ReviewHeliyon2024
Research review on land development rights and its implications for China's national territory spatial planning.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Based on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science (WOS) databases, this article analyzes the deductive context, cooperation network, and research hotspots of land development rights (LDR) research in the Chinese and international literature by using CiteSpace software, and it also explores the implications of this research for the theory and practice of national territory spatial planning (NTSP) in China. The results show that (1) the literature on LDR in Chinese and international journal articles initially appeared in 1995 and 1973, respectively, researches in China experienced three stages: embryonic fluctuating development, rapid growth and stable development, and wave development, while international researches experienced two stages: embryonic fluctuating and a gradually increasing development. (2) Among these scholars and research institutions, there is no obvious difference between Chinese and international scholars, while the Renmin University of China and the State University System of Florida are the research institutions with the largest number of Chinese and international journal articles, respectively. (3) In terms of publishing journals, international journals mainly focus on land policy, cities, and resource fields, while Chinese journals mainly focus on the agricultural economy, civil and commercial law, economic systems, and macroeconomic management fields. (4) The direction and scale of thematic research vary greatly, with Chinese research mainly conducted from the perspectives of rights attribution and benefits distribution, while international research mainly focuses on the operation of the right-to-development system and its impact on the environment. In the future, studies focus on China's need to strengthen the research and institutional practice of LDR at the legal level, value level, and extension level following national conditions, formulate a land value-added benefit distribution system with efficiency and fairness, and strengthen the practice of LDR in China's NTSP based on the differences between urban and rural development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.