The spatial mismatch between affordable housing neighborhoods and public services/facilities significantly reduces the well-being of low-income dwellers, which has risen to a typical issue of spatial injustice. Previous studies on accessibility evaluation most focus on a single type of service, lacking empirical studies exploring the integrated spatial accessibility of multiple services for low-income residents. Taking Harbin City in northeast China as an example, this study assessed the spatial accessibility of transit, education, healthcare, shopping, and recreation facilities for affordable housing neighborhoods, using the Gaussian-based 2SFCA method. The pattern of accessibility for each type of facility in Harbin showed obvious spatial differentiation between the urban core and the city periphery, for both affordable housing neighborhoods and other neighborhoods. The sample household survey indicated that low-income households who were generally characterized as elderly, less-educated, under-employed or unemployed had extremely restricted and passive residence choices. In comparison to non-low-income households, the spatial accessibility of higher-level facilities for low-income households was relatively poorer. Particularly, affordable housing neighborhoods had much lower accessibility of subway stations, though more than 97% of low-income respondents living in affordable housing neighborhoods chose to solve the daily trip demand by taking a bus or the subway. With respect to equity-oriented urban planning, more importance should be attached to the spatial accessibility of public services and facilities when planning affordable housing projects for low-income households.

The contradiction between China’s urban economic development and the ecological environment has become increasingly prominent. Promoting the coordinated development of the ecological–economic system is an effective way to achieve sustainable development. Based on the analysis of the coupling mechanism of the ecological environment and economic development, the county unit is taken as the research unit to evaluate the coupling coordination degree (CCD) of Hangzhou’s ecological–economic system and analyze the evolution of coupling coordination characteristics and landscape ecological patterns in Hangzhou from 2010 to 2020. The results show that (1) the ecological protection and economic development status of Hangzhou is generally good, but the ecological environment index cannot maintain stable growth; (2) the coupling coordination degree of ecological–economic systems in various regions shows an overall upward trend, and ecological protection and economic development show positive interaction characteristics; (3) the development of CCD between regions is uneven, and the development level of a single subsystem in each region hinders coupling coordination between the two parties; and (4) changes in morphological spatial patterns further prove the coupling relationship between the two systems. Although the regional ecological connectivity has been optimized, the increase in perforations is crowding out the core area, and the regional ecological carrying capacity is facing challenges.

Since January 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of deaths and has posed a major public health threat worldwide. Such a massive and complex crisis requires quick and comprehensive policy responses. We developed an empirical dataset of policy mixes that included 4915 policies across 36 Chinese cities and investigated the relationships between the policy design choices and the COVID-19 pandemic response outcomes of a city. Using topic modeling and ordinary least squares regression analysis, we found considerable variation among cities in the compositions and design features of their policy mixes. Our analysis revealed that restriction measures did not significantly influence limiting the spread of the pandemic, but they were negatively correlated with the economic growth rate. By contrast, health protection measures greatly contributed to controlling viral spread. Intensive socioeconomic support reduced the occurrence of secondary disasters. The most effective policy strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be a comprehensive policy design with a mix of restrictions, health protection measures, and socioeconomic support policies accompanied by a timely lockdown. Our empirical findings can help to improve pandemic policy design and contribute to generating broader lessons for how local governments should deal with similar crises in the future.

Urban and regional development across the globe is increasingly shaped by profound and persistent uncertainty. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, cities and regions have been exposed to cascading short-and long-term shocks that continue to disrupt social, economic, and institutional systems (Glaeser, 2022). These shocks include, but are not limited to, public health crises, climate-induced extreme events, geopolitical tensions, supply-chain disruptions, and the growing fragility of governance institutions . Together, they have significantly complicated efforts toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty reduction, health equity, sustainable cities, and social inclusion (Bautista-Puig et al., 2022).Importantly, such shocks do not unfold evenly across space or society. Rather than acting as temporary disturbances, they intersect with historically embedded inequalities-of class, gender, age, ethnicity, and location-producing highly differentiated development trajectories across countries, cultures, and governance systems, as well as between urban and rural areas (Leal Filho et al., 2020). Contemporary societies are thus not only unequal, but also spatially variegated in how risks are distributed, experienced, and managed. Vulnerability and resilience are co-produced through long-standing socio-spatial arrangements, institutional capacities, and uneven access to resources and opportunities.Within this context, the resilience and sustainability of urban and rural areas have become central concepts in both scholarly debates and policy practice (Li et al., 2024;X. Zhang & Li, 2018). A substantial body of literature has examined resilience in cities and rural regions alike, often focusing on physical infrastructure, environmental performance, technological innovation, or economic recovery. These approaches have generated valuable insights, particularly in relation to disaster risk reduction, climate adaptation, and infrastructure robustness. Yet, an enduring research gap remains in the social dimension of resilience and sustainability--namely, whether development pathways and resilience-building efforts are inclusively experienced, and for whom they actually work.Long-standing critiques asking "resilience of what, to what, and for whom" continue to challenge the operationalisation of resilience in real-world planning and governance (Meerow & Newell, 2019). Without explicit attention to social differentiation and human needs, resilience risks becoming a technocratic or depoliticised concept, one that prioritises system stability over social justice, and efficiency over equity. This Research Topic is positioned squarely within these debates, with a particular emphasis on inclusive development and human needs as critical lenses through which resilience and sustainability can be rethought. By bringing together empirical and review-based contributions from diverse developing contexts --Indonesia, Israel, and China --the collection underscores that development remains a primary concern for much of the Global South. At the same time, it reminds us that resilience and inclusive development cannot be treated as an abstract or universal solution, but must be grounded in place-specific social realities, institutional arrangements, and lived experiences.Collectively, the four articles foreground a fundamental question that lies at the heart of contemporary debates on resilient and sustainable development: what are the real human needs that future development should address? Framing resilience through an inclusive, human-centred perspective reconnects current discussions with seminal ideas such as the "right to the city" (Harvey, 2003;Yang et al., 2023) while also engaging with economic interpretations of development that distinguish between needs, demands, and the uneven supply of resources and opportunities.From this perspective, resilience is not merely a technical capacity to absorb shocks, bounce back, or return to a prior equilibrium. Rather, it is deeply entangled with how societies recognise, prioritise, and satisfy diverse human needs across different social groups and spatial contexts. Human needs are neither universal nor static; they are socially constructed, culturally embedded, and shaped by institutional arrangements and power relations. What constitutes safety, accessibility, participation, or wellbeing varies across age groups, genders, income levels, and territorial settings.Inclusive development thus becomes a necessary condition for meaningful resilience. Without equity, participation, and social justice, resilience-building efforts risk reinforcing existing vulnerabilities or creating new forms of exclusion. Infrastructure investments may benefit already privileged populations; smart-city technologies may marginalise those lacking digital access; and spatial restructuring may displace vulnerable communities in the name of efficiency or competitiveness (Chen et al., 2025;Keep et al., 2021). By foregrounding human needs, this Research Topic shifts the analytical focus from abstract systems to lived experiences, and from aggregate outcomes to differentiated impacts.The four articles in this Research Topic offer complementary insights drawn from diverse methodological approaches and empirical settings. Together, they respond to a shared concern with human needs under the sustainable development agenda, while illustrating how inclusion--or its absence--shapes development outcomes and resilience capacities.Subanti and colleagues (Subanti et al., 2025) examine the construction of ageing-friendly cities in Indonesia, a country facing rapid demographic transition alongside persistent regional inequality. Integrating hedonic price modelling with a dataset covering 98 cities, they demonstrate how access to health facilities, safe transportation, communication infrastructure, and low crime rates jointly enhance quality-of-life values that...

This study conducts a comparative analysis of rural revitalization policies in China and five developed nations (the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and South Korea) using a machine learning-driven framework. By examining 71 policy documents, the research categorizes policies into four domains—Market Capital, Balanced Coordination, Government Regulation, and Rural Ethics—and identifies distinct policy typologies. The findings reveal that China predominantly employs “Government Regulation Dominant” strategies, reflecting its centralized governance model, while wealthier nations favour integrated and market-oriented approaches. A significant correlation is observed between GDP per capita and policy orientation, with higher-income countries emphasizing market-driven mechanisms and lower-income nations relying more on state intervention. The study also highlights temporal shifts in policy preferences, illustrating how historical and socio-economic contexts shape rural development strategies. Based on global best practices, the paper proposes actionable recommendations for China, including integrating market capital with regulatory oversight, diversifying policy frameworks, and fostering public-private partnerships. The research underscores the importance of adapting policies to regional characteristics and leveraging computational methods for robust policy analysis. Limitations include the focus on high-income and upper-middle-income countries, suggesting the need for future studies to explore frameworks applicable to developing regions. This work contributes to the discourse on sustainable rural development by offering empirical insights and a scalable analytical methodology.

This study investigates the nonlinear relationship between rural territorial functions—encompassing production, living, and ecological dimensions—and economic development in China’s Yangtze River Delta (YRD) from 2000 to 2020, employing entropy weight and Kuznets curve analyses. Findings reveal pronounced regional disparities: economically advanced areas achieve balanced multifunctionality, whereas underdeveloped regions remain production-centric. Economic growth exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship with rural functions, peaking at approximately 13,000 yuan per capita GDP, initially enhancing functions but leading to imbalances beyond this threshold. The production function follows a W-shaped trajectory, reflecting structural economic shifts, while living and ecological functions peak at intermediate development stages before stabilizing or declining. These insights underscore the necessity for tailored policies to harmonize rural functions, mitigate disparities, and balance economic growth with sustainability.