This study is situated at the critical stage of comprehensive implementation of China’s territorial spatial planning system, addressing the strategic need for planning evaluation and optimization. We innovatively construct a Computable General Equilibrium Model for China’s Territorial Spatial Planning (CTSPM-CHN) that integrates dual factors of construction land costs and energy consumption costs. Through designing two policy scenarios of rigid constraints and structural optimization, we systematically simulate and evaluate the dynamic impacts of different territorial spatial governance strategies on macroeconomic indicators, residents’ welfare, and carbon emissions, revealing the multidimensional effects and operational mechanisms of territorial spatial planning policies. The findings demonstrate the following: First, strict implementation of land use scale control from the National Territorial Planning Outline (2016–2030) could reduce carbon emission growth rate by 12.3% but would decrease annual GDP growth rate by 0.8%, reflecting the trade-off between environmental benefits and economic growth. Second, industrial land structure optimization generates significant synergistic effects, with simulation results showing that by 2035, total GDP under this scenario would increase by 4.8% compared to the rigid constraint scenario, while carbon emission intensity per unit GDP would decrease by 18.6%, confirming the crucial role of structural optimization in promoting high-quality development. Third, manufacturing land adjustment exhibits policy thresholds: moderate reduction could lower carbon emission peak by 9.5% without affecting economic stability, but excessive cuts would lead to a 2.3 percentage point decline in industrial added value. Based on systematic multi-scenario analysis, this study proposes optimized pathways for territorial spatial governance: the planning system should transition from scale control to a structural optimization paradigm, establishing a flexible governance mechanism incorporating anticipatory constraint indicators; simultaneously advance efficiency improvement in key sector land allocation and energy structure decarbonization, constructing a coordinated “space–energy” governance framework. These findings provide quantitative decision-making support for improving territorial spatial governance systems and advancing ecological civilization construction.
Wen et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: