nearly three decades ago noted that “Dorferneuerung will become a transnational export to the west and east” to ensure that rural areas are globally improved. Chigbu [30] (p. 211) noted that “this is becoming a reality more than a decade later”. Although conducted directly in different countries, it has become what is known as rural revitalization or rural regeneration in other parts of the world. Thus, village renewal started as the Bavarian version of what is popularly known worldwide as village re/development.

Despite its agelong Bavarian origins, Village renewal (in the way it is known today) started as a formal program in 1977 and has evolved to become an effective land-management-based scientific instrument of rural development [30]. Before then, it was practiced in a different dimension. It developed in response to problems arising from reducing farm populations and structural changes in villages (in terms of physical landscape, form, and development functions) [12,30]. There are many objectives for village renewal which may vary from one Bavarian municipality to another or region to region. Priorities for the application of village renewal usually depend on what the vision is of the municipalities adopting it. The typical outcomes of village renewal are “to make the villages livelier, and the people enjoy a more sustainable bonding to their history, traditions and the general rural character of their place” [30] (p. 212). That is why village renewal is said to have a sociocultural component that promotes and preserves rural heritage. It also has infrastructural (living) objectives, focusing on achieving adequate infrastructural provisions through improvements in rural infrastructure such as roads, streets, buildings, and historical monuments. It has socioeconomic goals which focus on improving rural farms and non-farm jobs, agricultural productivity, rural industries, and rural product marketing. It also has ecological and environmental objectives, particularly in preserving rural landscapes and improving natural resource management. In general cases—and this is crucial for understanding its adaptation to the locally coordinated, integrated master plan approach applied in Sichuan, China—the following critical measures are engaged.

Planning (including legislation/policies) and vision as the basis for village renewal: Village renewal is supported by legislation/policies implemented through operational planning. It gives it a planning framework backed by a community vision and dictates the direction of development to be adopted by the citizens of a municipality. According to Magel [29], Germany’s 1993 Federal Planning Act clearly states that “in rural areas, planning policy should seek to maintain population to support the existing settlement structure and maintain the adequate provision of basic services. Economic viability should be promoted through training and jobs, both in and outside agriculture. The multiple functions (agriculture, forestry, housing, the industry as we as recreation and tourism) of rural areas should be promoted”.

Consequently, a decentralized planning system (as a rule of thumb) is a cardinal part of village renewal implementation. Moreover, it is a crucial aspect of the general planning system of Germany and Bavaria. Hence, “it has its planning system; its methods, instruments and planning processes (all packaged within a rural development concept)” [30] (p. 2012). The approaches to village renewal implementation involve formal (according to the relevant laws) and informal planning processes. The informal aspect of village renewal usually involves the pre-phase activities (such as research and workshops/seminars for initial analyses of the process). The pre-phase activities allow for an understanding of the rural people’s willingness to engage in the formal aspect.

Land management as core to competence in the village renewal: Implementing any plan and vision for village renewal usually depends on what the people decide for their rural future. One critical concern is that “land cannot be multiplied” and so must be used “extremely responsibly”, distributed “optimally”, and used “in the most resourceful way possible” [52] (p. 39). In Bavaria, land consolidation is one of the most tested land management approaches for rural restructuring. The land consolidation method allows for the reorganization of land plots in rural areas, including forestland and farmlands. In general, land management approaches are embraced to enable various interests of the landowners, farmers, and non-farm workers to be reconciled and promoted in ways that promote balance in local development. As part of the renewal process in rural areas, it is common for land management policies to be created locally by municipal authorities to exercise higher control over land resources, together with engagement in private sector collaborations.

To archive a better development of rural areas especially settlements based on their strengths and weakness in Bavaria the instrument of a vitality check was developed. Parallel to the pilot project from 2018 onwards, the Bavarian vitality check instrument was adapted to China [53]. The tasks of revitalization of rural areas covers a sets of development indicators, including (1) cohesion of society, (2) attractiveness for inhabitants, (3) compatibility of land use, (4) the development of craftsmanship in industry, (5) infrastructure, and (6) the potential of the resources. This vitality check was used experimentally in the pilot project to improve the livelihood and analyse the existing problems to come up with a suitable solution to strengthen the existing situation of the settlement.

4.2. Flurbereinigung (Land Consolidation) for Strengthening Rural Agriculture and Landscapes

When Dorferneuerung (village renewal) is combined with Flurbereinigung (land consolidation) it directly approaches the improvement of agricultural holdings. This allows for the environmental/ecological aims of village renewal to be achieved. Land consolidation typically involves rearranging land (especially green areas) with villages to integrate the village structure into the landscape to promote environmental/ecological interests. According to the Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2006) [52] (p. 39), land consolidation aims to reorganize the rural land in such a way that “it meets the requirements of various users according to situation, shape and size”.

Land consolidation has been stressed in Bavaria as a significant component of the rural development program. It is a proven and effective instrument for developing the cultivated land effectively and its opportunities to improve the rural infrastructure through land management as well as improving and securing the ecological environment. Though the national law defines the procedure of land consolidation in Germany, specific room to manoeuvre is given to the different federal states to cover the practical measures for implementing schemes. Section 1 of the Land Consolidation Act of Germany states that, under the provision of this act, agricultural landholdings may be rearranged to improve the productive and working conditions in agriculture and forestry and promote the widespread use and development of the land [52]. This is the basis of advancing the overall development of rural areas, including village renewal and regional development for projects involving more than one municipality [52]. Being a critical part of the land management competence, land consolidation is backed by a procedure outlined following the Land Consolidation Act in Bavaria. Combining Dorferneuerung (village renewal) and Flurbereinigung (land consolidation) are usually the best practices in Bavaria as they strengthen the rural area’s physical and social structures. However, specific components of the village renewal process in Bavaria are potentially adaptable in China.

Focus on biodiversity and the ecosystem: Rural areas are rich in biodiversity. They contribute to environmental, nature and landscape protection, which are also a living, economic and recreational area for a large part of the population. However, Bavaria’s rural areas are also challenged “by climate change, a loss of permanent grassland, nitrate pollution of surface and groundwater bodies, the continued loss of biodiversity, erosion, and land conversion for housing and infrastructure” [54] (p. 2). To address these challenges, the rural development programs for Bavaria focus on Rural Development Priority 4—restoring, preserving, and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry [54]. Landscape planning within rural development is part of the overall concept for the reorganization of the consolidation area. It is classified into three planning sections assigned to the respective sections of the procedure—mapping, evaluation, and development; planning and design; and management and maintenance [52]. The law provides the legal basis on Land Consolidation and the Nature Conservation Law [54].

Equivalent standard of living: The Federal State of Bavaria supports and protects equivalent living standards and employment in all of Bavaria. Article 3(2) of the Bavarian Constitution states, “The state shall protect the natural basis of life and cultural traditions. It shall further and secure equal living and working conditions in all urban and rural areas throughout Bavaria”. Therefore, the administration for rural development fulfils diverse tasks according to the political agenda and strengthens the economic, ecological, social, and cultural potential in all rural divisions to reduce the gap between urban and rural.

Participation lies at the core of the process: Every land consolidation and village renewal project in Bavaria merges all participants into a body of public right, according to the principle adopted in the German Federal Law 1954 [12,29]. Therefore, rural development projects follow a wide range of participation from defining future development targets to implementation. Plans are developed in close cooperation with the local population and specialists, which reflects the local needs. However, citizen participation in rural development does not end in policy formulation only. Active involvement in implementation is motivated, reducing the cost for construction and design measures in village renewal and independent cost contributions for land consolidation [52].

The mode of participation in Bavaria allows for everyone to engage in the development process. This is because participation is the driving force of both village renewal and land consolidation (and both combined) for rural development. In a village renewal and land consolidation process, the rural dwellers (rural citizens) and a unique body of participants (landowners and farmers in the areas affected by the program) form the village community. They are at the centre of the process. These people are united in conceptualizing rural vision (a consequence of planning), which they aspire to actualize in the future, emphasizing environmental/ecological, employment/agricultural, social/cultural, and infrastructural needs. Engagement in achieving these goals requires all in the rural area, irrespective of gender and economic class. Citizens’ participation is viewed as a tool for promoting the independence of rural people so that they are assigned responsibilities that lead to the achievement of the renewal process.

5. Locally Coordinated, Integrated Master Plan Model in Sichuan

5.1. Coordinated, Integrated Master Plan for Rural Revitalization in Sichuan. What and Why?

As applied in Sichuan, the term locally coordinated, integrated master plan approach, is a guided analysis, proposal, and recommendations for policy and practical consciousness in rural development to ensure the revitalization of the living condition of the rural population and their environment. The ideas behind the locally coordinated, integrated master plan concept (Figure 2) emerged from the knowledge exchange between Chinese and German rural development approaches, and the need to adapt relevant aspects from German practices for the interest of Chinese policies towards rural development.

The term coordinated in coordinated, integrated master plan approach represents the conscious and guided steps involved in the process. In the context of Sino-German knowledge exchange, two aspects are considered. First, the coordination focuses on the usual Chinese procedure whereby the local agency is conducting the plan. Second, the German perspective of citizens’ participation is adapted to avoid a situation where no participation occurs. The term integrated in the coordinated, integrated master plan implies the combination of elements of spatial and physical planning and bottom-up institutional dialogues meant to achieve social, physical, environmental, economic, and development interactions for local level development decisions and actions. The term plan in the coordinated, integrated master plan describes a map and measures that should be implemented to improve the living conditions of rural people and the rural environment. The master plan used in a coordinated, integrated master plan recognizes that a land-use master plan is supposed to be used in coordinating development at each level of the Chinese land administration system. Master plans in China “are intended to direct development in intended urban promotion areas and avoid urban developments in defined protected areas” [55] (p. 2). In the context of the revitalization process in the pilot project in Sichuan, it is focused on the rural areas. Hence, the locally coordinated, integrated master plan is an approach used to mainstream aspects of spatial planning in the long-term development plan rural settlements by guiding social factors, agricultural needs, landscape development, and environmental protection.

5.2. How the Generic Locally Coordinated, Integrated Master Plan Approach Was Adapted in Sichuan

The critical rural problem in the project areas of Sichuan was that young people migrate to cities to work as migrant workers and leave elderly people back home to take care of their children. Strengthening rural activities to ensure that young people can live in the rural areas as a living and working place was of utmost priority. The pilot project in Sichuan province was designed considering the four major principles adopted in Bavarian rural development—paying attention to the eco-landscape, protecting local culture, emphasizing citizen participation, and ensuring equivalent living conditions in urban and rural areas. The main goal of the pilot project was to empower the region’s communities to examine their priorities for improving their sustainability in response to the challenges of urban-biased development. The project aimed to adopt two innovative approaches to ecological assessment and landscape planning. First, it was meant to provide input and training to the rural people to ensure their decision-making processes. Second, it aimed at advancing the recording of results from the process in apps, i.e., database and GIS. The development of a locally coordinated, integrated master plan was implemented by adopting the following five generic steps (Figure 3).

The five steps, which are different stages of planning, influence each other, leading to the coordinated, integrated master plan involving (1) the creation of a rural development vision (or theory of change) that is based on the ideology of “equivalent living conditions in urban and rural areas” as commonly practiced in Bavaria, Germany. This means that rural areas are considered as much a priority as urban areas. (2) The identification and outlining of core rural problems. In this aspect, concern for the environment and living conditions of rural people (income, transport, housing, and ecological protection) served as guiding factors. (3) The formulation and (re)prioritization of rural development objectives for the sustainable revitalization of the villages was conducted with inclusive citizens’ participation as key guiding factors. (4) Identifying and preparing activities/measures for improving the identified problems on rural living conditions was performed with inclusive citizens’ participation as the fundamental guiding factors. This meant adopting the principle of rule by law or at least “rule-based decision making” as a cardinal part of all activities [56] (p. 385). (5) Finally, the locally coordinated, integrated master plan emerged based on collaborative implementation as the fundamental guiding factor. This allowed for the placing of the “arrangement of specific response measures” to the identified problems with their respective solutions [57] (p. 189). An example of the elements of the master plan according to land uses are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 (with focus on the English inscriptions) shows that six different types of land use planning were merged (overlayed) and intersected to produce the new planning approach. They resulted in an integrated land-use plan. The merger involved the following land use plans: (1) planning of building land (construction land), (2) planning of agricultural land, (3) protections of farmland, (4) environmental protection, (5) urban–rural linkages/interactions on land, and (6) planning in industrial transformation, are analyzed and comprised in an overall land use plan.

5.3. Specific Components of the Locally Coordinated, Integrated Master Plan Adopted in Sichuan

To ensure that the locally coordinated, integrated master plan approach was solution based in the context of local challenges, it was necessary to ensure that specific rural planning issues were addressed. These are explained below.

Conventions and strategic targets: This involved establishing an agreement of administrative responsibility and formulating strategic targets for achieving actual rural revitalization outcomes. These are explained as follows:

Agreement of administrative responsibility: The first step was to regulate administrative duties and compulsoriness. This was carried out by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Province of Sichuan, the city of Nanchong and the counties of Xichong and Ylong. The Sino-German Research and Training Center for Land Consolidation and Development of Rural Areas, Representative office Shandong of the HSF was involved as a cooperation partner. A basic agreement among the project partners was signed.

Formulation of strategic targets: Based on the agreement, it was imperative to conceptualize the rural landscape (Ecology) as a special focus for local development. This meant understanding the landscape in two ways: (1) as a biological resource for biodiversity and (2) as a base for eco-tourism: income source. It was necessary to explore new land policies, integrate different policies, build a comprehensive platform, attract social funds, and mobilize the farmers in the project area and give them a voice to identify and develop their ideas. It was essential to prioritize technical, locally coordinated, integrated, and sustainable quality; adopt a flexible way of thinking; and think and act in multiple developmental time stages (and several development scenarios) to have a long-term development vision and comply with the principles of economy. Other measures were testing advanced methods, content, and technology. This was to enable them to adapt (but not necessarily depend on) standard procedures towards developing more locally practical tools for their own development. It was crucial to encourage citizen participation, ecological landscape planning, vitality checking, and the use of GIS-based planning and to pay attention to the needs of the people, especially the elderly and the left-behind children.

Finalizing the master plan ideally means that a comprehensive, sustainable development plan can be completed, locally coordinated, and integrated with all involved public actors. In addition, it enabled the opportunity of coordinating the various components of rural revitalization based on different layers of data for planning (Figure 5).

These data layers include data on agriculture, road and traffic, social and ecological infrastructure, measures for village renewal, landscape, tourism, and non-farm economy. The data layers enabled analysis to identify compatibility issues and conflicts and opportunities to update compatibility issues and readjust conflicts. The master plan draft can pass through a scrutiny procedure by the relevant government agencies and can thus be made binding. An essential part of the audit will be to provide the necessary financial resources to the partners for implementation. A scoring system is to be set up to implement measures according to priority and time sequence—high, medium, low priority, and short-, medium-, and long-term measures.

Networked fields of action beyond agriculture: Rural revitalization cannot be successful if it is based only on a single target, such as agriculture. Revitalizing the countryside requires an interdisciplinary approach, covering several networked fields of action. Therefore, the pilot project included agriculture and stockbreeding, road infrastructure and traffic, settlement and village renewal, social matters, education, culture and health, non-agricultural economy (jobs), landscape and ecology, and country tourism. The pilot project was designed to embrace different fields of actions influencing each other. The consolidation of farm holding settings ensured the creation of additional income sources.

Information and capacity building: Capacity building is essential to prepare local actors to lead a strategic, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary planning approach. In the Nanchong project, the capacity building took place on the academic and local administrative level, including two summer schools in Beijing and Chengdu for young Chinese professionals and training weeks in Nanchong for representatives of various authorities from provincial, city, county, and municipal and village levels. Among various topics, particular focus was given to landscape planning and ecological assessment, methods of citizen participation, and an interdisciplinary approach. Furthermore, an essential component in the capacity building was field excursions at the local level, discussions with experts, and concerned local citizens. These excursions fostered communication with locals and thus became a form of citizen participation as well. Delegated representatives of the project areas also visited and studied the former cooperation projects of the HSF in different provinces, such as projects in Sanbaishan, Jiangxi, in Zitong, Chongqing and Nan Zhang Lou, in Shandong province.

Evaluation and inventory of the socioeconomic and demographic scenarios: Inventory and evaluations are classical steps in all kinds of development planning. The innovative approach in the projects should build an interactive GIS supported database, in which several fields of action are represented in modules. In the pilot project, the advanced area inventory in a database included: analysis of demographical factors, a survey of agricultural structures, a survey of technical infrastructure, investigation of social concerns, a survey of several aspects of the settlement, and conducting landscape inventory and ecological analysis. The landscape inventory included the survey of landscape ecology (mapping in a GIS database), definition, mapping, and evaluating typical landscape structures, analyzing ecological functions, valuation in a point score, and citizen participation: interviewing the local people and evaluating results in a GIS database.

Determination of the core problems: Until the pilot project, the project areas had handled the rural problems in a single approach (one problem at a time). Based on the critical questions and the formulation of strategic targets, core problems were identified, which described the leading causes of the circumstances that hindered rural development and reduced people’s quality of life. The identified core problems were the “concentrated essence of weaknesses”, determined by citizen survey and the evaluation of documents and analyzed in every field of action. A locally coordinated, integrated approach was employed to tackle problems in combined integrated ways.

Formulation of targets for the master plan: The master plan was a multi-issue development plan, which covered the entire municipality area (including crossover relationships) and considered all relevant development fields at different time and priority sections. The broad goals resulted in the mission statement (Leitbild). It represented a binding guideline for the sustainable development of space by networking economic, social, cultural, and ecological components. Its main objective was to improve rural people’s living and working conditions and create a long-term requirement for migrated humans to return to rural areas and revitalize them. Methodologically, the targets were to show ways to address and solve the persistent core problems.

Formulation of measures to implement targets: These measures are mandatory based on formulated targets. Otherwise, they may risk failure. Some of the characteristics of successful efforts include prudent uses of ecological and fiscal/budgetary resources, adaptability of experiences to suit local problems, and citizen endorsement of the process.

Coordination and implementation of the master plan: Coordination of complex and comprehensive planning followed three parallel steps: technical coordination, public interests’ coordination, and civil participation coordination. The last coordination step was to check if targets and measures were conflict free. Otherwise, the targets and standards would be appropriately readjusted. If conflicts cannot be solved on the lower level, higher-level government administration should decide after considering public interests and arguments.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study recognizes the importance of rural revitalization, which has become a major policy priority in China since 2017, aimed at dealing with problems of village hollowing, population aging, limited employment opportunities, land abandonment, and environmental degradation in many parts of rural China. It has presented elements or lessons that can be learned from rural revitalization policies in countries or regions that were faced similar problems in the recent past, such as the Bavaria region in Germany. It is hoped that adapting these policies to the local conditions and prevailing problems in rural China may increase the likelihood of success of such policies. The pilot projects presented in this study represent important first steps in this respect. It may be used to frame an approach to rural revitalization that may be applied at a larger scale, by learning from the successes and failures of the pilot.

Bavaria is highly experienced when it comes to rural development. Therefore, exchanging ideas and transferring Bavarian rural development knowledge can play an essential role in rural revitalization in China. This study indicates that the HSF pilot project explored new modes of landscape planning for rural revitalization and mobilized the rural people to develop themselves and their communities. Overall, it provided experience and guidelines for implementing future projects related to China’s new rural revitalization policy. Furthermore, this study shows that the core challenges determined from field study helped formulate targets for landscape planning and develop strategic planning in agriculture, settlement and village renewal, road infrastructure, non-agricultural activities, social services, and tourism. Furthermore, parallel to the ecological landscape survey, a survey of civil society in the project areas took place. The results were included in a GIS-supported database and appraisal of the planning process. Based on the experience adapted from the pilot project, this study suggests the following measures be improved in Sichuan: investing in social, technical, and ecological infrastructure; strengthening self-responsibilities of communities and villagers; creating innovative job opportunities in rural areas; considering environmental sustainability in long-term strategic planning and policies; promoting education and social infrastructure as critical qualities of life; and encouraging capacity development and citizen participation in the planning process [2].

This study is crucial because it presents a unique planning approach for rural revitalization based on experiences from Germany. Considering that it is based on pilot projects, it presents a model that could be copied and applied generally to the rest of Sichuan. In this regard, it presents the path that could be followed to transform the Sichuan rural system. This is following Ye’s [3] (p. 217) assertion that “the re-condensation of rural-urban equality and integration values depends not only on the reform of rural-urban relationship system but also on the experience adapted from the cultural experience of rural-urban division and integration”. The coordinated, integrated master plan approach is different from typical approaches within China for several reasons: it is rural based, it embraces people’s participation on a local level, it is based on an intensive inventory of the village settlement as a living and working place, other aspects such as the environment (e.g., landscape and environment) are considered an integral part of the planning process, and it is also based on the formulation of local goals and a development perspective that is long-term oriented. Some of these features may not be unique in conventional planning procedures. However, they are unique within the context of rural development in China. Furthermore, it is based on a cross-country knowledge exchange in the context of Sino-German relationships.

Finally, it is important to recognize that this study presents only a descriptive analysis of the process of developing a coordinated, integrated master plan. This represents weakness because of the absence of empirical data in quantitatively comparing the severity of different rural development problems in Bavaria and Sichuan Province. However, it presents adequate information from a descriptive aspect of planning. Bearing this weakness in mind, it is important to note that for the coordinated, integrated master plan approach to be applied elsewhere in China (or other parts of the world), it is essential that “an assessment of the planning environment and shared values as a core activity in facilitating the development of local communities” be conducted to ensure successful adaptability [59] (p. 16). However, suggested future research would be to assess the outcome of the coordinated, integrated master plan approach in Sichuan in the coming years (either mid- or long-term). What this study has done is to present the evolution of the locally coordinated, integrated master plan approach.