Territorial spatial governance with unified governance of urban and rural spaces lacks specific implementation methods. Problems include how to achieve integrated governance and how to efficiently utilize and fairly allocate urban and rural spaces in multiple integrated spatial planning (Ye and Liu, 2020). Rural spatial governance should be problem-oriented and target efficient rural spatial governance through governing rural spatial structures, spatial organization systems, and spatial ownership relationships. The large-scale requirements of territorial spatial governance are not suitable for the development of urban-rural integration. The differences between rural space and urban space in terms of function and structure determine the important position of rural spatial governance in promoting territorial spatial management at the most basic level. Multi-subject participation in rural spatial relationships, along with the differences in spatial organization and spatial ownership, enables rural spatial governance to act as a bridge between the implementation of spatial regulation indicators and the distribution of spatial value (Halfacree, 2007).

Rural space is the physical carrier of the function and structure of a rural area. The problems associated with rural spatial use are a manifestation of the irrationality in the elemental changes, structural optimization, and function evolution of the regional rural system. The evolution of rural space’s structure and function is closely related to the development of the rural “human”, the optimization of “land”, the revitalization of “industry”, and the reorganization of “power”. The logic of rural spatial governance should be based on rural territorial system theory and should strive to optimize the rural human-land relationship through rural spatial governance. The comprehensive consolidation of rural territorial space is a systematic behavior for the development and utilization of territorial space in rural areas, especially “hollow village consolidation”, “agricultural land consolidation”, and “industrial and mining land consolidation”. These types of consolidation provide a solid physical foundation for restructuring the rural spatial pattern of “production-living-ecology” and promoting the transformation development of rural areas (Long, 2014; Wu, 2017; Long et al., 2020; Long and Zhang, 2020). Considering the problems of territorial spatial consolidation, the traditional “top-down” single-type spatial governance model does not meet the needs of rural spatial governance. A practical approach is to construct a rural spatial governance system that combines “top-down” and “bottom-up” with the effective participation of multiple subjects. This approach helps combine top-level policy regulation and grassroots governance exploration, which motivates farmers to participate independently and promotes the sharing of spatial development dividends. Additionally, rural spatial governance shifts from “management” to “good governance”.

The definition of “governance” can be summarized as the formal or informal institutional arrangements for implementing affairs management by mobilizing multiple resources (Meng et al., 2019). “Spatial governance” is a process that uses the distribution of spatial resources to produce effective, fair, and sustainable use of land space. Development should be balanced across regions by mobilizing the participation of multiple subjects and coordinating the demands of various interest groups. The goal of spatial governance is a dynamic, multi-dimensional, and complex system. Rural space is an inseparable part of territorial space. Because of its close relationship with the rural transformation development of societies and economies, rural spatial governance has the power to promote urban-rural integration, coordinate an urban-rural relationship, cultivate rural endogenous development momentum, and promote the added value of rural space.

Regarding rural space as a governance object and the participation of multiple rural entities (government, market, social groups, etc.) leads to comprehensive rural spatial governance that effectively regulates rural spatial use, allocates space rights in an orderly manner, and combines “top-down” and “bottom-up” governance by coordinating the rights and interests among subjects through planning and negotiation.

Rural spatial governance emphasizes realizing “top-down” territorial spatial regulation and the hierarchical transmission of spatial governance objectives (Fan, 2020; Lin et al., 2019) through the comprehensive governance of rural space (Ge and Long, 2020). The aim is to help further improve the territorial spatial governance capabilities and overall system. In addition, rural spatial governance emphasizes that multiple subjects have the ability to participate in spatial governance. As a result, the self-organization of governance subjects is strengthened and the rural spatial governance system is improved through a “bottom-up” governance path that promotes both “rigid constraints” and “flexible regulation”. Compared with urban spatial governance, rural spatial governance should increase the participation of multiple subjects and change the decentralized and weak characteristics of the organization and governance of subjects. Finally, a joint force should form to strengthen the spatial governance mechanism by combining “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches (Yang et al., 2016; Long et al., 2020). The outcome is a plan for improving the territorial spatial governance system. Rural spatial governance faces structural problems that arise in the rural regional system. Governance should highlight the importance of “human” as an indispensable element of the rural regional system and determine a feasible path for rural spatial governance based on human-land coordination. The key tasks for improving the rural spatial governance system include the following: facing the dynamic changes and composite characteristics of rural regional functions and structures; constructing a multi-governance plan that involves the interaction between physical space and space relationships; the superposition of space ownership and space organization; the cohesion of benefits distribution and multi-subject participation; and the connection between scale transmission and appeal backtracking.

The construction of the analytical framework of rural spatial governance is the process of solidifying the rural spatial governance description and enhancing its operation. Starting with the core problems in the development and utilization of rural space, the solution is to build a feasible implementation that considers the goals of rural spatial governance. Preliminary progress has been made in the logical framework of “matter-organization-ownership” governance in rural space (Ge and Long, 2020). From the perspective of rural spatial governance driving “human-land-industry” transformation in rural areas, the framework considers the internal mechanisms of limited physical space, poor organization systems, and unclear ownership in rural development. This paper begins with a description of the interactions of rural spatial governance that promote the development of urban-rural integration. However, there are various approaches to “matter-organization-ownership” governance in rural space at different scales, and the participation and impacts of multiple subjects along with rural spatial governance has not been studied in terms of promoting territorial spatial regulation and spatial rights reconfiguration.

This paper uses the system of “action-efficiency-target” to construct an analytical path for “matter-organization-ownership” governance in rural space. “Action” is a collection of actions and means taken in different governance fields. The “efficiency” system comprehensively analyzes the effects and capabilities of rural spatial governance in changing rural space. “Target” is the way forward for the comprehensive management of rural space to improve the operation and mode of spatial governance. The “action” and “efficiency” of rural spatial governance correspond to “scale transmit” and “scale backtrack”, respectively. Rural spatial governance realizes the governance logic of combining “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches during the downward transmission of governance actions and the upward backtracking of governance efficiency.

The “matter-organization-ownership” governance in rural space provides an effective path to fully implement the goals of rural spatial governance. Physical rural spatial governance can tap the potential of rural spatial development, expand the use of rural space, and eliminate the dilemma of limited rural development space. The governance of rural spatial organization includes both physical spatial organization and rural spatial relation organization. The governance also focuses on solving the problems of fragmented and inefficient spatial organization, rebuilding the rural spatial relationship network, reorganizing the spatial organization operation system, and strengthening the involvement of multiple subjects. Rural spatial ownership governance establishes the distribution approach to rural development rights and defines the boundaries of public and private spaces. The governance also builds a rural space ownership system with clear rights and responsibilities by clarifying the space property rights relationship and confirming the economic interests of multiple subjects. All of these tasks can further optimize rural space social relationships, stimulate rural innovation, and spark the enthusiasm of multiple subjects. The comprehensive governance of “matter-organization-ownership” in rural space can promote the realization of rural space restructuring, organization system reconstruction, and ownership reshaping. It is also helpful to explore the construction of a modern rural spatial governance system with efficient organization, clear space ownership, and fair space rights (Ge and Long, 2020). These improvements can help achieve the comprehensive goals of orderly and efficient rural spatial use, participation of multiple entities, and improvement of spatial governance capabilities.

Scientifically understanding “matter-organization-ownership” governance in rural space is conducive to improving the operation of rural spatial governance. Regional, village, and plot scales are most closely related to rural spatial governance (Figure 1). There are also significant differences in rural spatial governance measures and efficiency at different scales. On the regional scale, the focus of rural spatial governance is to correct the spatial structure system of the territorial space (Long, 2014). Rural physical spatial governance is the core focus, with the goal of implementing national rural spatial management and regulation. The village scale is the basis of rural spatial management and organization. It is an effective scale for the organization governance of rural space. Along with the current basic rural management system, the village scale is the key that determines the effectiveness of rural spatial governance. Spatial governance measures at the village scale mainly include rural land use distribution plans, rural space organization systems, and rural space management models (Ge et al., 2020a). Through village-scale spatial governance, it is possible to reshape the rural space relationship network and organization system, as well as improve the organization of spatial governance and the rural space regulation system. At the plot scale, the aim of spatial governance is to identify the land use patterns that are unsuitable for rural development, considering ownership relations, benefit distributions, and use impacts. The plot scale emphasizes the key role of rural spatial ownership governance and has become an important target for implementing the combination of “top-down” transmission and “bottom-up” backtracking of rural spatial governance. “Matter-organization-ownership” governance can cause changes in the rural space efficiency system. The efficiency-backtracking process from the plot scale to the regional scale will play a role in improving the rural spatial governance system. Starting with the improvement in micro-scale efficiency, “bottom-up” backtracking of rural spatial governance can be realized by improving the spatial organization system and the geographic structure and function.

The core goal of the rural spatial governance system emphasizes the transmission logic of the “central-local relationship” spatial regulation objectives while also including the “bottom-up” governance objectives. Specifically, the objectives are to encourage the participation of multiple subjects and create conditions for building a rural spatial governance system that combines the “top-down” and “bottom-up” models. The combination of a multi-scale spatial governance authority system and the “matter-organization-ownership” governance of rural space will help strengthen the governance efficiency of rural space and improve the communication between the central and local governments in terms of spatial development indicators (Zhou et al., 2020). Participation methods and organization systems of multiple subjects have been strengthened with comprehensive governance in rural space. Starting with the distribution of rights and interests in rural space development will help motivate multiple subjects and strengthen the organizational capacity of spatial governance. The result is a new rural self-organization system and stronger involvement of multiple rural subjects. The link between urban and rural markets has been strengthened through rural spatial regulation and the orderly allocation of rural spatial rights. The outcome is a physical foundation, organizational guarantee, and funding for the construction of a new urban-rural relationship. The forces represented by “government power”, “market power”, and “social power” interact in rural spatial comprehensive governance and work together to promote the continuous improvement of the rural spatial governance system.

Rural spatial governance has become an important part of improving the territorial spatial governance system, which provides a foundation for improving the territorial spatial planning system. The five-scale and three-category territorial spatial planning system, with “top-down” multi-scale transmission, forms a hierarchical management model for the development and utilization of territorial space. The ideal intention of territorial spatial planning is to effectively manage and regulation the entire space (“to the end with one pole”). But it is clear that more planning transmission scales lower the effectiveness and efficiency of spatial regulation. Territorial spatial regulation will eventually be implemented on microscopic plots, which will involve multiple interests (Wu, 2017). It is difficult to obtain feedback in the transmission of “top-down” multi-scale planning indicators, which further weakens the effect of territorial spatial management and regulation (Figure 2). Rural spatial governance provides the possibility of improving the rational arrangement of territorial space at the county scale and below. In particular, this governance creates conditions for the rational development and regulation of rural space at the village and plot scales (Ge and Long, 2020). Comprehensive governance of rural space at the village and plot scales will strengthen the effectiveness and maneuverability of the underlying spatial regulation and provide a bridge between the “top-down” multi-scale transmission of spatial management and regulation objectives. The plot scale is aimed at the refined management of rural space, which will further improve the base map data of territorial spatial planning. In particular, the distribution of space ownership, the regulation of the rights system, and the perfection of usage have exceeded the defined system of the third territorial space survey data. At the village scale, the reorganization of space relations, the combining of group self-organization models, and the implementation of spatial regulation objectives have become key links in transmitting territorial spatial planning indicators (Figure 2).

Rural spatial governance helps strengthen the “public policy” attribute of territorial spatial planning and expand the communication channels for multiple subjects to participate in planning. The governance of “matter-organization-ownership” in rural space provides an effective path to communicate the relationship between government regulatory power, social participation power, and market regulatory power in the territorial spatial governance system. Rural spatial governance emphasizes “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches, highlighting the public value attributes of rural space and providing a broad channel for attracting multiple subjects to participate in territorial spatial planning (Frisvoll, 2012; Liu et al., 2014). The diverse forces represented by government power, market power, and social power constitute the core of rural spatial governance and guarantee the promotion of territorial spatial planning with diversified coordination and multiple objectives (Figure 2). Rural spatial governance is based on physical spatial governance; spatial organization and ownership governance are indispensable components. All of these components benefit the overall value of rural space, for example, realizing the transformation from resources to assets and capital. The original intention of rural space value is then shared by rural residents, ending the current alienation pattern in distributing space development value between urban and rural areas.

Spatial planning is difficult to effectively implement in rural space and is responsible for the chaos in rural development. For a long time, the development and protection of rural space has been overlooked. Based on the “Regulations on the planning and construction of village and town” promulgated by the State Council in 1993 to the “Urban and Rural Planning Law” promulgated in 2008, rural planning has been left out of the primary spatial plans. Urban-rural planning does not easily apply to rural space; thus, pragmatic rural construction planning has emerged in rural space transformation. Since 2003, the country has observed rural development and the “village construction movement” represented by the construction of new rural areas. These actions have partly initiated a wave of rural space development in the new century (Chen et al., 2019).

Throughout rural spatial governance, rural spatial planning has lacked effective grounding tools. It is difficult to carry out scientific spatial management of scattered, low-scale, and composite rural space (Liu, 2020; Peng et al., 2020). One of the main goals of territorial spatial planning is to create a unified spatial arrangement and establish a unified strategy for the development and protection of the entire land. At present, the unreasonable state of rural space development and utilization has become a barrier to territorial spatial planning in terms of “multi-planning integration”. The comprehensive management of rural space caters to actual needs and provides a strategic starting point for promoting the integration of multiple plans in rural areas.

The core value of rural spatial governance in promoting “multi-planning integration” is embodied in reconstructing the space structure, reorganizing the space relationship, and reshaping the space ownership system through the comprehensive governance of “matter-organization-ownership”. All of these actions are conducive to fostering rural self-organization, coordinating the rights and interests of multiple subjects, strengthening the organic combination of “rigid constraints” and “flexible guidelines” in spatial regulation, and providing organizational foundations and material guarantees for implementing “multi- planning integration”. The key point of the “multi-planning integration” rural spatial planning system is to clarify the status of the main subjects of spatial governance (Lin et al., 2019) and mobilize the main subjects to participate. This is achieved by coordinating multiple subjects’ interests, thereby promoting a spatial development objective and fair rights-interest system. The “matter-organization-ownership” governance in rural space helps perfect the space value distribution. Under spatial governance of ownership and organization, the public welfare of space-value-added distribution is strengthened and the value of clarifying spatial ownership is confirmed (Figure 3). The comprehensive governance of rural space eliminates the shortcomings of focusing on physical spatial governance and neglecting intangible spatial governance. The approach also emphasizes the governance path of the entire rural space, all elements, all property rights, and all values. These actions are in line with the planning goal of unified management within “multi-planning integration”.

A rural spatial governance system that combines “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches is useful for implementing “multi-planning integration”. Rural spatial governance is retrospectively related to the demands of spatial planning management at the plot scale. Therefore, the intensity of unified management of rural space is increased at the technical level, enhancing the feasibility and effectiveness of unified management of rural space. Rural physical spatial governance provides the material foundation required for “multi-planning integration”, while spatial ownership and organization governance optimize the feasibility of implementing “multi-planning integration”. Through spatial governance, the multi-scale government authority system will be clearer, urban-rural markets will operate more effectively, and the need for multiple entities to participate in spatial planning will be met. As a result, the “multi-planning integration” spatial governance system can be implemented. Starting with comprehensive governance of rural space helps advance special rural spatial planning, which has practical operability and the flexibility of “bottom-up” docking (Figure 3). Therefore, rural spatial governance considers the actual needs of unified management of territorial space and provides a cohesive path for implementing spatial management goals. “Multi-planning integration” is achieved through multiple governance methods, multiple subjects’ participation, multiple value sharing, and other programs.

The division plan of territorial spatial management in the modern era strengthens the boundary of urban space but weakens the scope of rural space. There are differences between the rural space studied in this paper and the agricultural and rural development zones defined in territorial spatial planning. The latter emphasizes agricultural production space and farmers’ living space while ignoring the connection of the urban-rural regional system (Peng et al., 2020). Within a county, the urban construction area represented by the township (township resident, market town, small town, etc.) serves as a bridge connecting urban and rural areas. The area is characteristically surrounded by rural landscapes. According to the “Guide for Basic Zoning and Use Classification of Municipal and County Land Spatial Planning”, rural development spaces are classified as village construction areas. The strategy of prioritizing agricultural and rural development has been overlooked in terms of territorial spatial planning. It is difficult to institutionally end the downward trend of rural development by relying on detailed planning at the village scale alone (Ge and Long, 2020). To optimize territorial spatial development patterns and refine territorial and spatial use regulation, rural development needs should be included and implemented in the territorial and spatial use regulation at the plot scale. This strategy would help realize unified urban-rural territorial spatial regulation and good rural governance.

The comprehensive management of “matter-organization-ownership” in rural space is a refined management process for rural space, which provides a strategic starting point for the implementation and refinement of territorial and spatial use regulation. The classification guidance and regulation of territorial space are the core technical routes for advancing spatial governance. A good grasp of rigid indicator constraints and flexible guidance regulation in the process of planning space is significant for the continuous development of rural spaces with complex relationships and functions. Using rural spatial governance to refine territorial and spatial use regulation maximizes territorial spatial use value, the efficient transmission of authority, the fair distribution of space rights, and the effectiveness of multi-subject interactions while clarifying land ownership and organization relationships. These objectives guarantee the implementation of spatial regulation indicators, clarify the primary direction of land use, and improve usage regulation and supervision (Figure 4). Based on the first-level land classification of territorial and spatial use planning, rural spatial governance targets the spatial governance behavior of agricultural land, rural construction land, and other land use that refines rural spatial regulation (Long, 2014).

Rural spatial governance strengthens bottom-line, practical thinking in refining the regulation of territorial and spatial use. The result is the management and regulation of rural micro-space. For example, the scattered and inefficient use of farmland is improved through physical spatial management. The focus of farmland ownership and organization governance is to optimize the economic value system and production operation model. Through comprehensive spatial management, the delineation of the protective “red line” for permanent basic farmland is more scientific and restrained. Through refined farmland-use regulation, the implementation of farmland-protection policies is more effective, farmland-use regulation is more flexible, and farmland organization is more common. These strategies restrict unreasonable farmland-use behaviors and help refine and implement policies and strategies in farmland-use regulation. The governance of rural construction land provides the option of refining the regulation of construction land and seeing the potential of rural spatial development. For example, rural public space is still difficult to identify (a small number of public service facilities are identified in the third survey) within the current territorial and spatial regulation classification; thus, the management and regulation of rural public space is more difficult. If physical space is difficult to divide, then the governance of rural public space (starting ownership and organization) and space property rights can help promote value-added sharing and distribution as well as coordinate the participation of multiple subjects in rural public space. Furthermore, the basic foundation of rural public spatial management can be strengthened and the regulation of rural public space can be promoted effectively(Figure 4).

The process of multi-subject participation stimulated by rural spatial governance is closely related to the operational logic of territorial spatial regulation. Detailed planning of rural territorial space adds “constraint indicators + zoning access” to the management and regulation strategy; it cannot be separated from the participation of multiple rural subjects. The difficulty of rural spatial management and regulation is influenced by the lack of supervision of multiple subjects. The comprehensive management of rural space can play a beneficial role in restructuring basic organization and supervision; it also provides a broad foundation for the implementation of territorial spatial regulation. In territorial spatial regulation, urban development areas, agricultural and rural development areas, and ecological protection areas should be given a portion of “production-living-ecology” space (Peng et al., 2020). The comprehensive governance of rural space plays an important role in promoting good governance in rural areas and ecological governance. The governance of rural physical space improves the spatial structure of “production-living-ecology”. Spatial ownership governance subdivides the hidden value of land use, enhances the value system of rural space (especially ecological value), and clarifies the strategy of rural ecological spatial regulation. From the perspective of system and process construction, this type of governance strengthens the protection of rural ecological space, prevents the limited ecological space from being encroached and defaced, and meets the overall needs of the management of rural ecological space and ecological consolidation.