Rural multifunction in Shanghai suburbs: Evaluation and spatial characteristics based on villages

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Rural multifunction in Shanghai suburbs: Evaluation and spatial characteristics based on villages

T

Xiaokun Gua,b, Boming Xiea, Zhengfeng Zhangc,∗, Hai (David) Guod a

China Institute for Urban Governance, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, PR China School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, PR China c School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, PR China d Public Affairs, Florida International University, USA b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Multifunctional rural Land policy Urban suburbs Urban governance Villages Shanghai

The multifunctionality of the suburbs of mega-cities has gained increasing attention among scholars and practitioners in the last few years, for its higher demand and impact on the urban growth poles. This study aims to develop a conceptual model of multifunctional development in urban suburbs and provide a quantitative indicator system at village level to explain the relationships among different rural functions under the influence of urbanization. The conceptual model advances the theoretical discussion on rural multifunctionality from agriculture land to urban suburbs. By analyzing 160 villages of Qingpu District in Shanghai, this study shows that the suburbs have developed their regional multifunctional characteristics with significant spatial differences and conflicts among functions. Spatial location and village committee play an essential role in rural multifunctional development. We suggest that rural development should focus on the dominant function and the reduction of low-efficiency industrial land.

1. Introduction

2017; Zasada, 2011), since it is at a transitional phase from rural to an urban area and is to be a part of the metropolitan area (Henke and Vanni, 2017). China has experienced accelerated urbanization and industrialization in the past three decades. There were 13 mega-cities with a population of over ten million and 102 large cities with a population of over one million by the year 2017 (China City Statistical Yearbook, 2018). The rapid urbanization has exerted a stronger influence on the villages surrounding these metropolises than the remote rural areas, resulting in a significant functional evolution of production, ecology, way of life, and cultural functions (Long et al., 2010). As one of the most advanced international metropolitan areas in China, Shanghai's suburbs account for about 85% of its total land area. The Master Plan of Shanghai 2035 especially emphasizes the coordinated development of its suburbs and the central city. In this plan, the suburbs are defined to have at least four functions, including traditional agriculture, ecological maintenance of mega-cities, rural culture, and residence. The extant research on the multifunctionality of the rural areas has primarily focused on the behavior of farms or farmers from the point of view of supply and demand in the European countries (Gómez-Sal et al., 2003; Gómez Sal et al., 2007; Olsson et al., 2016; Henke and Vanni, 2017; Etxano et al., 2018). The examination of the rural

Traditionally defined, rural area is a territorial space dominated by the single farming function as the primary mode of production, compared to city space (Qiao, 2008; Zhang, 1998). However, with rapid economic development and urbanization process, rural area has experienced unprecedented changes, with its function changing from unitary to multifunctional (Li, Chen, and Sun, 2014; Zhu et al., 2014). Since the late 1990s, multifunctionality has become the new paradigm of development in Europe defined as “post-productivism” for both agriculture and rural development. (Der Ploeg et al., 2000; OECD, 2005; Ward, 1993). With the rapid urbanization process, suburbs of mega-cities face higher demands to be multifunctional for its impact on economic, environmental, and social dynamics of the urban growth poles (Henke and Vanni, 2017). Against the backdrop of discussion on multifunctional rural development, the research on the multifunctionality of urban suburbs has gained increasing attention from both economic and geographic perspective in the last few years (Henke and Vanni, 2017; Long et al., 2009; Morgan, 2015; Piorr and Müller, 2009; Torreggiani et al., 2012; Zasada, 2011; Zhu et al., 2014). However, there lacks empirical research on the multifunctional in urban suburbs (Henke and Vanni,

∗

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102041 Received 1 February 2019; Received in revised form 26 July 2019; Accepted 28 August 2019 Available online 11 September 2019 0197-3975/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

X. Gu, et al.

definition of multifunctional agriculture goes beyond the economistic interpretation or the policy-based view to a holistic interpretation that links to society and rural development. According to Zasada (2011), the characteristics of the suburban area reflects Wilson's “strong multifunctionality,” which includes “local embeddedness, short supply chains, low farming intensity, a high degree of diversification, and open-minded societies” (p. 641). The holistic interpretation, which considers rural geography, refers to multifunctionality as a new kind of locally embedded model of agriculture (Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2007). The advocates of the holistic view believe that the function of agriculture is more territorially embedded and linked to the concept of rural areas as consumptive space. The multifunctionality covers a wide range of potential attributes which relates primarily to land use and social attributes such as the viability of rural communities (Blandford & Boisvert, 2004). Zasada (2011) adopts the idea of linking the urban demand and rural land use into a close spatial context, which then attains particular relevance for urban suburbs areas. To achieve the goal of building a sustainable and livable suburb area, which meets the demands of both the urban and suburban citizens, researchers and practitioners need to explore the relationship and coordination of these different functions, based on the definition and evaluation of rural multifunctionality. However, there have been limited researches taking the perspective of quantitative evaluations on the suburban areas’ multifunctionality to examine its specific relationship. Some semi-quantitative approaches recognize the differences among different functions (Liu et al., 2011). For example, Gómez-Sal and García (2007) use a semi-quantitative model to evaluate the 9 cases (50% of the area of Spain) and find that different agricultural systems can be categorized into distinct groups based on the sustainability dimensions. Scholars in the field have acknowledged the need for the quantitative evaluations of multifunctionality of the suburban area (Yang and Chen, 2018). Effective rural development policies must be based on accurate classification of the essential characteristics of the regional types (OECD, 1994; 2001, p. 159; 2003). Full recognition and a better understanding of the properties of different rural areas may provide important information for decision-makers and thus have significant reference value for restructuring the framework of rural policies. However, the study on suburban multifunctionality has long been taking the macro perspective due to the lack of microdata and other reasons. Although occasional reviews and critical examinations of the specific county have appeared in the literature, few studies assess the multifunctionality from a micro perspective, such as town or village, to provide specific policy recommendations (Liu et al., 2011; Long and Tu, 2018; Yang and Chen, 2018). Given regions in China exhibit substantial differences, China needs to set policies aligned with the characteristics of its different regions. The existing policy framework of China concerning rural development is still mainly composed of uncoordinated one-size-fits-all policies (Li et al., 2015b; Long et al., 2010). Compared with Europe and North America, China is lagging behind on targeting policies to rural areas based on an informed knowledge of rurality, which, to a large extent, has been responsible for the relatively weak and fragmented rural development in China. There need greater efforts to improve regional policies and rural policies aligned with the town's or village's local characteristics (Li et al., 2015a; Long et al., 2010).

multifunctionality focusing on spatial level (specifically county or town level), not on farms or farmers has appeared in the literature sine 2010 (Li et al., 2015a,b; Liu et al., 2011). However, China's rural development follows a unique development track (Long and Woods, 2011). The multifunctionality of the urban suburbs in China remains unclear. Moreover, limited research has taken the perspective of spatial and quantitative evaluations of the multifunction (Yang and Chen, 2018). There need more efforts to improve regional policies and rural policies concerning local characteristics of rural multifunctionality (town or village level) in urban suburbs (Liu et al., 2011; Yang and Chen, 2018). To fill the gap in the literature, this study draws on the experience of Shanghai, one of the most developed international mega-cities in China, to study the rural multifunctionality in urban suburbs during the rapid urbanization in China. It can help answer the following questions: How to define the rural multifunction in suburbs of mega-cities in China? How to establish a spatial quantitative evaluation method to measure various rural functions at the village level? What are the relationships among different rural functions under the influence of urbanization? Lastly, what kind of policy should be adopted to help the rural development in urban suburbs? Our research establishes a quantitative evaluation model and finds that at the village level, the rural multifunctionality shows a significant spatial difference, especially in ecological function, leisure function, and economic function. This study then proposes targeted policies according to these findings. The lessons from China have broader policy relevance internationally. Several developing nations, such as India, Indonesia, and Vietnam, which are experiencing rapid urbanization with industrialization, may learn from Shanghai. The paper proceeds as follows. The next section discusses the definition and interpretation of the rural multifunctionality and reviews the extant research on the issue. Next, we develop a conceptual model of rural multifunctionality in urban suburbs; We then construct a quantitative indicator system of five functions by analyzing the data of 160 villages in Qingpu, Shanghai. Section 5 and 6 present the results and discuss the policy implications. The last section concludes and outlines possible avenues for future research. 2. Literature review Previous research has studied the classification of rural areas’ multifunction to understand the spatial differentiation of agricultural sector and its socioeconomic characteristics since the emergence of the concept of rural multifunctionality (Hansen and Brown, 2005; Robinson, 1990; Woods, 2005). OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) first defined the agricultural multifunction as that “the agriculture can provide a variety of goods and services of an ecological, landscape, social and cultural nature” (Etxano, BarinagaRementeria, and Garcia, 2018). Different interpretations of the multifunctionality reflect the increasing difficulty of providing a workable definition (Maier and Shobayashi, 2001). In the broadest definition, multifunctionality of agriculture consists of four kinds of functions provided by agricultural enterprises, which are green functions (landscape management), blue services (water management), yellow services (rural cultural and historical development) and white functions (food security and safety) (Aldington, 1998; Jongeneel, Slangen, and Brouwer, 2012; Moyer and Josling, 2004). Gómez-Sal et al. (2003) consider multifunction as ecological, production, economic, culture, and social functions. Gomezlimon et al. (2012) summarize rural functions as economic function, environment function, residential function, and leisure and recreational function. Zhu et al. (2014) explore the functional transition of rural settlement by analyzing land-use differentiation. Different approaches have been used to develop the definition and model of multifunctionality. Aumand, Barth′elemy, and Caron (2006) differentiate two approaches from supply-side and demand-side issues (Maier and Shobayashi, 2001). Wilson (2007) argues that the broad

3. Conceptual model of rural multifunctionality in urban suburbs In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Resolution 70/1: “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. This historic document lays out 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets, which will stimulate actions over the next 15 years in areas of critical importance for humanity and the planet. One of these targets is “Support positive economic, social, and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development 2

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

X. Gu, et al.

urban suburbs as a place of tourism, recreational and lifestyle opportunities which are facing increasing demands from urban residents, as well as for the preservation of local history and tradition (Gomezlimon et al., 2012). The agricultural production function (PF) in urban suburbs is the most basic and important function to ensure food security in China (Tao and Luo, 2004). Literature that defines the production function of land use in urban suburbs in China, in general, refers to or emphasizes the agricultural production function (Li et al., 2015a,b; Liu et al., 2011). The economic function (CF) in urban suburbs is affected significantly by China's policy of encouraging township and village enterprises (TVEs) since the economic reforms in 1978 (Long and Woods, 2011). The development of TVEs in the past decades has changed the socio-economic structure of many urban suburbs and transformed secondary and tertiary industries as the mainstays of their economies, especially in the southeast coastal region (Zhang, 2007). Therefore, TVEs have promoted the development of secondary and tertiary industries, which have become an important and primary connotation of economic development in urban suburbs (Li et al.,2015a; Liu et al., 2011). The residential function (RF) is further related to the ‘attractiveness’ of life in rural areas (Gomezlimon et al., 2012). Due to China's unique rural land rights system, it provides rural residents the residential land use right from the landowner for free, namely rural collective economic organization (Zhu et al., 2014). However, the long-term “dual-track” rural-urban policy has fewer achievements in public services, such as health care and education, for rural residents compared with that for urban residents. Therefore, the functions such as ecological and cultural functions mainly meet the demands for urban residents, while the productive, economic, and residential functions are mainly for the suburb's residents.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of rural multifunctional in urban suburbs.

planning” (United Nations, 2015). In the 19th CPC National Congress, Chinse Central Government also puts forward the strategy of Rural Revitalization for the first time, which emphasizing inclusive and integrative development on urban and rural. Based on the previous research, this paper constructs a conceptual model to bring the urban residents' demands and suburbs dwellers’ demands together with the rural multifunctionality in urban suburbs (Fig. 1). The conceptual model assumes that urban residents and suburb's dwellers have different demand for land use in the suburbs. On the one hand, with China's industrialization and urbanization, urban suburbs with different functions sprung up, corresponding to the diversification of rural economy (Zhu et al., 2014). It results in an urgent need for rural land use to provide original dwellers different needs: agricultural production, economic development and farmers' residential requirements, which are the major and basic needs for local residents in urban suburbs (Chen, 2000; Jeong, 2011; Long et al., 2009, Long, 2014). On the other hand, in reaction to urbanization, land use in the suburbs are meeting inevitable demands for specific goods and services expressed from urban residents (Zasada, 2011). For instance, urban green spaces are an important environmental component of urban landscapes as they provide beneficial functions, such as air quality improvement, ecological protection (Tian et al., 2010; Wolch et al., 2014). However, the growing urbanization has prompted a conflict between the shortage of green spaces in urban built-up areas and the increasing eagerness of residents for a good ecological living environment and a natural and outdoor recreational area (Gu, Tao and Dai, 2017), which are important especially for residents that live in dense urban environments in most of mega-cities (Chiesura, 2004). For urban residents, land use in suburbs highlights ecological and recreational function rather than economic function, mostly independent from their traditional agricultural use. (Pintocorreia and Vos, 2004). Thus, land use in urban suburbs has to meet the demands of the urban residents and suburbs dwellers, which contribute to the development of rural multifunctionality in the suburbs. Gómez-Sal et al. (2003) consider five dimensions of sustainability that need to be taken into account to evaluate multifunctional agricultural land-use. A conceptual model of rural multifunctionality in urban suburbs following these five dimensions is built in the paper. To be more specific, ecological and cultural functions are defined mainly by meeting the demands for urban residents, while the productive, economic, and residential functions are mainly for suburb's residents. The ecological function (EF) analyses the landscape as an ecosystem, taking the degree to which, the landscape maintains basic ecological processes and the environmental services that it provides into account (Gómez-Sal et al., 2003). The leisure function (LF) treats

4. Data and methods 4.1. Study area As one of the most developed international mega-cities in China, Shanghai has experienced accelerated urbanization in the past 40 years, with the urban area reaching 90 percent in 2015 and the population reaching over 24 million. There are 16 districts in Shanghai falling into three types of areas: Shanghai Proper, also known as the “Central City,” New Cities, and the suburbs. Qinpu District, 40 km away from the landmark of city center named People's Square, is one of the suburban districts located in western Shanghai (Fig. 2). With a total size of 668.52 km2, Qingpu's residential population and per capita disposable income has increased to 1.25 million and 43,225 RMB (around 6294 USD) respectively by the end of 2017. The whole district consists of 11 subdistrict-level administrative units, which could be further divided into two types: three streets and eight towns (Fig. 2). According to the Draft Master Plan and Land Use Master Plan of Qingpu District (2017–2035), this paper defines the 184 villages in 8 towns as the rural area. We acknowledge and adopt the widely used division of East Qingpu and West Qingpu in the research. As Fig. 2 shows, the East Qingpu includes Xujing town, Huaxin town, Baihe town, Zhaoxiang town, Chonggu town. The West Qingpu includes Zhujiajiao town, Liantang town and Jinze town. 4.2. Data sources The data comes from three sources—responses to a questionnaire, the ArcGIS data of Qingpu's land use map of 2015 (1:5000) and the basic geographic information data, as well as public data on the town governments' website. Because the town is the smallest unit of public statistics in China, we need to rely on surveys to obtain socio-economic statistics of the villages. The survey was distributed to the 184 village committees twice from January to June in 2015. With the permission 3

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

X. Gu, et al.

Fig. 2. Location and zoning of the study area.

functions, and 15 indicators. EF index consists of Ecological Safety and Ecosystem Service, which are constructed by two indices from landscape ecology. The index PF is measured by the agriculture production per unit and acre of basic farmland. CF includes Industry development and Income level: Industry development is measured by the proportion of industrial land use, output value of the industry, and the employed population; Income level is assessed by the per capita disposable income per year and village collective income, which belongs to the property income shared by villagers and managed by the village committee. RF includes two sub-functions, namely infrastructure and public service. The density of the road network captures the level of infrastructure development. Residents need easy access to basic public services like healthcare and education. Accessibility to primary school and health care services are used to evaluate the provision of public services. LF consists of the accessibility and rural tourism, which are respectively measured by the location of the villages and the number and size of the rural tourism area. Standardization of the indicator values is necessary to eliminate the differences of evaluation indexes in terms of dimension, magnitude, and quantity. The z-score normalization method is selected because the maximum and minimum values of the index attributes are unknown. Although the multifunction of rural land use should reflect the integration of every function, it is not the direct superposition of each function, for they have a restrictive or facilitative relationship with each other (Gómez-Sal et al., 2003, Gómez-Sal and García 2007). Therefore, we do not construct the total multifunctional value for each village. Such an integrated index, though with each function having different weights, may suppress the uniqueness of each function. After consulting with the experts, we calculate each functional value separately and treat each indicator with the same weight. The standardized indicator values and average weights are used to calculate the values for five functions of 160 villages in Qingpu, called ecological function value (EFV), leisure function value (LFV), production function value (PFV), economic function value (CFV) and residential function value (RFV). These values are between 0 and 1. The closer they are to 1, the higher the function is. Five functions of 160 villages are divided further into five grades based on the grading

and help from the town government, a team of trained student volunteers explained the questionnaire to the village committee and obtained 160 completed and valid ones back, which increase the response rate to 87 percent. The survey provides the data of the population, resident income, financial income of village collection organizations, the employment of the villages. The location and the area of each type of landscape of villages, the location of health care services and primary school, as well as the road network of Qingpu district are from the ArcGIS data of the 2015 Qingpu land use map (1:5000) and the Qingpu basic geographic information data. Besides, we obtained the numbers of doctors of each health care service and number of teachers of each primary school on the official website and confirmed by the village committee. The combination of these data allows us to conduct the quantitative evaluation of the multifunctionality of the villages in the Qingpu District. 5. Methods Following the five abovementioned functions of the urban suburbs, we have developed an indicator system to measure the multifunctionality of the suburbs. This indicator system has been discussed thoroughly by a group of experts in urbanization, rural development, and land use management. A total of 18 experts with broad experience in the field and complementary points of view include three officials from China's land resources management department, five experts from public administrations related to land use management and rural governance (Shanghai and Qingpu), and ten professors from six universities with expertise in different fields such as land use, rural development, urban governance, economics, environmental and sociology. This group of experts provided qualitative information to help build up the specific criteria for each function and choose indices that are most relevant to the criteria. The indicators are selected by the following three criteria— (1) related to the definition of living, productive, and ecological functions; (2) independent of one another; and (3) measurable, valid, simple, and comprehensive. Table 1 presents the hierarchical index system. The rural multifunctionality in urban suburbs includes five functions, ten sub4

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

000yuan 000yuan Km/km2 – – 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25

0.50 0.25 0.25 Location Number of Rural Tourism Area Size of Ecological and Leisure Area

sj ⎤. = ∑jє(dij ≤ do ⎡ D ⎥ ⎢∑ ⎣ k є(dij ≤ do K ⎦ AiF represents the accessibility at resident location i,d0 is threshold travel time, dij is travel time between i and j, Rj is a ratio between service supply (S) and demand (D) within the catchment（dij ≤ d0） Linear Distance between Village Center and New Town Center Point Number of traditional villages and country parks that have been verified and protected Ratio of the area involved in the ecological corridors proposed by “The Planning of Shanghai Basic Ecological Network” and the entire area of the village

EFV

PFV

CFV

RFV

LFV

mean + 1 standard deviation mean + 0.5 standard deviations mean - 0.5 standard deviations mean – 1 standard deviation

0.7994 0.7447 0.6353 0.5806

0.9581 0.8886 0.7497 0.6802

0.5761 0.5220 0.4138 0.3596

0.9108 0.8503 0.7292 0.6687

0.4774 0.3773 0.1770 0.0769

6. Results

Rj ij≤ do

Fig. 3 presents an overview of the rural multifunctionality of the Qingpu District by showing the calculated values and the distribution of the five functional indicators of 160 villages, namely EFV, PFV, CFV, RFV, and LFV. After 40 years of rapid urbanization in Shanghai, the rural area in the suburbs shows indisputable evidence of multifunctional development. Meanwhile, villages do not develop these five functions evenly, which is reflected by the differences in the EFV, PFV, CFV, RFV, and LFV of each village. For example, the gap between the five functions of the first 40 villages on the horizontal axis is smaller than that of other villages, while the gap of the last 30 villages is larger than other villages. Besides, for most of the villages, the PFV and RFV are generally higher than EFV, CFV, and LFV, which means that production function and residential function of a rural area is generally better than other functions. Notably, the development of leisure and culture function lags behind other functions.

km ind %

6.1. Ecological function The EFV of 160 villages in Qingpu District ranges from 0.4259 to 0.8683, with an average value of 0.6900. Fig. 4a shows the spatial distribution of ecological functions of all villages. The villages with EFV more than 0.7994 (Mean + 1 standard deviation) are 25 villages, accounting for 18.13% of the total number of villages, mainly distributed in Jinze Town and Zhujiajiao Town, and several villages in Liantang Town. The Dianshan Lake in the West Qingpu is the primary source of drinking water of Shanghai. It has been protected most strictly during rapid urbanization. This helps to improve the ecological function in those villages close to the Lake. While there are 31 villages with EFV less than 0.5806 (Mean – 1 standard deviation), accounting for 19.38% of all villages. These are mainly distributed in the belt area connecting with the central city, and also some villages in Xujing Town, Huaxin Town and Baihe Town. 6.2. Agricultural production function

1.0

Accessibility Rural Tourism

The PFV of 160 villages ranges from 0.5612 to 0.9885, with an average value of 0.8191. Fig. 4b shows the spatial distributions of PFV of all villages. Only two villages have the PFV of more than 0.9581, which are located in Liantan Town. There are 52 villages, accounting for 32.50% of the total villages, having the PFV between 0.8886–0.9581, which are mainly distributed in Jinze Town and Zhujiajiao Town, as well as Baihe Town and Chonggu Town. The villages with EFV less than 0.6802 are ten villages, accounting for 10.00%, mainly distributed in Xujing Town, Huaxin Town, and several villages in Zhujiajiao Town.

LF

1.0 RF

grading criteria

criteria used in the ArcGIS software: the mean plus and minus one standard deviation, as well as the mean plus and minus 0.5 standard deviations (Liu et al., 2011; Luo and Wang, 2003). For example, The EFV classification criteria of 160 villages are as follows: mean +standard deviation, mean + 0.5 standard deviations, mean - 0.5 standard deviation, mean - standard deviation. Table 2 shows the grading criteria of five function values.

AFi = ∑jє(d

Infrastructure Public Services

Survey Data village collective Income/total area of the village total length of road/total area of the village Income Level

1.0 CF

– + +

per person/ha 0.125

+ + + + +

number of people employed of secondary and third industry/total area for construction

000yuan/ha 0.125

+ + + Unit Output Value Resource Endowment Industry Development 1.0 PF

+

secondary and third industrial output/total area for construction

000yuan/ha ha % 0.50 0.50 0.25

Agriculture Production per Unit Acre of Basic Farm Land Proportion of Land Area of Secondary and Third Industrial Output Value of Secondary and Third Industry per unit area Employed Population of Secondary and Third Industry per unit area Per Capita Disposable Income per year Village Collective Income per unit area Density of Road Network Accessibility to Primary School Accessibility to Health Care Services

000yuan 0.50 Ecosystem Service Value Ecosystem Service

– 0.50 Land Use Diversity Ecological Safety 1.0 EF

Weights Evaluation Index Sub-function

+

+

H = - Σ（Pi × ln（Pi ）），Pi is the ratio between the area of i and total area, m is the total number of landscape styles involved ESV = ∑ AK × VCK ，ESV is the ecosystem service value, AK is the area of the ecosystem k, VCK is the index of the ecosystem service K value agriculture production/agriculture land area land use map secondary and third industrial land area/total area of the village

+

Direction Index Source and Calculation Formula Units

Table 2 The grading criteria of five function values.

Function

Table 1 Indicator system for the rural multifunctionality in urban suburbs.

X. Gu, et al.

5

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

X. Gu, et al.

Fig. 3. Five functional index values of 162 villages in Qingpu.

with an average value of 0.2772, which are lower than that of the other four functions. Fig. 4e shows the spatial distribution of leisure functions of all villages. Thirty-seven villages having the LFV of more than 0.4774, accounting for 23.13% of entire villages. These villages fall into two areas: West Qingpu, around the Dianshan Lake and the junction zone between the Jinze Town and Liantang Town; East Qingpu, at the northern edge of Baihe Town and Huaxin Town. One hundred and ten villages, accounting for 68.75%, have the LFV of less than 0.1770 (Mean - 0.5 standard deviations), which indicate that only a few villages could provide a significant leisure function.

6.3. Economic function The development of TVEs in the suburbs has promoted the transformation from rural to urban and the improvement of the rural economy. However, this transformation also shows significant spatial differences. The CFV of 160 villages ranges from 0.1913 to 0.7093, with an average value of 0.4679, which is lower than that of EFV and PFV. There are 30 villages with the CFV of more than 0.5761, accounting for 18.75%. The spatial distribution of CFV of all villages can be shown as Fig. 4c, most of those villages are located in the Northeast Qingpu, where is the nearest region (Xujing Town and Huaxin Town) to the central city of Shanghai. While the villages with CFV of less than 0.3596 are 22 villages, accounting for 13.75%, are mainly distributed in the region (Jinze Town and Liantang Town) that are farthest away from the central city. Obviously, from northeast to southwest of Qingpu District, with the increase of distance from the central city, the economic function value of villages decreases clearly. The spatial difference of CFV reflects the remarkable influence of Shanghai central city on promoting rural economic development.

7. Discussion 7.1. Rural multifunctional development and the possible causes Due to urbanization pressures, socio-economic changes, and development opportunities, urban areas demand more rural goods and services, representing a driving factor for adapting the urban suburbs in a multifunctional way (Zasada, 2011). Our study provides evidence of multifunctional rural development in urban suburbs based on the quantitative evaluation of 160 villages. The results show clearly that the Qingpu district has developed regional multifunctional characteristics including the ecological function and leisure function mainly for urban residents, as well as the agricultural production function, economic function, and residential function mainly for suburb residents. Compared with productional function and residential function, the spatial differences of ecological function, leisure function, and economic function are more significant (Fig. 4). The economic function of East Qingpu is more developed than that of West Qingpu, while the ecological and leisure functions of West Qingpu are higher than that of East Qingpu. Meanwhile, it should be noted that there are differences in the degree of multifunctional developments in different villages. For example, the five functional values of a village in Zhujiajiao Town are 0.8051(EFV), 0.9097 (PFV), 0.5810 (EFV), 0.8612(RFV) and 0.6674 (LFV), which indicates that the five functions of the village are relatively developed and balanced. Differently, the five functional values of a village in Liantang Town are 0.7049(EFV), 0.8965 (PFV), 0.3945 (EFV), 0.3573(RFV) and 0.1475 (LFV), which indicates that this village is dominated by the traditional agricultural production function, while the leisure function and economic function impacted by urbanization have not been developed yet. Liu et al. (2011) evaluate the multifunctionality of 2295 county/district in China and reports that the multifunction in suburb districts of Shanghai is much higher than that in other areas, especially in economic function and residential function. Our result further indicates that within one district, the multifunctional of villages shows significant spatial differences, especially in ecological

6.4. Residential function Shanghai suburbs are the main space for farmers to live, which are supposed to provide basic social security services such as education and health care. However, the increasing number of migrant populations from other regions has put additional pressures on the local residential function. The RFV of 160 villages ranges from 0.3556 to 0.9595, with an average value of 0.7898, which is higher than that of EFV and CFV. The villages with RFV of more than 0.8503 (Mean + 0.5 standard deviations) are 62 villages, accounting for 38.75% of the total villages, while the villages with RFV of less than 0.7292 (Mean - 0.5 standard deviations) are 43 villages, accounting for 26.88%. The spatial distribution of RFV of all villages can be shown as Fig. 4d: the residential function of villages is affected by the distance from the town center. Those villages with higher RFV are located around the town center while those villages with lower RFV are mainly distributed in the edge of Jinze Town, Liatang Town, Zhujiajiao Town, and Baihe Town, which are farthest from the Town center, especially the west part of Dianshan Lake. 6.5. Leisure function Represented as a “weekend tours” and “family tours” setting in the urban suburbs, residents’ desires for leisure and recreational activities have sharply increased since 2010 in Shanghai (Chen & Li, 2009). The leisure function of urban suburbs emerges and develops after the other four functions. The LFV of 160 villages ranges from 0.0026 to 0.8068, 6

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

X. Gu, et al.

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of multifunction values of 160 Village in Qingpu.

different functions are differences in economy, location, and history of the given area (such as one county or one city). Li et al.,2015a indicate that the natural geographical characteristics, spatial location, and economic development are the main influencing factors of differentiation on rural territorial functions. However, different from the previous

function, leisure function, and economic function at the village level. Scholars generally believe that urbanization and industrialization are the main factors influencing the multifunctional development of urban suburbs (Van Der Ploeg & Roep, 2003). Liu et al. (2011) suggest that the leading causes of differences in the level of development of 7

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

X. Gu, et al.

functions, therefore, those functions could be defined as dominant functions in Shanghai suburbs.

large-scale evaluations of multifunction of counties or cites (Li et al., 2015a,b; Liu et al., 2011), our study is based on the village scale that used to be similar in natural geographical characteristics, history and economic and social conditions before the economic reform in 1978 (Shanghai Qingpu County Chronicle Compilation Committee, 1990). Taking the urbanization as a fundamental driving force on the multifunction land use, we emphasize two factors. First, as reported by Liu et al. (2011) and Li et al. (2015a,b), the spatial location plays an important role in the multifunctional. More specifically, the economic function of villages is affected by its distance from Shanghai central city to villages; similarly, the residential function of villages is affected by distance from the town center to villages, as well as the leisure function of villages is affected mainly by distance from Dianshan Lake to villages. Second, many works suggest that farms can adapt to the changes of the surrounding territory, or, finally, react and assume new functions that meet a more or less latent need expressed by urban dwellers (Morgan, 2015; Henke and Vanni, 2017). However, farmers in China use agricultural land under the household responsibility system (HRS) (Deti et al., 2007). Due to the fact that the average cultivated land area for a household is less than 0.03 ha in Shanghai in 2009, it restricted the adaption of multifunctional land use for any individual household, while village committee and the autonomous organization elected by villagers play an important role in rural multifunctional development by organizing, serving and coordinating the land use of individual farmers, especially for development of TVEs and rural tourism (Zhu and Zhang, 2016).

7.3. Influences for planning and policy The conflicting relationship between urban and rural is a universal issue for megacities around the world. Vejre et al. (2007a) and Overbeek (2009) argue that it is needed to discuss what urban suburbs should provide for both urban and rural residents and land use actors. China's Strategic Planning for Rural Revitalization (2018–2022) proposes to create an ecological space, living space, and production space in rural areas. Differently, the strategic plan for Rural Revitalization of Shanghai in 2018 emphasizes that the goals of the suburb in a metropolitan area be ecological, economic, and cultural. Our paper also indicates that the villages should develop their plan of the land use emphasizing the dominant function. With the comparative advantages of different regions, each town or village should be encouraged to focus on the development of their dominant functions instead of all functions (Li et al.,2015a; Liu et al., 2011). Two points need special attention: first, the ecological function is not only the basis of rural development in metropolitan areas but also the support of global urban ecological security. Planning policies should continue to focus on the reduction of inefficient industrial land in the suburbs (Gu et al., 2018); second, the residential function should focus on two types of areas, adjacent to cities where the rapid population growth has exceeded the improvement of the public service and the most remote and less developed villages. At the same time, the multifunctional land use pattern at the regional scale (such as Qingpu District) could evolve naturally. Different villages should be characterized by pertinent restructuring modes given the evident discrepancies and complexities in their physical and socioeconomic conditions underlying diverse regional contexts. Previous researches on rural multifunctionality have focused on substantially large scales (e.g., county scale, due to the laborious and challenging undertaking to collect elaborate information of individual village). However, large-scale surveys will inevitably neglect the development features of individual villages, where scientific and appropriate plans and policies should be derived precisely. Therefore, conducting rural studies at the village scale is necessary and imperative to formulate numerous locally embedded and naturalized policies and plans for the pursuit of long-term sustainable development (Li et al.,2015b; Yang and Chen, 2018). The spatial conditions in urban suburbs for land use differ substantially from peripheral rural ones. More societal acknowledgment is required for the functions and values providing to the urban public, such as landscape features (Zasada, 2011). However, there is about 198 km2 low-efficiency industrial land, with low output efficiency, scattered layout, high-energy consumption, prominent environmental problems, spreading throughout the villages in Shanghai suburbs (Gu et al., 2018). It has been a big challenge for the development of ecological function and leisure function. Shanghai has issued policies in recent years about low-efficiency industrial land reduction to reduce pollution sources. Also, the industrial land will be reclaimed as cultivated land or forest land after reduction through the extension of the field infrastructure, which expands the green space of the village. However, it will reduce the town-level tax revenue, the rental income of the village collective economic organizations, and the local employability of the labor force (Zhang et al., 2019). Accordingly, it is essential and urgent to establish a reasonable and objective evaluation system of overall output to evaluate the rationality of the rural industrial land reduction plan for specific areas. The rural areas need some flexibility to accomplish the transformation and upgrading of the rural industry. Moreover, a compensation mechanism is urgently needed to compensate for rural developmental loss from the exit of industrial land use to avoid the high risk of rural degradation. Future studies should further examine these issues.

7.2. Conflicts between different functions Multifunctionality in urban suburbs is taken as an efficient solution for providing functions and values to meet diverse urban demands, either in theories or in policies for many European countries. However, Etxano et al. (2018) state that rural spaces are providing multifunctional products of use are often in conflict with each other, and it is not an easy task to achieve the numerous functions as a whole. Similarly, our study also indicates that there are conflicts between different functions themselves. As can be seen in Fig. 4a and c, there is an apparent spatial conflict in economic function and ecological function. More detailed, most of the villages with high economic function value are located in East Qingpu, where the villages are generally of the low ecological function value. Meanwhile, most of the villages with high ecological function value are located in West Qingpu, where the villages are generally of the low economic function value. Similarly, the spatial conflicting is also shown between production function and economic function, as shown in Fig. 4b and c, which is not as significant as the conflicting between economic function and ecological function though. The reasons why the various functions attributed to rural spaces are in conflict, particularly in the urban suburbs include the following: firstly, the fact that the demands for multifunctionality are diffuse may lead to an insufficient provision of certain goods and services derived, such as those related to the conservation of the environment (SalazarOrdóñez and Sayadi, 2011). Secondly, rural land is a limited resource. Public policies may enhance certain functions to the detriment of others according to the development model chosen for it (Vrebos et al., 2017). A study of Spanish multifunctional land using semi-quantitative evaluation shows that the lack of feasibility of reaching high values of each function at the same time, one or two functions usually dominate the others (Gómez-Sal et al., 2007). Similarly, Liu et al. (2011) suggest that favorable policies may enhance the dominant function of each county and optimize the allocation of production factors. The Shanghai Municipal Governments published the Shanghai Basic Ecological Network Plan in 2010, in which all the agriculture land in urban suburbs were managed as ecological space. Meanwhile, according to the Shanghai Master Plan (2017–2035), urban suburbs emphasizes its ecological, residential as well as traditional cultural and leisure 8

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

X. Gu, et al.

8. Conclusions

Chen, M., & Li, T. (2009). Study on development strategy for country parks in Shanghai. China. Landscape Architecture, 25(6), 10–13 (in Chinese). Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138. China Bureau of Statistics (2018). China city statistical Yearbook 2018. Beijing: China Statistics Press. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjcbw/201907/t20190708_1674721. html. Der Ploeg, J. D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, T., et al. (2000). Rural development: From practices and policies towards theory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 391–408. Deti, S. J. (2007). Farmers' explanations of land transfer under the household responsibility system: The results from seven villages' analysis in Chongqing. Geographical Research, 26(2), 275–286. Etxano, I., Barinaga-Rementeria, I., & Garcia, O. (2018). Conflicting values in rural planning: A multifunctionality approach through social multi-criteria e valuation. Sustainability, 10(5), 1431. Gómez-Sal, A., Belmontes, J., & Nicolau, J. (2003). Assessing landscape values: A proposal for a multidimensional conceptual model. Ecological Modelling, 168(3), 319–341. Gómez-Sal, A., & García, A. G. (2007). A comprehensive assessment of multifunctional agricultural land-use systems in Spain using a multi-dimensional evaluative model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120(1), 82–91. Gomezlimon, J. A., Veratoscano, E., & Ricogonzalez, M. (2012). Measuring individual preferences for rural multifunctionality: The importance of demographic and residential heterogeneity. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(1), 1–24. Gu, X., Liu, J., & Dai, B. (2018). Suitability assessment of reducing industrial land in shanghai metropolitan region. Journal of Natural Resources, 33(8), 1317–1325. Gu, X., Tao, S., & Dai, B. (2017). Spatial accessibility of country parks in Shanghai, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 27, 373–382. Hansen, A. J., & Brown, D. G. (2005). Land-use change in rural America: Rates, drivers, and consequences. Ecological Applications-ECOL APPL, 15, 1849–1850. Henke, R., & Vanni, F. (2017). Peri-urban agriculture: An analysis of farm typologies in Italy. New medit: Mediterranean. Journal of Economics, Agriculture and Environment, 16(3), 11–18. Jeong, J. (2011). From illegal migrant settlements to central business and residential districts: Restructuring of urban space in Beijing's migrant enclaves. Habitat International, 35(3), 508–513. Jongeneel, R., Slangen, L., & Brouwer, F. (2012). Multifunctionality in agriculture and the contestable public domain in The Netherlands. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 46(6). Li, P., Chen, C., & Chen, J. (2015a). Temporal evolution and spatial differentiation of rural territorial multifunctions and the influencing factors: The case of Jiangsu Province. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 35(7), 845–851. Li, P., Chen, W., & Sun, W. (2014). Spatial differentiation and influencing factors of rural territorial multifunctions in developed regions: A case study of jiangsu province. Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(6), 797–807. Li, Y., Long, H., & Liu, Y. (2015b). Spatio-temporal pattern of China's rural development: A rurality index perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 12–26. Liu, Y., Liu, Y., & Chen, Y. (2011). Territorial multi-functionality evaluation and decisionmaking mechanism at county scale in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 66(10), 1379–1389. Long, H. (2014). Land consolidation: An indispensable way of spatial restructuring in rural China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 24(2), 211–225. Long, H., Liu, Y., Li, X., & Chen, Y. (2010). Building new countryside in China: A geographical perspective. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 457–470. Long, H., & Tu, S. (2018). Theoretical thinking of rural restructuring. Progress in Geography, 37(5), 581–590. Long, H., & Woods, M. (2011). Rural restructuring under globalization in eastern coastal China: What can be learned from wales? Journal of Rural and Community Development, 6(1), 70–94. Long, H., Zou, J., & Liu, Y. (2009). Differentiation of rural development driven by industrialization and urbanization in eastern coastal China. Habitat International, 33(4), 454–462. Luo, W., & Wang, F. (2003). Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS environment: Synthesis and a case study in the chicago region. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(6), 865–884. Maier, L., & Shobayashi, M. (2001). Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publications Service. Morgan, K. J. (2015). Nourishing the city: The rise of the urban food question in the Global North. Urban Studies, 52(8), 1379–1394. Moyer, H. W., & Josling, T. E. (2004). Agricultural policy reform : Politics and process in the EC and the USA. Agricultural Economics, 30(1), 79–80. OECD (1994). Creating rural indicators for shaping territorial policy. Paris: OECD Publications. OECD (2001). Multifunctionality. Towards an analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publications159. OECD (2003). Multifunctionality: The policy implications. Paris: OECD Publications. OECD (2005). The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Paris: OECD Publications. Olsson, E. G., Kerselaers, E., Kristensen, L. S., Primdahl, J., Rogge, E., & Wastfelt, A. (2016). Peri-urban food production and its relation to urban resilience. Sustainability, 8(12), 1–21. Overbeek, G. (2009). Opportunities for rural–urban relationships to enhance the rural landscape. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 11(1), 61–68. Pintocorreia, T., & Vos, W. (2004). Multifunctionality in Mediterranean landscapes–past and future. Frontis, 2004(4), 135–164. Piorr, A., & Müller, K. (2009). Rural landscapes and agricultural policies in Europe (5th ed.). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

The spatial conditions in urban suburbs for land use differ substantially from rural ones. Thus, the multifunction of the suburbs requires specific attention. This study aims to develop a conceptual model of multifunctional development in urban suburbs, as well as to provide a quantitative indicator system of five functions including ecological function, leisure function, production function, economic function, and residential function. The analysis of the multifunctionality of 160 villages of Qingpu District shows clearly that the Qingpu district had developed its regional multifunctional characteristics. At the village level, the rural multifunctionality shows a significant spatial difference, especially in ecological function, leisure function, and economic function. Spatial location and village committee play an important role in rural multifunctional development. The result also indicates that there are conflicts among different functions, especially among economic, ecological, and leisure function, which are the dominant functions in Shanghai suburbs. It is important to promote the multifunctional land use of urban suburbs and conduct rural studies at the village level. We suggest that villages should develop their land use plan and policy emphasizing the dominant function and reduce low-efficiency industrial land to mitigate conflicts. However, rural areas need the flexibility to complete the transformation and upgrading of the rural industry. There are two caveats to this study, which may lead to potential further studies. Firstly, the impact of rapid urbanization on rural multifunctionality is a continuous process. This paper focuses on the village scale, and the data of 2015 collected by investigation of 160 villages were used to evaluate the rural multifunctionality. Further research should be carried out for continuous investigation and data collection, such as in 2020, to develop a process study of dynamic change. Secondly, what kind of relationship and change exist among the rural multifunction in different spatial scales of counties, towns, and villages. The balanced use of urban and rural land also needs attention in future research. We encourage policymakers to analyze our results and apply our method when evaluating the rural functions before making rural development plans in the future. We believe that some findings from Shanghai are applicable to other mega-cities that are experiencing similar challenges and are reshaping their rural development policy. Furthermore, our results can be beneficial to other cities in the rapidly urbanizing areas of East Asia and Southeast Asia. Acknowledgements This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant NO. 71673184 and 71874196), Shanghai Pujiang Program(18PJC075), the Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (15YJCZH051). Special thanks to the Bureau of Planning, Land, and Resources of Qingpu District, the Agricultural Committee of Qingpu District, and the professors Linkui Cao from Shanghai Jiao Tong University for their support in the field survey. The authors wish to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful contributions to this manuscript. References Aldington, T. J. (1998). Multifunctional agriculture: A brief review from developed and developing country perspectives, unknown status. Internal Document: FAO Agriculture Department. Aumand, A., Barth′elemy, D., & Caron, P. (2006). Definitions, references and interpretations of the concept of multifunctionality in France. European Series on Multifunctionality, 10, 5–39. Blandford, D., & Boisvert, R. N. (2004). Multifunctional agriculture - a view from the United States. 90th EAAE Seminar: Multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets. Rennes, France: conference paper. Chen, B. (2000). On renewal of idea, model and legislation of rural communities. Journal of Natural Resources, 15(2), 101–106 (in Chinese).

9

Habitat International 92 (2019) 102041

X. Gu, et al.

(2017). The impact of policy instruments on soil multifunctionality in the European Union. Sustainability, 9(3) 407-407. Ward, N. (1993). The agricultural treadmill and the rural environment in the post-productivist era. Sociologia Ruralis, 33(3–4), 17. Wilson, G. A. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture: A transition theory perspective. Wallingford: CABI International. Wolch, J., Byrne, J. A., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. Woods, M. (2005). Rural geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring. London: Sage. Yang, R., & Chen, Y. C. (2018). Change in key research area and prospect of Chinese rural geography. Progress in Geography, 37(5), 601–616. Zasada, I. (2011). Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy, 28(4), 639–648. Zhang, X. (1998). On discrimination of rural definitions. Acta Geographica Sinica, (4), 365–371. Zhang, Y. (2007). The evolution of rural industrialization model and the choice of urbanization. Inquiry into Economic Issues, 7, 38–42. Zhang, Z. F., Liu, J., & Gu, X. (2019). Reduction of industrial land beyond urban development boundary in Shanghai: Differences in policy responses and impact on towns and villages. Land Use Policy, 82, 620–630. Zhu, X., & Zhang, X. (2016). Study on role of village committee in rural tourism development: A case study of suoshi village in jiangxi. Acta Agriculture Jiangxi, 28(3), 134–138. Zhu, F., Zhang, F., Li, C., & Zhu, T. (2014). Functional transition of the rural settlement: Analysis of land-use differentiation in a transect of Beijing, China. Habitat International, 41, 262–271.

Qiao, J. (2008). Rural territorial economy of China. Beijing: Science Press. Robinson, G. M. (1990). Conflict and change in the countryside. Rural society, economy and planning in the developed world. London: Belhaven Press. Salazarordonez, M., & Sayadi, S. (2011). Environmental care in agriculture: A social perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(3), 243–258. Shanghai Qingpu County Chronicle Compilation Committee (1990). Qingpu county annals. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House. Tao, T., & Luo, Q. Y. (2004). Agricultural multi-functionality and regions division for agricultural functions. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 25, 45–49 (in Chinese). Tian, G., Wu, J., & Yang, Z. (2010). Spatial pattern of urban functions in the Beijing metropolitan region. Habitat International, 34(2), 249–255. Torreggiani, D., Ara, E. D., & Tassinari, P. (2012). The urban nature of agriculture: Bidirectional trends between city and countryside. Cities, 29(6), 412–416. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. (New York). Van Der Ploeg, J. D., & Roep, D. (2003). Multifunctionality and rural development: The actual situation in Europe. In G. Van Huylenbroeck, & G. Durand (Eds.). Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for european agriculture and rural development(pp. 37–54). Aldershot; Burlington, VT (Ashgate). 2, 3, 4, 5.1. Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vandermeulen, V., Mettepenningen, E., & Verspecht, A. (2007). Multifunctionality of agriculture: A review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 1, 1–38. Vejre, H., Abildtrup, J., Andersen, E., Andersen, P. S., Brandt, J., Busck, A., ... Præstholm, S. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture and multifunctional landscapes and land use as an interface. In Ü. Mander, H. Wiggering, & K. Helming (Eds.). Multifunctional land use – meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (pp. 93–104). Berlin: Springer. Vrebos, D., Bampa, F., Creamer, R. E., Gardi, C., Ghaley, B. B., Jones, A.,., & Meire, P.

10