Planning consistency and implementation in urbanizing China: Comparing urban and land use plans in suburban Beijing

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Planning consistency and implementation in urbanizing China: Comparing urban and land use plans in suburban Beijing

T

Tao Liua,b, Daquan Huangc,*, Xin Tanc, Fanhao Kongc a

College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Yiheyuan Road 5, Beijing, 100871, China Center for Urban Future Research, Peking University, Yiheyuan Road 5, Beijing, 100871, China c School of Geography, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, XinJieKouWai St., HaiDian District, Beijing, 100875, China b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Plan implementation Urban expansion Plan conflicts Urban master plan Land use plan China

The evaluation of the extent to which urban and land use planning have achieved their objectives is crucial to better management of urban land development. China’s urban and land use plans have the common purpose of controlling urban sprawl. This research aimed at comparatively assessing the consistency and implementation of these plans, considering the Changping District in suburban Beijing as a case study. Three main findings were obtained: (1) each plan used different strategies to control new developments, and there were several quantitative and spatial conflicts between the two plans; (2) neither plan has been well implemented or effective in controlling urban sprawl, despite the slightly better performance of the land use plan; (3) core-periphery decreasing trends were revealed in land quota allocation and effectiveness of planning implementation. Remote regular towns received the least land resources from the top-down planning system but also developed fast, mainly through informal and illegal approaches. Further investigation into the double failure of China’s current spatial planning system in quantitative and spatial control over urban land development requires a deeper integration of various spatial management systems, a fundamental transformation of planning philosophy, and a higher respect for peripheral areas in urban-rural integration. The planning assessment approach and reform recommendations developed on the basis of the Chinese practice are probably referable for other developing countries facing similar processes of rapid urbanization and imperfect spatial management.

1. Introduction

formance-based ones (Baer, 1997). The conformance-based approach defines successful implementation as compliance or consistency between plans and actual development (Spurlock, 2019). In contrast, the performance-based approach focuses on planning processes and considers the plan as a guide for future planning decisions (Laurian et al., 2004b). The majority of recent studies have chosen the conformancebased approach which emphasizes the relationship between planning and reality. The wide use of this approach can be attributed to its two advantages. One is the clarity and objectiveness of the plan and the reality that make the two scenarios comparable and the results convictive. The other one is the direct and close relation between assessment results and practitioners’ execution in planning implementation which is more effective for enhancing the authority and binding force of plans in guiding urban development (Loh, 2011). In addition, conformance-based analysis of plan implementation is a powerful tool for stimulating and informing the public debate on plans and their implementation (Padeiro, 2016). These studies usually tend to focus on

The evaluation of plan implementation is an important step in plan making and management, which reports how the plan has performed and why it has done so (Alterman and Hill, 1978; Talen, 1996). Scholars have been developing theories and methods to evaluate planning implementation since the 1970s (Alexander, 2009; Alexander and Faludi, 1989; Alterman and Hill, 1978; Talen, 1996). Five criteria have been generally used to this aim: conformity, rational process, optimality ex ante, optimality ex post, and utilization (Baer, 1997; Berke et al., 2006; Berke and Conroy, 2000; Laurian et al., 2004a; Lichfìeld et al., 1975; Oliveira and Pinho, 2010). The concepts of conformity and effectiveness have been the most used ones to assess the implementation of urban land use plans, urban growth boundaries, and environmental plans (Alterman and Hill, 1978; Brody and Highfield, 2005; Jun, 2004). Two divergent approaches of plan implementation assessment was proposed two decades ago, namely performance-based and con-

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Liu), [email protected] (D. Huang), [email protected] (X. Tan), [email protected] (F. Kong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104498 Received 12 August 2019; Received in revised form 18 January 2020; Accepted 26 January 2020 0264-8377/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

the conformance of development to the plans, utilizing technological progress in GIS and remote sensing to achieve this goal (Abrantes et al., 2016; Alfasi et al., 2012; Feitelson et al., 2017; Frenkel and Orenstein, 2012; Laurian et al., 2004b). The assessment of planning implementation has been carried out mainly in advanced economies with limited attention to developing countries, where cities are growing rapidly and the planning system is far from perfect. This paper attempts to fill this gap by presenting a case study in suburban Beijing, the capital city of urbanizing China. China’s rapid increase in urban sprawl has led to social, economic, and environmental problems that include the loss of arable land, farmland erosion, forest degradation, and even social conflicts (Chen, 2007; Huang et al., 2015; Liu, 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2011; Wei and Ye, 2014). In response to the need of effective policy tools to control urban sprawl and achieve sustainable development, China’s central and various urban governments have developed a complex planning system. However, the lack of common planning basis and uniform basic data for different plans has made the integration and implementation of the planning system quite difficult (Liu et al., 2018a). Over 80 statutory plans were drafted and implemented by various levels of government and their departments during two decades, in an attempt to achieve effective urban development (Yan et al., 2017). Of these, urban and land use planning are the two most important spatial plans, in terms of their profound impacts on the country’s urban development (Ding, 2009; Huang et al., 2019; Zhu, 2013). China’s urban-rural planning department is in charge of urban planning, a primary instrument for guiding and controlling urban development (Wang et al., 2017; Zhu, 2013). The land management department is responsible, instead, of land use planning, which is required to restrict the conversion of agricultural land to land used for development, maintain and control the total area of land available for development, and respect special protection measures for cultivated land (Zhou et al., 2017). Some studies have shown that urban planning is not yet effective in achieving urban development objectives (Tian and Shen, 2011; Wang et al., 2017). Other studies have shown that land use planning does curb development (Zhong et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2017). Though both types of plans aim to control urban sprawl, no studies have answered the following questions: (1) What are the outcomes of the two plans? (2) Which plan is more effective in achieving its objectives? (3) Is China’s fragmented planning system effective in managing urban sprawl? (4) How can the two plans be integrated? The administrative management of urban and land use planning have been integrated. The former is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the latter of the former Ministry of Land and Resources, which was integrated into the Ministry of Natural Resources, following the State Council’s First Session of the Eleventh National People’s Congress in the 2018 Reform Program. This research aims at verifying whether the study of planning theory and practice lags behind the development of planning management. It does so by evaluating and comparing how effectively urban and land use planning have controlled urban expansion in Changping, Beijing. The steps taken to conduct this study were as follows: (1) we investigate the roles ascribed to each of the two plans for controlling urban growth; (2) we analyze the differences between the two plans in terms of the spatial assignments of land for new developments; (3) we examine the actual new development land, and report the characteristics of new urban land created between 2004 and 2014, and (4) we assess and compare the extent to which the implementation of the two plans influenced and controlled urban sprawl. This research will facilitate the integration of these two plans and fill the gap between theoretical studies and the development and management of practical plans. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 investigates the role of urban and land use planning in controlling urban growth; Section 3 describes the methods, and summarizes the data analyzed; the results are presented in Section 4; Sections 5 and 6 provide a discussion and conclusions.

2. China’s urban and land use planning 2.1. The goals and functions of the two plans China has a long history of urban planning. During the planned economy era that ended in the late 1970s, the State was the only investor in urban construction, and controlled resource allocations. Urban planning—regarded as a tool for achieving planned development goals—consisted mainly of a series of site selection practices, which allocated proposed projects on the basis of economic planning for urban spaces (Yeh and Wu, 1999). In the post-reform era, the diversification of investors in urban development, fiscal decentralization, and the emergence of urban land markets together with an accelerated urban growth have substantially changed the goals and functions of urban planning. However, the corresponding reforms of the urban planning system have not weakened but on the contrary strengthened the role it plays in managing urban development (Gu et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017; Zhu, 2013). In 1989, China enacted the City Planning Law of the People’s Republic of China, which introduced a two-tier urban planning system (Yeh and Wu, 1999) (Fig. 1) that represents an urban master plan for guiding China’s urban development. The land use zoning was introduced, and the Law specifies that planned urban areas, prohibited construction areas, restricted areas, and suitable construction areas are required to be delimited (Long et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017). Areas outside planned urban areas are to be used for urban green space and land development is restricted therein. Furthermore, given the comprehensive nature of urban planning, it has been continuously used by the central government as a management tool to regulate market activities. It is thus required to alleviate the negative impacts of urban expansion as a result of economic and social development. At the same time, local governments have become much more responsible for stimulating and managing urban development, as a result of the decentralization of the administrative and fiscal systems and the emergence of various non-state agents (Hsing, 2006; Oi, 1992; Wei and Ye, 2014; Yeh and Wu, 1999). Urban land development has been used by local governments as a vital resource to promote economic growth, subsidize infrastructure development, and compete for external investments (Wei and Ye, 2014). Land availability, therefore, has outstripped domestic and foreign investment, labor supply, and government spending as the core goal of municipal governments in urban management (Ding and Lichtenberg, 2011). Against this backdrop, urban planning is being used by local states to achieve their objectives of boosting economic growth and enhancing city competitiveness (Wu, 2007; Yeh and Wu, 1999; Zhu, 2013). A top-down land use planning system was created in this context to curb the desire of local governments for urban land development. Land use planning allocates land use quotas hierarchically from higher to lower levels, sets boundaries, and imposes restrictions on the areas available for land development (Zhou et al., 2017). This planning system was derived from the farmland protection policies that were developed in response to the increasing concerns about the food security in China as the world’s most populous country where the per capita arable land was more than 40 % below the world average (Lichtenberg and Ding, 2008). Confronted by growing demands for urban land, the State Council prioritized controlling urban expansion and protecting cultivated land (Wang et al., 2012). Under this planning system, important new policy tools include setting quotas on urban development and farmland conversions, and introducing land use zoning (Zhou et al., 2017). Land use plans are compiled at five levels, namely the national, provincial, prefectural, county (or district), and township levels. With the exception of township-level planning, the Departments of Land and Resources Administration at each level of government are responsible for compiling and implementing land use planning (Zhong et al., 2014). Development and farmland conversion quotas are used in national and 2

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

Fig. 1. Schema of China’s urban and land use planning structure.

First, a pre-examination is required before entering the formal procedure of land development. Before rural collective-owned lands can be used for non-farming purposes, the proposed project must be firstly examined to ensure that it conforms to the current land use plan, it is incorporated into the annual plans, and it is submitted to the local government (MLR, 2004). Second, an administrative examination is compulsory for the development project, if a conversion from agricultural land is involved. Any agricultural land conversion for urban construction uses must be examined and approved through a specialized program in which the land zoning maps in the land use plan and urban master plan are the key standards of assessment (MLR, 1999). Third, the expropriation of agricultural land should also in accordance with land use plan. When the local government acquires rural land, it must provide monetary compensation to the rural collective in exchange for land ownership. The amount of compensation provided to the farmers who lose their land is relatively low because it is determined by the value of the land for agricultural rather than urban uses (NPC, 2004). The land use plan is used to determine which parcel of agricultural land can be acquired for urban uses. Finally, the local government sells the use rights of this newly acquired land to urban land users and developers at inflated prices through the land transaction market—called the primary land market. Before developers can buy land in this market, they must get the proposal for site selection, license of the land plan, and license of project plan from the department of urban planning (NPC, 2007). Though a complex planning system and various policy tools were developed to control the development of construction land, many informal and even illegal land developments have occurred in the suburbs because of the huge land price differences between construction land and agricultural land (Choy et al., 2013; Lai et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2013). These informal and illegal land developments are the reasons why plans are not yet effective in achieving governors’ objectives of urban spatial regulation. However, the underlying rationality of these developments does offer a novel perspective for understanding the

provincial level plans, while quotas have been integrated into land use zoning in prefectural, country (or district), and township level plans (Zhou et al., 2017). Lower governments’ land use plan is required to abide upper-level plans in terms of their goals for arable land protection and urban land control. The quantitative objectives of national plans are delegated to county-level plans through provincial and prefectural level plans. In addition, the implementation of land use planning is ensured by formulating an annual land quota distribution system and conducting checks and reviews of newly developed construction land. 2.2. The roles of the two plans in land development According to China’s dual land system, introduced in the early 1980s, urban land is owned by the State and rural land is owned by village collectives. Urban land use rights can be sold, transferred, and leased in cities and towns for accommodating residents and enterprises. However, rural land regulations favor agricultural use, and land development is strictly constrained (Ho and Lin, 2003). In these collectively-owned rural areas, land development is only allowed on certain types of land, including residential plots, and land used for public facilities and township or village enterprises (Huang et al., 2017). The rapid economic growth and population inflows generated a massive demand for new urban land, most of which had to be converted from rural agricultural land (Gao et al., 2006; Li et al., 2015; Long et al., 2009; Wang and Scott, 2008). Such conversion from agricultural land to construction land can only be achieved after legal transformation from collectively owned rural land to state-owned urban land. Urban planning and land use planning systems play critical roles in this process. More precisely, both the expropriation of rural land and the conveyance of urban land are based on an administrative assessment of their consistency with the two plans. The possible inconsistency must be eliminated through an amendment of one or both plans, if it is really needed. The statutory procedures to be followed when transforming rural land to urban land can be summarized in four steps, in which the roles played by the two plans in urban land development can be observed in detail: 3

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

ineffectiveness of urban and land use plans in rapidly urbanizing China under the urban-rural dual land system. In this sense, a systematic and in-depth evaluation of plan implementation will help improve the overall quality of plans in urban and land management.

with the most severe contradiction between land demand derived from the market and land supply constrained by spatial planning, whereas this contradiction is commonly faced by most Chinese cities in present and the future. The plans of Beijing metropolitan area are to a large extent strategic ones for its vast administrative area, therefore they are inappropriate for an implementation assessment. County (or district) level plans serve as both master plans of the county, and implementation plans of the Beijing master plan and land use plan (Yeh and Wu, 1999; Zhong et al., 2012). This study choose Changping District to conduct planning assessment, namely, to examine the extent to which urban development has conformed to urban and land use plans. Changping is located in the suburb of northwestern Beijing, comprised of northern and western mountain areas and the southeast plain (Fig. 2). This topographic pattern makes Changping “a smaller version of Beijing,” and many researchers selected it as a case study area that is representative of Beijing (Huang et al., 2017; Po, 2011). This district has a total area of 1341.6 km2 and is divided into 2 sub-districts (jiedao), 5 regions (diqu), and 10 towns, which will be collectively referred to as “towns,” hereafter. Changping was the first suburban district that was connected with the city center by express way and has developed an advanced transportation network—including four express ways, four urban rail transit lines, and many national and provincial level highways—which ensures its close integration with the city center and surrounding areas. From 2004 to 2014, Changping experienced a GDP growth from RMB 15.2 billion to 61.1 billion and an approximately threefold increase in population, from 0.73 million to 1.97 million. Correspondingly, this district has seen the most dramatic urban land expansion in Beijing over the decade. Changping district is divided into the new city, an “edge city”, key

3. Methodology 3.1. Study area Beijing was selected as a case study in this research for four reasons: (1) it is one of China’s fast-growing cities, and this rapid pace of growth leads to various land use and planning conflicts (Du et al., 2014; Wei and Ye, 2014). (2) The city’s large population and monocentric urban sprawl have led to serious traffic congestion, air pollution, and a lack of affordable housing. Alleviating these problems is a key objective of Beijing’s urban and land use planning. (3) Since Beijing is the country’s capital, plans in this city are expected to be well implemented and the evaluating results can, thus, set a benchmark for plan implementation in other cities. (4) Due to its unparalleled economic growth and the tightest restriction on urban land expansion, Beijing is a typical rather than representative case of Chinese cities. Beijing is one of the cities with the strictest planning controls and the largest land demand, and is therefore one of the cities with the most prominent contradiction between land supply and demand. Despite this, the logic behind the demand-supply imbalance faced by Beijing is the same as that of most Chinese cities. To be specific, the majority of Chinese cities have undergone rapid urbanization causing huge demand for urban space on the one hand. On the other hand, however, urban expansion control and farmland protection have been set as the main goals of urban and land use planning. In this sense, Beijing is a typical Chinese city faced

Fig. 2. The map of the research area. Note: (a) Beijing in China; (b) Changping in Beijing; (c) Major traffic lines in Changping; (d) Sub-regions of Changping. 4

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

towns, and regular towns in urban and land use plans, both of which use this urban system to allocate the quota of urban land development. The new city is actually the central city of the Changping district which is defined by the Beijing master plan as one of the new cities in the suburb. It includes Chengbei Jiedao, Chengnan Jiedao, Machikou region, Nanshao town, Shahe region, and Baishan town. The “edge city” including the Dongxiaokou region and Huilongguan region is part of the integrated urbanized area of central Beijing despite its location within the administrative boundary of the Changping district. The towns selected as key ones are Xiaotangshan, Beiqijia, Yangfang, and the Nankou region; other towns and townships are treated as regular ones and include Changling, Xingshou, Cuicun, Shisanling, and Liucun. The new city and key towns often have greater opportunities in land development because they are considered more important than other regions. By contrast, regular towns that usually lie in the mountains are thought to have less development potential.

T2010-2007). There are differences in the classifications of construction land in the land classification standard. We reclassified construction land based on land cover and function, to integrate the two land classification processes for construction land: (1) for urban master plan purposes, public green spaces, production protected green spaces, industrial land in a green belt, special land, cultural relics, and historic sites are reclassified as non-construction land; (2) for water conservancy projects, reservoir surfaces, special land, and the scenic sites that are part of land use plan are reclassified as non-construction land. The spatial arrangements of urban master plan and land use plan for construction land are shown in Fig. 3. According to the urban master plan, the area of planned new construction land was 145.3 km2, while the land use plan set it as 160.1 km2 or 14.8 km2 greater (Fig. 3). The reasons for this difference are as follows: (1) since the urban master plan focuses on land development in urban areas, development land in rural areas is often neglected; (2) though land use plan controls the growth of construction land through a top-down hierarchy, the more important cities have more opportunities to acquire a larger portion of construction quotas (Wei, 2014). Meanwhile, local governments often exaggerate land demands to acquire a larger portion of the construction quota.

3.2. Data The data used to conduct this research included remotely sensed images and planning databases. Remotely sensed Landsat 5 and 8 images were supervised and classified to prepare a land cover map, after which patches of construction land were extracted from this map to create a construction land map (Fig. 3). Population and economic data were derived from the Beijing Changping District Statistical Yearbooks in 2005 and 2015. Other data, such as coordinates for village, town, and county centers, subway stations, and traffic trunk roads were derived using the web mapping application called Baidu Map (https://map.baidu.com/). Urban master plan and land use plan data were taken from the Changping District New City Master Plan 2005–2020, and the Changping District Land Use Plan (2006–2020). The land-based classification standard used for urban master plan is urban land use classification and planning and construction (GB50137-2011), while the classification standard for land use plan is the current land use classification (GB/

3.3. Research method Using GIS spatial analysis, the differences between the two plans were examined (Fig. 4), after which the spatial layout of the construction land was analyzed under each of the two plans. Lastly, how the implementation of each of the two plans would affect urban expansion was assessed. 3.3.1. Evaluation of the conformities and conflicts between the two plans The level of conformity in terms of the spatial arrangement of planned new construction land was assessed (I in Fig. 4), and two types of conflicts between the plans were identified. The first type pertains to the spatial arrangement of planned new construction land that

Fig. 3. Actual and planned construction in Changping. 5

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

Fig. 4. The conformity and conflicts between the two plans.

conforms to urban master plan, but not land use plan (Ⅱ in Fig. 4). The second type of conflict concerns the spatial arrangement of planned new construction land that conformed to land use plan, but not to urban master plan (Ⅲ in Fig. 4). We use an indicator called plan conflict rate to evaluate the extent of conformity and/or conflicts between the two plans with regard to planned new construction land. The plan conflict rate in urban master plan (PCRUMP) and in land use plan (PCRLUP) are calculated is as follows:

PCRUMP = PCRLUP =

+ +

× 100%

(1)

× 100%

(2)

construction land that conforms to the two plans. ⅴ represents the actual new construction land that only conforms to urban master plan, and not land use plan. ⅵ represents the actual new construction land that only conforms to land use plan, and not urban master plan. ⅶ represents the actual new construction land that conforms to neither land use plan nor urban master plan. ⅰ+ⅳ represents the two plans conformity (Ⅰ in 3.3.1). ⅰ+ⅱ+ⅳ+ⅴ represents the planned new construction land in urban master plan (Ⅰ+Ⅱ in 3.3.1). ⅰ+ⅲ +ⅳ+ⅵ represents the planned new construction land in land use plan (Ⅰ+Ⅲ in 3.3.1). Finally, ⅳ+ⅴ+ⅵ+ⅶ represents the actual new construction land from 2004 to 2014 (Fig. 5). We use the planning implementation rate, the legal rate of land development, and the spatial spillover rate of land development to evaluate the effectiveness of the two plans. The planning implementation rate refers to the level of the plan implemented: the higher this rate, the higher the degree of planning completion. The implementation rate for urban master plan (IRFUMP) and implementation rate for land use plan (IRFLUP), are calculated is as follows:

3.3.2. The assessment of construction land sprawl In order to evaluate the sprawl of construction land, we use an indicator called annual construction land sprawl rate (ALSR) for evaluating the speed of construction land sprawl (Xiao et al., 2006). The formula is as follows:

Si, t + n Si, t × 100 ALSR = n × TLAi

IRFUMP =

+

+ +

+

+ vi + +

(3)

IRFLUP =

In formula (3), ALSR is the annual construction land sprawl rate of space unit i. Si, t and Si, t + n are the construction land areas at the start and end of the study. TLAi is the total land area of space unit i. n is the length of the study period, counted in years.

+

× 100%

× 100%

(4)

(5)

The proportion of actual new construction land that conforms to specific plans is called the legal rate of land development, which in turn reflects the legal status of actual new construction land. A higher legal rate allows us to infer relatively more effective planning controls. The legal rate of land development for urban master plan (LRFUMP) and legal rate of land development for land use plan (LRFLUP) are calculated is as follows:

3.3.3. The evaluation of the implementation of the two plans We used GIS spatial analyses to evaluate the implementation of urban master plan and land use plan. ⅰ represents planned new construction land not development conforms the two plans. ⅱ represents planned new construction land not development only conforms urban master plan. ⅲ represents planned new construction land not development only conforms land use plan. ⅳ represents the actual new

LRFUMP =

+

Fig. 5. Land development in plans and reality. 6

+ +

+

× 100%

(6)

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

Table 1 Planned new construction land in the two plans. Regions

Planned new construction land in urban master plan 2

New city Key towns Regular towns Edge city Total

LRFLUP =

Planned new construction land in land use plan

Plan conformity in the two plans

Area (km )

Share (%)

Area (km2)

Share (%)

Area (km2)

Share (%)

49.2 50.5 36.0 9.5 145.3

33.9 34.8 24.8 6.5 100.0

58.7 60.1 29.8 11.6 160.1

36.7 37.5 18.6 7.2 100.0

42.2 41.1 18.3 9.3 110.9

38.0 37.1 16.5 8.4 100.0

+

+ +

+

× 100%

(7)

The spatial spillover rate of land development represents how effectively plans have controlled construction land. A lower spillover rate infers that the plans have been relatively more effective in controlling the growth of construction land. The spatial spillover rate of land development for urban master plan (SRFUMP) and spatial spillover rate of land development for land use plan (SRFLUP) are calculated as follows:

SRFUMP =

SRFLUP =

+

+ +

+

+

+ +

+

× 100%

× 100%

PCRUMP (%)

PCRLUP (%)

14.4 18.6 49.1 2.2 23.6

28.2 31.5 38.4 19.8 30.7

IRFUMP + SRFUMP = IRFUMP/ LRFUMP

(10)

IRFLUP + SRFLUP = IRFLUP/ LRFLUP

(11)

4. Results 4.1. The comparison of the two plans concerning planned new construction land

(8)

The spatial arrangements of new construction land to be developed in the planning period showed that both plans allocated large proportions of development quota to the new city and key towns, which are also the most populous and economically advanced areas. The land use plan, however, pays more attention than the urban master plan to controlling urban growth in the regular towns. Table 1 summarizes the spatial arrangements of new construction land under the two plans. The urban master plan allocated 145.3 km2 of new construction land as follows. The new city and key towns divided 68.7 % of the total quota equally, followed by regular towns at 24.8 %, and the edge city at 6.5 %. While in the land use plan, planned new construction land had an area of 160.1 km2, which was 14.8 km2 more than in the urban master plan. The new city and key towns received 74.2 % of the total quota, while regular towns were allocated 18.6 %, and the edge city got only 7.2 %. There are many conflicts between the two plans in terms of the spatial arrangement of planned new construction land. Fig. 6 depicts

(9)

The three indicators are logically interrelated with each other. The planning implementation rate and the legal rate of land development show the consistency between planning and actual construction land growth from different perspectives. The former starts from the plan and evaluates whether the space it designated to be developed has really been implemented in practice. The latter starts from the real development and reckons the proportion of the newly developed area that is located within the planned boundary of urban growth. The spatial spillover rate of land development evaluates the effectiveness of the planning by focusing on the real development outside the boundary. The higher this rate, the worse the planning control effect. Mathematically, they have the following relationships:

Fig. 6. Spatial differences in the arrangements in new construction between the two plans. 7

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

Table 2 Expansion of construction land in Changping from 2004 to 2014. Regions

New city Key towns Regular towns Edge city Total

Total land

Actual new construction

Planned new construction land in urban master plan

Planned new construction land in land use plan

Area (km2)

Share (%)

Area (km2)

Share (%)

Area (km2)

Share (%)

Area (km2)

Share (%)

221.1 367.4 690.5 62.6 1341.6

16.5 27.4 51.5 4.7 100.0

68.6 65.8 46.5 12.7 193.6

35.4 34.0 24.0 6.5 100.0

49.2 50.5 36.0 9.5 145.3

33.9 34.8 24.8 6.5 100.0

58.7 60.1 29.8 11.6 160.1

36.7 37.5 18.6 7.2 100.0

the conflicts and conformities between the two plans. There is 110.9 km2 of planned new construction land that is recognized by both plans. In terms of the two plans’ areas of conflict, the areas that conformed only to the urban master plan guidelines is 34.4 km2, accounting for 23.6 % that of the planned new construction land. The area that conformed only to the land use plan guidelines is 49.2 km2, and accounted for 30.7 % that of the planned new construction land. The conflict ratio exhibits a significant spatial variation. In the urban master plan, the highest is 49.1 % and it is found in regular towns, while the lowest appears in the edge city. In the land use plan, the highest is 38.4 % and it is found in regular towns, while the lowest appears in edge city. In general, surrounding areas of the existing developed urban area are more likely to be planned to develop by both plans. By contrast, the spatial preference of the two plans for peripheral development shows dramatic variation. The inconformity is observed more commonly as the distance to the city center increases.

Ratio of actual and planned new construction land in urban master plan (%)

Ratio of actual and planned new construction land in land use plan (%)

Annual construction land sprawl rate (ALSR)

139.3 130.3 129.1 133.1 133.2

116.9 109.6 156.2 109.2 120.9

3.1 1.8 0.7 2.0 1.4

both the urban master plan and the land use plan, going beyond the expectations by 33.2 % and 20.9 %, respectively. The construction land has expanded rapidly in new city, edge city, and key towns, and more slowly in regular towns. The new city occupied 35.4 % of the total actual new construction land, followed by key towns at 34 %, regular towns at 24.0 %, and the edge city at 6.5 %. The highest annual land sprawl rate (ALSR) is found in the new city, followed by the edge city, key towns, and regular towns (Fig. 7). 4.3. The two plans’ effects on the control of construction land expansion 4.3.1. Planning implementation rate The implementation rate of a plan indicates the ratio of actual-toplanned land development within the boundary of planned construction land. The spatial variation of the rate reflects the spatial preference of the local government for land development in the implementing period. Table 3 summarizes the two plans’ implementation rates. If the relationship between planning completion and time had been linear, 62.5 % of the planning tasks should have been completed by the end of 2014. The implementation rates of both plans were lower than expected: 55.7 % for the urban master plan, 58.8 % for the land use plan, and 53.7 % for the two plans. The implementation rate of the urban master plan was lower than that of the land use plan in almost all types of regions, except for the new city. In general, the implementation rates of the two plans were quite similar, with the only exception of regular

4.2. The land development between actuality and plans The construction land in Changping witnessed a dramatic increase from 2004 to 2014. The actual new construction land had an area of 193.6 km2 in ten years, which increased 74.4 % compared with construction land in 2004. Table 2 summarizes the difference of land development between actuality and plans. The area of actual new construction land was larger than that of planned new construction land in

Fig. 7. The comparison between land development’s plans and the actual situation in Changping. 8

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

Table 3 Plan implementation rates in the two plans. Region

New city Key towns Regular towns Edge city Total

Urban master plan

Land use plan

Actual new construction land that conforms to the plan (km2)

Planned new construction land (km2)

Plan implementation rate (IRFUMP) (%)

Actual new construction land that conforms to the plan (km2)

Planned new construction land (km2)

Plan implementation rate (IRFLUP) (%)

31.8 28.8 12.3 8.0 80.9

49.2 50.5 36.0 9.5 145.3

64.5 56.9 34.2 84.2 55.7

37.4 34.4 12.5 9.8 94.1

58.7 60.1 29.8 11.6 160.1

63.8 57.2 42.0 84.5 58.8

use plan and 46.3 % and 43.7 % under the urban master plan. Regular towns in peripheral regions were the place where illegal land development was the most common, with a legal rate of less than 27 % according to either the urban or land use plan. It is noteworthy that the legal rate under the land use plan was higher than the urban master plan in all four types of regions, indicating the consistent better performance of the land use plan despite its overall lower performance.

towns, where 42 % of new construction land delineated by the land use plan had been developed by 2014, whereas the rate was only 34.2 % for the urban master plan. These differences reflect the great attention paid to the new city and rural areas by urban and land plans, respectively. The implementation rate was the highest in the edge city at more than 84 % for both plans, indicating the significant influence of the central city of Beijing in shaping the landscape of land development in suburban districts. This was followed by the new city at about 64 %, and then key towns at 57 %, which were both significantly higher than the regular towns. These results show an evident gradient in the development preference of the local government.

4.3.3. The effectiveness of plan controls under the two plans Considering the total area of planned construction land growth, the new indicator of spatial spillover rate of land development yielded similar results to those provided by the legal rate. The similarity shown in Tables 4 and 5 can be summarized as threefold. (1) Neither of the two plans successfully controlled land development in suburban Beijing. The land developed outside the growth boundary delineated by the land use plan equaled to 62.1 % of the total area of new construction land assigned by the plan. This ratio was even larger at 77.6 % for urban master plan. (2) The better performance of the land use plan in comparison with the urban master plan was not only a general phenomenon but it was also confirmed for all sub-regions, except for regular towns. (3) The two plans controlled land development most effectively in the edge city, followed by the new city and key towns, while they were the least effective in regular towns. However, there also exist three differences between the results disclosed by the spatial spillover rate and those by the legal rate. First, the new city had higher spillover rates than key towns, although the legal rates of land development were higher in the former than in the latter. This inconsistency resulted from the different implementation rate of plans in the new city. For this reason, both legal and illegal (spillover) rates of land development therein were higher than in key towns. Second, the land use plan was less effective than the urban master plan in regular towns, according to the spillover rate of land development. This is the only case in results of the two indicators. The reason can be traced back to the essential orientation of the land use plan to protect farmland, which necessarily leads to a tighter control over land development in peripheral towns, where most farmland is located. As a result, although land development in these rural areas obeyed or violated the two plans to a similar extent, the development

4.3.2. Legitimacy of actual construction land development The legal rate of land development for a plan is measured by the percentage of land development in accordance with the plan in total land development over the study period. Table 4 summarizes the legal rates of land development under the two plans, which reveal a very discouraging result. In the past ten years, the construction land development in Changping District did not fully adhere to the planning requirements. On the contrary, a significant difference was observed between actual and planned new construction land. To be specific, illegal land development defined by its inconformity with urban or land use plan was even more prevalent than legal development. The land use plan was relatively better complied with, given that 48.6 % of the actual development of new construction land occurred within the boundary delineated in this plan, while the proportion was only 41.8 % for the urban master plan. It is not unfair to say that the coexistence of the two plans just led to a double failure. From the perspective of spatial variation, the results showed that the validity of planning regulations was the highest in the edge city, moderate in the new city and key towns, and the lowest in regular towns. Land development in the edge city located near the central city of Beijing was mostly likely to comply with spatial plans, with legal rates of 77.4 % and 63.2 % under the land use plan and urban master plan, respectively. These rates for the two plans were the highest in the four regions. The overall legality was quite similar in the new city and key towns, where the legal rates were 54.6 % and 52.2 % under the land Table 4 Legal rates of development in the two plans. Regions

New city Key towns Regular towns Edge city Total

Actual new construction land (km2)

Urban master plan Actual new construction land that conforms to the plan (km2)

Legal rate of development (LRFUMP) (%)

Actual new construction land that conforms to the plan (km2)

Legal rate of development (LRFLUP) (%)

68.6 65.8 46.5 12.7 193.6

31.8 28.8 12.3 8.0 80.9

46.3 43.7 26.5 63.2 41.8

37.4 34.4 12.5 9.8 94.1

54.6 52.2 26.9 77.4 48.6

Land use plan

9

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

Table 5 Spatial spillover rates in the two plans. Regions

New city Key towns Regular towns Edge city Total

Urban master plan

Land use plan

Actual new construction land that exceeds the plan (km2)

Planned new construction land (km2)

Spatial spillover rate (SRFUMP) (%)

Actual new construction land that exceeds the plan (km2)

Planned new construction land (km2)

Spatial spillover rate (SRFLUP) (%)

36.8 37.1 34.2 4.7 112.7

49.2 50.5 36.0 9.5 145.3

74.8 73.3 94.9 48.9 77.6

31.2 31.4 34.0 2.9 99.5

58.7 60.1 29.8 11.6 160.1

53.1 52.3 114.2 24.7 62.1

seemed too fast by the standard of the land use plan. The third difference lied in the greater gaps between the spillover rates of the two plans than between the legal rates. This was the case for all sub-regions and more significant for the edge city.

more distant a region was from the city center, the more serious the conflict was. The conflicting area was even more than the conforming one in regular towns in the outer suburb. The fundamental reason lies in the different land classification and zoning systems in the urban and land planning authorities. The former divides the territory into urban and rural areas and concentrates on urban development with little attention to rural development. The central city, key, and regular towns are all developable areas that need to be allocated certain amounts of new construction land in the urban master plan. In contrast, the latter treats lands as construction and non-construction ones and aims at strict control over construction land growth and agricultural land shrinkage in peripheral regions. The towns and village in these regions are not clearly distinguished in land allocation in the land use plan. In this sense, the recently proposed reform in combining these two planning systems will probably be an effective measure for solving the divergent orientations in spatial organization of land development. However, our analysis also found that conforming to one or two plans had very little effect on the possibility of a land parcel being developed, and that the largest amount of land development was observed outside both plans. It fully proves that the essential source of uncontrolled land development does not lie in the contradiction between urban and land planning administration authorities. More reforms are still needed in China’s land management system, especially the demand-supply imbalance. Without an adequate consideration and effective resolution of this imbalance, the control ability of spatial plans over land development can hardly be improved. Even for the newly developed unified system of spatial planning, its satisfactory implementation also depends much on the reform progress in related fields rather than the perfectness of the planning system per se. The land management system, centered on prediction-based quota distribution and spatial planning, can hardly be effective and a processbased regulation system is needed. The top-down distribution of land

5. Discussion As the world’s most populous country undergoing unprecedented industrialization and urbanization, China has been seeking for an effective way in which urban development and farmland protection could be compatibly achieved over the past decades. In this typical centralized bureaucratic state, land development and utilization have been regulated mainly through a top-down spatial planning system, in which the urban master plan and land use plan plays essential roles. In-depth and systematic assessment of the implementation of these two plans enabled us to accurately identify the fundamental problems underlying China’s current land system and rationally evaluate the on-going reform of the spatial planning system (Fig. 8). Consolidating multiple spatial plans will probably be an effective approach to land management improvement, but the effect will be minimal. The urban planning and land management departments in China’s administration system have relied almost entirely on the quota distribution and usage control systems in limiting urban land expansion and preventing farmland shrinkage in the suburbs. Although the urban and land use plans use similar tools for similar purposes, they are devised by different central ministries and local bureaus (Liu and Zhou, 2017; Wu, 2015). This fragmentation of authority has led to the mismatch of the two plans in their mission and functions, which further results in the divergence of the quantity and spatiality of urban land expansion formulated in the two plans (Ding, 2009). Our results showed that the new construction land delineated by one plan but not the other was quantitatively close to conforming to both plans. The

Fig. 8. The comparison between regions in plan implementation. 10

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

quotas, especially those of construction land growth and cultivated land conversion, has been viewed as the most effective policy tools in China’s land management system. The urban and land use plans are to a great extent the spatial arrangement of these quotas. The quota distribution system has two major objectives, namely, to meet the rational land demand of urban development in most regions and facilitate a balanced development of different regions. However, it is almost impossible to achieve the two goals simultaneously in such a large developing country with dramatic regional disparity (Liu et al., 2018b). In particular, driven by the fiscal decentralization since the 1990s, all local governments have given priority to economic development, which definitely cannot be restricted by land resource. On the contrary, they tend to make full use of land quota and connive with illegal land development outside the growth boundary delineated by the spatial plans to attract industrial and real estate capital (Cao et al., 2008; Oi, 1992; Tao et al., 2010). Given this background, the spatial plans have very limited control over the construction land development in suburban areas of large cities (Wang et al., 2017; Zhong et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2017; Zhu, 2013). Even in Beijing, where the land regulation is much stricter than in other cities, the suburban Changping district saw a dramatic growth in construction land, which was significantly faster than expected by both the urban and land use plans. The area of newly developed land outside the growth boundaries of both plans exceeded that conformed to one of them and that conformed to both. Besides the volume, the spatial dimension also showed the incapability of planning in predicting land demand and controlling land development. Massive land development outside the planned growth boundaries was not caused simply by the quantitative unbalance between land demand and supply. In fact, a large amount of land within the planned urban boundaries has remained undeveloped by the end of our study period. If these mismatches in magnitude and spatiality are so serious in Beijing with moderate development stress, superior planning technology and strict land regulation, we can surely expect severer conditions in other Chinese cities. The root of the problem is the prediction-based nature of the quota distribution and spatial planning systems. They can never work in a dynamically developing country faced with great and various uncertainties in regional development and land demand. The focus of land management should be turned to the process of land development. The balance between urban development and farmland conservation can only be achieved through enhancing efficient utilization of construction land. Regulation of the magnitude and location of land development should not only rely on the rigid top-down arrangement supported by immutable predictions but pay more attention to the fine-grained management of land use efficiency in the development process. The latter, however, has rarely been investigated in the existing literature and policy-making process. The urban-rural integration of China’s land system should turn the focus from quota to management. China’s dual land system has been widely criticized; however, given that its source is the Constitution, which establishes different ownerships of urban and rural land, the system can hardly be changed (Choy et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2017). This does not necessarily lead to an inefficient utilization of construction land. The current urban-rural integration in the land management system is featured by the transition of the object of quota control from urban construction land to regional construction land including urban and rural ones. In this new context, local governments tend to use all quota in cities, whereas construction land growth in rural areas is strictly prohibited. Ironically, such prohibition has resulted in the absence of governments in rural land regulation. Given the collective ownership of rural land, the government cannot forbid rational development completely. This acquiescence is then naturally extended to most development cases in rural areas. Actually, villages are also highly motivated to share urbanization dividend through land development (Huang et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2013; Zhu and Hu, 2009). Without

effective land regulation, distant villages had seen more illegal land development than the inner suburb, as shown in our overlay analysis. This result shows a failure of the quota-centered urban-rural integration in land development. The effective regulation of rural land development can be achieved only when rational land development is firstly considered seriously in the land quota distribution and spatial planning systems and then the rationality and efficiency standards are gradually developed like they are in cities. On this matter, villagers’ diversified needs should be respected and their participation in decision making process should be taken seriously as they are not only land owners but also local social governors. Without doubt, the establishment of such a new rural land regulation system has a long way to go. But it needs to be started soon as long as an effective approach of land management and an efficient way of land development are wanted by the government and the society (Liu et al., 2014). However, the planning is definitely not the only side to be criticized. Although the spatiality of land demand should be respected in spatial planning, development is not the sole value of a region or society. Especially in the suburban and rural areas where agricultural and ecological values of land resource are equally if not more important than carrying population and industries (Liu et al., 2016, 2013). In this sense, considering urban land demand in planning does not mean that the planning should unconditionally obey the land demand derived from rapid urbanization. In fact, the purpose of planning is to form a reasonable layout of land use and a balance between development and environmental protection. Therefore, while reflecting on the land system and planning, it is also necessary to reflect on the rationality of land demand. Maybe there are development demands in various places including nature reserve, but this does not mean that all places can be developed at will. Therefore, the rationality of spatial planning comes not from the fully respect for any specific type of demand but from the customized guidance for every parcel of land by respecting the spatial variation of multiple values of land resources. 6. Conclusion China’s urban development faces the challenge of an excessive urban land expansion. China has developed a spatial planning system aiming to control and manage urban sprawl, however, the outcomes of its planning policies need to be improved. Using the Changping District as a case study, the effectiveness of the implementation of urban and land use planning was investigated. The main conclusions are as follows. First, there are many conflicts between urban planning and land use planning in terms of the magnitude and spatial arrangement of new construction land. Second, both urban planning and land use planning aim at controlling urban expansion, but none of them is an effective tool, although land use planning is somewhat more successful. Finally, core-periphery decreasing trends are found in land quota allocation and effectiveness of planning implementation. The edge city near the Beijing city center was preferentially treated in distributing land development rights and the spatial plans were implemented the best therein. It was followed by the new city as the central city of the Changping District, and then key towns approved by the spatial plans. Other regular towns received the least land resources from the topdown planning system but also developed fast mainly through informal and illegal approaches. The double failure of China’s current spatial planning system in quantitative and spatial control over urban land development is a very common phenomenon in Chinese cities. An extended discussion based on our empirical results revealed three necessities in China’s future reforms on urban and land management. The first is a deeper integration of various spatial regulation systems under fragmented authority from planning consolidation to management integration. The second is a fundamental transformation of planning philosophy from quantitative control to efficiency supervision, from rigid regulation to flexible guidance, and from top-down spatial arrangement to participatory spatial 11

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al.

coordination, which is especially crucial for rapidly developing countries full of uncertainties in urban development. The third is a higher respect for peripheral areas which have their own demand for urban and land development as well. These discussions may provide some references for other developing countries faced with rapid urbanization and a defective spatial management system. Although this study focused mainly on the planning and its implementation in Beijing, it has general value for the compilation and assessment of spatial planning beyond China. First, exploration of the reasons for the imperfect planning implementation in Beijing raises the necessity to interlink spatial planning and land management especially in developing countries with immature land and planning systems. This reflection not only shows the way for deepening land reform and improving the planning system in China but also provides useful reference for other developing countries. Second, by examining the spatial disparity of planning implementation, this paper reminds us to respect the varied logics of land development in different areas such as urban centers, suburbs and rural areas. Given the differences in the magnitude and structure of land demand and the variegated planning arrangement of land supply in these different areas, the land development logic can hardly be generalized. This case study explores the specific performance of these differences in the implementation of planning and calls on more attention to be paid to regional difference in spatial planning and land management. Third, the contradiction between space regulation and market demand studied in this paper is widespread. Because the nature of planning is to balance public and market interests and to coordinate development and protection, this contraction is common worldwide and has been a hot topic in planning research. What’s more, this contraction is particularly acute in developing countries where urban expansion is extremely fast driven by both formal and informal economy. In such a development circumstance, the urban land demand characterized by the huge amount, the complex structure, and the great uncertainty can hardly be met by normalized spatial planning. In addition, the land and space management systems in developing countries are inadequate and lack of coordination mechanisms between planning and market needs. In this sense, this paper is also valuable for dealing with the contradiction between planning and market, especially in developing countries.

Alexander, E., 2009. Dilemmas in evaluating planning, or back to basics: what is planning for? Plan. Theory Pract. 10, 233–244. Alexander, E.R., Faludi, A., 1989. Planning and plan implementation: notes on evaluation criteria. Environ. Plann. B-Plann. Design 16, 127–140. Alfasi, N., Almagor, J., Benenson, I., 2012. The actual impact of comprehensive land-use plans: insights from high resolution observations. Land Use Policy 29, 862–877. Alterman, R., Hill, M., 1978. Implementation of urban land use plans. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 44, 274–285. Baer, W.C., 1997. General plan evaluation criteria – an approach to making better plans. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 63, 329–344. Berke, P.R., Conroy, M.M., 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 66, 21–33. Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., 2006. What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environ. Plan. B-Plann. Design 33, 581–600. Brody, S.D., Highfield, W.E., 2005. Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 71, 159–175. Cao, G., Feng, C., Tao, R., 2008. Local “land finance” in China’s urban expansion: challenges and solutions. China World Econ. 16, 19–30. Chen, J., 2007. Rapid urbanization in China: a real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena 69, 1–15. Choy, L.H.T., Lai, Y., Lok, W., 2013. Economic performance of industrial development on collective land in the urbanization process in China: empirical evidence from Shenzhen. Habitat Int. 40, 184–193. Ding, C., 2009. Policy and planning challenges to promote efficient urban spatial development during the emerging rapid transformation in China. Sustainability 1, 384–408. Ding, C., Lichtenberg, E., 2011. Land and urban economic growth in China. J. Reg. Sci. 51, 299–317. Du, J., Thill, J.-C., Peiser, R.B., Feng, C., 2014. Urban land market and land-use changes in post-reform China: a case study of Beijing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 124, 118–128. Feitelson, E., Felsenstein, D., Razin, E., Stern, E., 2017. Assessing land use plan implementation: bridging the performance-conformance divide. Land Use Policy 61, 251–264. Frenkel, A., Orenstein, D.E., 2012. Can urban growth management work in an era of political and economic change? International lessons from Israel. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 78, 16–33. Gao, J., Liu, Y., Chen, Y., 2006. Land cover changes during agrarian restructuring in Northeast China. Appl. Geogr. 26, 312–322. Gu, C., Wei, Y.D., Cook, I.G., 2015. Planning Beijing: socialist city, transitional city, and global city. Urban Geogr. 36, 905–926. Ho, S.P., Lin, G., 2003. Emerging land markets in rural and urban China: policies and practices. China Q. 175, 681–707. Hsing, Y.-t., 2006. Land and territorial politics in urban China. China Q. 187, 575–591. Huang, D., Jin, H., Zhao, X., Liu, S., 2015. Factors influencing the conversion of arable land to urban use and policy implications in Beijing, China. Sustainability 7, 180–194. Huang, D., Huang, Y., Zhao, X., Liu, Z., 2017. How do differences in land ownership types in China affect land development? A case from Beijing. Sustainability 9. Huang, D., Huang, J., Liu, T., 2019. Delimiting urban growth boundaries using the CLUES model with village administrative boundaries. Land Use Policy 82, 422–435. Jun, M.J., 2004. The effects of Portland’s urban growth boundary on urban development patterns and commuting. Urban Stud. 41, 1333–1348. Lai, Y., Peng, Y., Li, B., Lin, Y., 2014. Industrial land development in urban villages in China: a property rights perspective. Habitat Int. 41, 185–194. Laurian, L., Day, M., Backhurst, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., Chapman, S., 2004a. What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies and developers. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 47. Laurian, L., Day, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Backhurst, M., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., 2004b. Evaluating plan implementation: a conformance-based methodology. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 70, 471–480. Li, Y., Long, H., Liu, Y., 2015. Spatio-temporal pattern of China’s rural development: a rurality index perspective. J. Rural Stud. 38, 12–26. Lichfìeld, N., Kettle, P., Whitbread, M., 1975. Evaluation in the Planning Process: The Urban and Regional Planning Series. 344 pp.. . Lichtenberg, E., Ding, C., 2008. Assessing farmland protection policy in China. Land Use Policy 25, 59–68. Liu, Y., 2018. Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China. Land Use Policy 74, 1–4. Liu, Y., Lu, S., Chen, Y., 2013. Spatio-temporal change of urban-rural equalized development patterns in China and its driving factors. J. Rural Stud. 32, 320–330. Liu, Y., Fang, F., Li, Y., 2014. Key issues of land use in China and implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 40, 6–12. Liu, Y., Long, H., Chen, Y., Wang, J., Li, Y., Li, Y., Yang, Y., Zhou, Y., 2016. Progress of research on urban-rural transformation and rural development in China in the past decade and future prospects. J. Geogr. Sci. 26, 1117–1132. Liu, Y., Yang, Y., Li, Y., Li, J., 2017. Conversion from rural settlements and arable land under rapid urbanization in Beijing during 1985-2010. J. Rural Stud. 51, 141–150. Liu, Y., Li, J., Yang, Y., 2018a. Strategic adjustment of land use policy under the economic transformation. Land Use Policy 74, 5–14. Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhou, Y., 2018b. Efficiency of construction land allocation in China: an econometric analysis of panel data. Land Use Policy 74, 261–272. Liu, X., Zhou, J., 2017. Mind the missing links in China’s urbanizing landscape: the phenomenon of broken intercity trunk roads and its underpinnings. Landsc. Urban Plan. 165, 64–72. Loh, C.G., 2011. Assessing and interpreting non-conformance in land-use planning

CRediT authorship contribution statement Tao Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Daquan Huang: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Xin Tan: Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Fanhao Kong: Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visualization. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the National Natural Sciences Fund of China (41741009, 41801146), Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China (18YJC840022), and UKRI’s Global Challenge Research Fund (ES/P011055/1). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020. 104498. References Abrantes, P., Fontes, I., Gomes, E., Rocha, J., 2016. Compliance of land cover changes with municipal land use planning: evidence from the Lisbon metropolitan region (1990-2007). Land Use Policy 51, 120–134.

12

Land Use Policy 94 (2020) 104498

T. Liu, et al. implementation. Plan. Pract. Res. 26, 271–287. Long, H., Zou, J., Liu, Y., 2009. Differentiation of rural development driven by industrialization and urbanization in eastern coastal China. Habitat Int. 33, 454–462. Long, Y., Han, H., Lai, S.-K., Mao, Q., 2013. Urban growth boundaries of the Beijing Metropolitan Area: comparison of simulation and artwork. Cities 31, 337–348. MLR, 1999. Ministry of Land and Resources, Measures for the Management of Construction Land Review and Approval. http://f.mnr.gov.cn/201702/t20170206_ 1436105.html. MLR, 2004. Ministry of Land and Resources, Measures for the Pre-examination Management of Land for Construction Projects. http://f.mnr.gov.cn/201702/ t20170206_1437004.html. NPC, 2004. National People’s Congress, Law of the People’s Republic of China on Land Administration. http://f.mnr.gov.cn/201702/t20170206_1437212.html. NPC, 2007. National People’s Congress, People’s Republic of China Urban and Rural Planning Law. http://www.gov.cn/ziliao/flfg/2007-10/28/content_788494.htm. Oi, J.C., 1992. Fiscal reform and the economic foundations of local state corporatism in China. World Polit. 45, 99–126. Oliveira, V., Pinho, P., 2010. Evaluation in urban planning: advances and prospects. J. Plan. Lit. 24, 343–361. Padeiro, M., 2016. Conformance in land-use planning: the determinants of decision, conversion and transgression. Land Use Policy 55, 285–299. Po, L., 2011. Property rights reforms and changing grassroots governance in China’s urban-rural peripheries: the case of Changping District in Beijing. Urban Stud. 48, 509–528. Spurlock, D., 2019. Using plan and ordinance quality to evaluate the implementation of riparian buffer policies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 183, 1–11. Talen, E., 1996. Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. J. Plan. Lit. 10, 248–259. Tao, R., Su, F., Liu, M., Cao, G., 2010. Land leasing and local public finance in China’s regional development: evidence from prefecture-level cities. Urban Stud. 47, 2217–2236. Tian, L., Shen, T., 2011. Evaluation of plan implementation in the transitional China: a case of Guangzhou city master plan. Cities 28, 11–27. Wang, Y.M., Scott, S., 2008. Illegal farmland conversion in China’s urban periphery: local regime and national transitions. Urban Geogr. 29, 327–347. Wang, H., Tong, J.E., Su, F.B., Wei, G.X., Tao, R., 2011. To reallocate or not: reconsidering the dilemma in China’s agricultural land tenure policy. Land Use Policy 28, 805–814.

Wang, J., Chen, Y., Shao, X., Zhang, Y., Cao, Y., 2012. Land-use changes and policy dimension driving forces in China: present, trend and future. Land Use Policy 29, 737–749. Wang, M., Krstikj, A., Koura, H., 2017. Effects of urban planning on urban expansion control in Yinchuan City, Western China. Habitat Int. 64, 85–97. Wei, H., 2014. Urban administrative grade and scale growth in China. J. Urban Environ. Stud. 4–17 (In Chinese). Wei, Y.D., Ye, X.Y., 2014. Urbanization, urban land expansion and environmental change in China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 28, 757–765. Wu, F., 2007. Re-orientation of the city plan: strategic planning and design competition in China. Geoforum 38, 379–392. Wu, F., 2015. Planning for Growth: Urban and Regional Planning in China. Routledge, New York. Wu, F.L., Zhang, F.Z., Webster, C., 2013. Informality and the development and demolition of urban villages in the Chinese peri-urban area. Urban Stud. 50, 1919–1934. Xiao, J.Y., Shen, Y.J., Ge, J.F., Tateishi, R., Tang, C.Y., Liang, Y.Q., Huang, Z.Y., 2006. Evaluating urban expansion and land use change in Shijiazhuang, China, by using GIS and remote sensing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, 69–80. Yan, J., Chen, H., Xia, F., 2017. Cognition, direction and path of future spatial planning based on the background of multiple planning integration. China Land Sci. 31 (2127), 87. Yeh, A.G.O., Wu, F.L., 1999. The transformation of the urban planning system in China from a centrally-planned to transitional economy – abstract. Prog. Plann. 51, 167-+. Zhong, T.Y., Huang, X.J., Zhang, X.Y., Scott, S., Wang, K., 2012. The effects of basic arable land protection planning in Fuyang County, Zhejiang Province, China. Appl. Geogr. 35, 422–438. Zhong, T.Y., Mitchell, B., Huang, X.J., 2014. Success or failure: evaluating the implementation of China’s national general land use plan (1997-2010). Habitat Int. 44, 93–101. Zhou, Y., Huang, X., Chen, Y., Zhong, T., Xu, G., He, J., Xu, Y., Meng, H., 2017. The effect of land use planning (2006–2020) on construction land growth in China. Cities 68, 37–47. Zhu, Q., 2013. Master plan, plan adjustment and urban development reality under China’s market transition: a case study of Nanjing. Cities 30, 77–88. Zhu, J., Hu, T., 2009. Disordered land-rent competition in China’s periurbanization: case study of Beiqijia Township, Beijing. Environ. Plan. A 41, 1629–1646.

13